Posts by Wonderment

115

Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

by Quendi in

as some of you know by now, i spent sunday, 7 august, renewing ties with a dear friend.

we're both disfellowshipped, the difference between us being he is seeking reinstatement and i am not.

we got into some very spirited discussions on different bible topics and one of them was the value of the new world translation itself.

Wonderment

Terry: Thank you for bringing the fonts issue to my attention. It appears you are using Internet Explorer and I am using Firefox. I use Linux also. I checked Firefox on a Windows system, and it does show way smaller. Didn't realize that until you brought it up. Thanks! Let me know if the issue is still there.

therevealer: "Jesus chose to glorify God's name before others. See John 12:28-30. I believe it is better to follow Jesus in this matter than to follow modern bible translators who have an aversion to his name."

The scripture in John reads 12:28-3028 "28 ‘Father, glorify your name.’ Therefore a voice came out of heaven: ‘I both glorified [it] and will glorify [it] again.’ 29 Hence the crowd that stood about and heard it began to say that it had thundered. Others began to say: ‘An angel has spoken to him.’ 30 In answer Jesus said: ‘This voice has occurred, not for my sake, but for YOUR sakes.’"

You are right that Jesus asked for his Father's name to be glorified in front of a crowd, not that he pronounced the name. However, I don't see that contradicting my previous statement that Jesus chose to glorify God's name before others. Does it?

At John 17:6,26, Jesus says to his Father in prayer: "I have made your name known [manifest] to them and will make it known."

And since Jesus taught his followers to pray (Mt 6:9): "Let your name be sanctified," you could say that Jesus chose to glorify God's name before others. Did he not?

Now, as regards to whether actually Jesus used the tetragrammaton as JWs claim is open to debate. One issue that has puzzled bible readers for centuries is the fact that while Hebrew manuscripts have the name all over, the extant Greek ms don't. And that's where most of the controversy surrounds.

115

Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

by Quendi in

as some of you know by now, i spent sunday, 7 august, renewing ties with a dear friend.

we're both disfellowshipped, the difference between us being he is seeking reinstatement and i am not.

we got into some very spirited discussions on different bible topics and one of them was the value of the new world translation itself.

Wonderment

Outlaw said: "The name Jehovah is a Translation Mistake made by a 14th century Catholic monk.."

Have you ever made a list of Bible names and attempt to make a transliteration of their names into English? That would be a good exercise.

Hint: The sweet name of "Jesus," as so many others in the Bible, do not exactly correspond to the original names. Sure, there is some uncertainty surrounding Jehovah's name when we try to transliterate the four consonants. However, other Hebrew names have vowels added later by scribes as a sort of help in pronunciation. But English names as found in our Bibles are generally quite different to the Hebrew ones. How many scholars do you know of that insist in using the closest Hebrew approximations?

Since our Bibles do not follow the Hebrew or even Greek conventions, why should we then drop the name that appears more than all other names in the Bible? You either love or hate God's name. I happen to love God's name. I have no problem whatsoever in using "Jehovah," or some other form of the divine name. If you choose not to use the divine name, that is your choice. I have no right to condemn you.

Interestingly, Jesus chose to glorify God's name before others. See John 12:28-30. I believe it is better to follow Jesus in this matter than to follow modern bible translators who have an aversion to his name. What do you think?

96

The New World Translation Quote from an Elder

by howdidtihappen in

you've probably heard this before, but at a meeting last night the elder called the nwt the "rolls royce" of bibles.

i'm new to the jw bs (and as soon as i can break away, will do so.

) but do they also believe they have a superior bible to anyone elses outside the religion?

Wonderment

Gayle said: "I was using it yesterday for comparisons of Matt 24:45. Interesting, how some use "a slave" instead of "the slave," slave there doesn't indicate any thing like a special leadership group to never question and only follow..

The New World Translation is not accurate, is only a manipulation/molestation for its usage of their JW doctrine. The proclaimed translator, Fred Franz, under oath, proved he could not translate the language of the Bible."

Gayle,in the name of fairness, I must bring it to your attention that Fred Franz under oath said he would ‘not attempt to translate Gen 2:4 from English to Hebrew,’ not that he could not translate Gen. 2:4 from Hebrew to English as is the norm. Just because most anti-WT folks twist the said statements of the trial, does not mean that we should follow their steps. Truth and fairness should prevail above lies and deceit. That goes for the WT when they do it too.

