Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site sdcc6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcc3!sdcc6!ix415
From: ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey)
Newsgroups: net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Whats wrong with this eqation? (Paul=Jesus)
Message-ID: <2042@sdcc6.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 28-Apr-85 18:50:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc6.2042
Posted: Sun Apr 28 18:50:37 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 03:11:03 EDT
References: <765@ccice5.UUCP> <179@spar.UUCP> <2013@sdcc6.UUCP> <507@cybvax0.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 94
Summary: Problems with the Jehovah's Witnesses

In article <507@cybvax0.UUCP>, mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
> 
> When I mentioned this exerpt to the JW here at work, he brought in the
> 79 Yearbook of the JW's.  It claims that no perjury occurred, and that
> the accusation of perjury (which they say was about Greek, not Hebrew)
> was supported only by a misquotation of a J. J. Ross.  However, they admit
> Russel had no knowledge of Greek or Latin.
> 
> He also pointed out that Russell died in 1916, and that the New World
> Translation came out between 1950 and 1960.  Do you have any more
> information about translation claims or other perjury?

Yeah, I have a few more claims.  First let me say that I did blow it a
little as I will try to clear up.  I had two incidents in my mind that I
combined into one and for that I apologize.  However, they are both true
and substantiable and quite clearly contradict the information given to
you by your JW friend so let me answer his claims.

1) No perjury by Charles Taze Russel  -  A man named J.J. Ross wrote a
pamphlet denouncing Russell saying that he was a fraud and a phony.  He
said that Russell had no schooling, no ordination and no knowledge of
either Greek or Hebrew.  In Russell vs. Ross, "deflamatory libel", March
17, 1913 in the high court of Ontario, Russell brought a private suit
against Mr. Ross for libel.  During the course of testimony under oath,
Russell denied all of Ross's charges, thus stating that he had all of
the above credentials, but all of his claims were proven false, *NOT* by
missquotations from Ross, but by Russells testimony itself.  Here's an
example from the trial, 

Question: (attorney Staunton) Do you know the Greek alphabet?"
Answer: (Russell, under oath) Oh yes."
Question  "Can you tell me the corret letters if you see them?"
Answer: "Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them."
Question: "Would you tell me the names of the lettes on this page I have
here (Staunton presented a document with greek text on it.)"
Answer: "Well I don't know that I would be able to."
Question: "You can't tell what those letters are?"
Answer: "My way ..." He was interrupted and not allowed to explain.
Question: "Are you familiar with the Greek language?"
Answer: "No."

This is actual transcript taken from the trial which Russell lost in
trying to sue Ross for Libel.  It is on files in the Ontario court and
is not some misquotation from an angry person.  I will however retract
that he was *convicted* of perjury, I thought the book that was my
source said that he was, but it did not.  And your information about the
Hebrew being Greek was correct, but that was the other story that I had
mixed with this one.

Fred W. Franz, the vice-president of the Watchtower Bible and tract
society was being examined in a courtroom concerning his credentials as
a bible translator (Nov 24, 1954).  Again this testimony is under oath.

Q: Have you made yourself familiar with Hebrew?"
A: (Franz) Yes.
Q: So that you have substantial linguistic apparatus at your command?
A: Yes, for my use in Biblical work.
Q: I think you are able to read and follow Hebrew, Greek ...
A: Yes

Later during the same examination

Q: You yourself read and speak Hebrew.
A: I do not speak Hebrew.
Q: Can you yourself translate that into Hebrew?
A: Which?
Q: That fourth verse of Genesis, chapter two.
A: You mean here?
Q: Yes.
A: No.

A Hebrew professor at a seminary was consulted concerning the difficulty
of the passage in question.  He said, "I would never pass a first year
Hebrew student who could not translate that verse."  This is another
example, and the one I had confused with the Russell one concerning the
"scholarship" that went into making the New World Translation.
Russell's teachings are at the basis of many of the religions crucial
theological points and their translation is considered inaccurate by
almost every major non-JW Greek and Hebrew scholar alive today.  Under
oath the religions founders lied about their abilities and credentials
and when pressed on the matter, JW'S try to deny them with one turn, but
continue to quote them and follow their teachings on the other.

I am sorry for having fudged the story as I gave it, I combined the two
distinct incidents into one account.  I hope in having straightened it
out the lack of scholarship that went into making the New World
Translation can be clearly seen such that no one will consider it a more
linguistically or literarily correct translation.  If you wish to accept
the JW's teachings that is your choice, but know that you are accepting
a translation of the Bible that has been proven false in numerous
instances and comes from founders and translators with out even the most
basic knowledge of the languages they worked with.

				Rick Frey (ix415@sdcc6.UUCP)