It is not true, as some have stated, that any first year Hebrew student can translate Gen 2:4 from English to Hebrew without any bible helps in the courtroom. In fact, not many Hebrew teachers can pull that off without some difficulty. Did you ever asked Raymond Franz about this incident? I did.

96

The New World Translation Quote from an Elder

by howdidtihappen in

you've probably heard this before, but at a meeting last night the elder called the nwt the "rolls royce" of bibles.

i'm new to the jw bs (and as soon as i can break away, will do so.

) but do they also believe they have a superior bible to anyone elses outside the religion?

Wonderment

Ding: I would not put too much stock on Julius Mantey's diatribe on the NWT. Julius made more than a few wrong statements about the WT and the NWT in his fiery criticisms. And the scandal he made of Watchtower dishonesty, is not accurate either.

I am no friend of the WT, I haven't been for more than 15 years, and I too criticize the WT for its many wrongs, its manipulation of members, and of some doctrines that end up benefitting the WTS, such as the distortion of the "house to house preaching mode," as required by every member, and the dreadful trickery of"the faithful and discreet slave." However, the Julius Mantey case is unfortunate and inaccurate. He made some valid points, but the whole thing was more of, to use Rolf Furuli's words, an "emotionally inspired caricature and a partisan (Baptist) spirit."

115

Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

by Quendi in

as some of you know by now, i spent sunday, 7 august, renewing ties with a dear friend.

we're both disfellowshipped, the difference between us being he is seeking reinstatement and i am not.

we got into some very spirited discussions on different bible topics and one of them was the value of the new world translation itself.

Wonderment

james woods:

I think it was Quendi you quoted, who said to wobble: "I believe the NWT's outstanding feature is the restoration of the Divine Name. Removing it in favor of titles is a crime."

I think the reference she made above of the divine name applied to the Hebrew portion, not the Greek portion. At least, that is how I took it.

115

Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

by Quendi in

as some of you know by now, i spent sunday, 7 august, renewing ties with a dear friend.

we're both disfellowshipped, the difference between us being he is seeking reinstatement and i am not.

we got into some very spirited discussions on different bible topics and one of them was the value of the new world translation itself.

Wonderment

Quendi:

You made some interesting comments which reveal insight and value for the truth. I like your stand on the divine name which is similar to my undertanding of it. I believe it is a great loss to remove the divine name for petty reasons.

In regards to Frederick Franz's knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, I tend to believe he had more knowledge of the "original" languages than he is credited for. There is only concrete knowledge that he studied two years of Greek, but there is some "incidental" knowledge that he knew far more than acknowledged. Even Raymond Franz, not a fond family member of Frederick, admitted to me that Frederick had the competence to tackle bible translation. He has also told countless others of his uncle's ability with languages, and his unusual mental discipline. In fact, he was often miffed by dubious evangelicals who took his note of his book on Franz's credentials and made it look like he had zero knowledge of Greek. In the quote below, keep in mind, Ray was fair, but had no fondness of Fred who was at least partly responsible for his disfellowshipping, and had a different personality that created friction with Ray's.

This is what Raymond Franz literally said:

"... Fred Franz studied Greek for two years at the University of Cincinnati, with high marks, and continued his studies personally thereafter. One need only read the critical notes accompanying the New World Translation to see the extent of his knowledge of Biblical Greek and its grammar. He was self-taught in Hebrew. However, knowing him personally I am satisfied that he was capable of developing a thorough knowledge of the language. He was unusually mentally disciplined. He taught himself Spanish, a language I spoke in Spanish-speaking countries for nearly 20 years. While in Brooklyn, I associated with a Spanish-speaking congregation that he attended. I heard his use of the language both there and, previously, in Spanish speaking countries. Whether in conversational expressions or in public talks that he gave in Spanish I did not once hear him make a single grammatical error. He similarly learned Portuguese and gave talks in that language. He knew German from his childhood (his father having been born in Germany).

On one occasion, while in Cincinnati, I took Fred Franz ( he himself did not drive) to a Hebrew museum which he knew contained a particular Biblical Hebrew manuscript that he wished to research. I stood alongside him while he read through the portions of the Hebrew text he wished to investigate. While working on the Watch Tower's Bible dictionary Aid to Bible Understanding., on more than one occasion I had to seek out his assistance with reference to Hebrew renderings. He was always able to supply the needed information. In 1971, on a trip to Israel, we visited the Watch Tower's branch office located in Haifa. A member of the staff there, Dalia Erez, a young Jewish woman, native to the country, did Hebrew translation of the organization's publications. She spent part of one day discussing with Fred Franz certain translation problems she was experiencing and received his assistance and recommendations. She clearly found his knowledge of Hebrew solid.

His knowledge of Hebrew was not equal to his knowledge of Greek and he was not an advanced or notable Hebrew scholar but his knowledge was sufficient to produce a creditable translation.

Sincerely,

Ray.

115

Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

by Quendi in

as some of you know by now, i spent sunday, 7 august, renewing ties with a dear friend.

we're both disfellowshipped, the difference between us being he is seeking reinstatement and i am not.

we got into some very spirited discussions on different bible topics and one of them was the value of the new world translation itself.

Wonderment

Band on the Run said: "I've never seen the NWT in any recommended list."

That is not surprising. The NWT runs against popular doctrine. However, Alan S. Duthie (University of Legon) does recommend the NWT among some others. See below:

"If you belong to a small group of serious students of the Bible who are trying to appreciate to learn the Hebrew or Greek languages, then you will appreciate the value of a 'crib' or 'gloss' translation, especially an interlinear one, or a relatively word-for-word one like the NASB, KJ2, NWT , YOUNG, DARBY, RV, DOUAY, Concordant." (Bible Translations and How to Choose Between Them, p. 67 )

"For detailed word-studies and similar interests in the original languages, we suggest either a very literal version like NAS, NWT , LTB-KJ2; or preferably an interlinear version K[ingdom] I[nterlinear] Translation . Marshall]. (How to Choose Your Bible Wisely, p. 225)

115

Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

by Quendi in

as some of you know by now, i spent sunday, 7 august, renewing ties with a dear friend.

we're both disfellowshipped, the difference between us being he is seeking reinstatement and i am not.

we got into some very spirited discussions on different bible topics and one of them was the value of the new world translation itself.

Wonderment

A detailed analysis of NWT Committee translation credentials:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/48234022/Does-the-New-World-Translation-Committee-Know-Any-Greek

11

Is the New Testament Just a Pagan Corruption of the Old Testament?

by Diest in

i find myself asking that question more and more of late.. my first reason is the claim of a virgin birth.

all of the jewish sources i read say that isaiah 7:14 does not talk about a virgin birth, but rather a birth to a young maiden.

it was only the greek septuagint that shifted this belief to a virgin birth that is similar to their greek myths.. .

Wonderment

Diest:

Perhaps, there is no need to take it that far.

As you noted, the Hebrew text has "maiden" (ha-'almah') and the Septuagint has "virgin" (parthe'nos), but that could be explained either by inspiration or historical fulfillment. Matthew used the Septuagint word in connection with the virgin Mary.

As to the Old Testament not teaching the Trinity and the suggestion that the New Testament does is questionable. It is generally accepted that the OT does not teach a "Trinity," and the NT does not as much teach it as it is "read" by people of a later era that assimilated the doctrine. Really, there is not one text in the NT that explicitly says anything remotely what the trinitarian supporters claim.

163

The Trinity

by The Quiet One in

i have a question, primarily for trinitarians, but anyone's more than welcome to comment.

what scriptural basis is there for believing in the trinity?

i can understand some having the view that jesus/jehovah both can be worshipped, and the view that jesus should be, but where in the bible is the holy spirit worshipped?

Wonderment

bob1999: The Holy Spirit is called God in Act 5:3-4.

And so is Satan in 2 Cor 4:4. Actually, in Acts 5:4 the holy spirit is indirectly referred to as "God." In 2 Cor 4:4, Satan is directly referred to as "the G[g]od of this world." If we were to use your argument, does 2 Cor 4:4 mean that Satan is the "God" of the universe?