Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar" (page 10)

Billen76

Because Jesus is Greek, Joshua is hebrew. Since NT is written in koiné (greek), the christian world use the greek form Jesus.

Professor Kedar is a professor of History as well as the Director of the Institute of Advanced Studies at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. One profile of him states he is (or was) Professor Emeritus at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2007.

One could certainly say that Kedar, a trained scholar, knows the Hebrew language well enough to go to the Hebrew Text and determine whether the NWT is translating correctly or not.

He is a professor of Jewish History. Jewish history is closely tied with Bible history. Part of his formal training as professor in Jewish history involves and requires quite a bit of linguistic research in the Hebrew Bible. One cannot separate one from the other. Notice the connection below.

Kedar said:

"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the New World Translation. In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew. . . . Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain." (Watchtower, March 1, 1991)

I would not put the stock you apparently place on that website you cited previously. Generally, the author of that website implies that anyone that supports the NWT (Ph. D or other) is unfit to put forth any favorable statement in behalf of the NWT. It is not fair to these educated people.

Hence, I think it is fair to include his assesment of the NWT here.

Pistoff

One could certainly say that Kedar, a trained scholar, knows the Hebrew language well enough to go to the Hebrew Text and determine whether the NWT is translating correctly or not.

So you take the endorsement of one non-hebrew language scholar as proof of the NWT's superiority, while ignoring the word of biblical language experts.

That seems like a reach.

designs

Greek scholars going through the fragments of a corrupt text remind me of Don Quixote

PSacramento

Joshua being transliterated as Jesus was common even in the LXX.

Every translation has SOME Bias because many passages MUST be interpreted rather than translated 'word for word".

Perhaps more so in Greek than hebrew and aramaic.

It is quite simple to find the "right" meaning for any word so as to make the translation correct AND to make if conform to doctrine and that was what the NWT translation "comittee" and Fred did, they started of with doctrine and made the NWT conform to their doctrine, even if it meant passages that were "overly complicated", words being inserted ( like other), by placing the indefinate article "a" where there was no need in John 1:1 and so forth.

OUTLAW

One could certainly say that Kedar, a trained scholar, knows the Hebrew language well enough

to go to the Hebrew Text and determine whether the NWT is translating correctly or not.....Wonderment..

So a Professor in Jewish History..Must be a Scholar in Biblical Languages..

Even though he has No Credentials for that Discipline..

?

Maybe you can find a Jewish Plumber..

Who will give Franz and the rest of the Idiots on the WBT$ NWT Committee..

A good review also..

Fred Franz did a Great job Translating the WBT$ Bible!..

Where`s your Clogged Toilet?..

You Lose Big Time..You have No Credibility..

....................... ...OUTLAW

Wonderment

Pistoff said:

"So you take the endorsement of one non-hebrew language scholar as proof of the NWT's superiority, while ignoring the word of biblical language experts. That seems like a reach."

No, I take it for what its worth. The assumption of those who despise the WT is that the NWT has no scholarship whatsoever, that it is sort of an "spaghetti" of WT ideas thrown in without any sense to the Hebrew Text. The quote of a trained Jewish Professor serves only to show that there are individuals who value the NWT for its translated text.

When I cite Kedar I made no statements such as: "it proves that the NWT is superior in the Hebrew rendering" or other similar statement. When I quoted Kedar, I introduced the material this way: "some scholars recognize the scholarship merit of the NWT." There are hundreds of English versions available, so having a trained scholar of his caliber make reference to it as a serious bible translation, and that he uses it in his linguistic research at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is an unintended endorment of a sort. Kedar said some good things about the NWT, at the same time he clearly made it known he does not sympathize with religious organizations that claim ownership of a special truth.

I will respect the wishes of those who insist using a translation other than the NWT. There are hundreds to choose from. I have made it clear throughout though, that I value any translation that can contribute to my learning about this most holy book.

OUTLAW

The quote of a trained Jewish Professor serves only to show that there are individuals who value the NWT for its translated text.....Wonderment

A trained Jewish Professor of "Jewish History"..

Not Biblical Languages..

You have Unqualified People..Supporting other Unqualified People..

In Support of a Poorly Translated WBT$ Bible..

...................... ...OUTLAW

Paralipomenon

In my research I found that most reviews of the NWT didn't have so much issue with the qualifications of the translators, but that many of the passages reflected bias toward witness teachings.

I can't remember where, but I recall that Knorr and Franz hired an expert (non-witness) to assist the translation. He was a chain smoker and had to completely leave the premesis to have a smoke. He would translate it directly into english and the WT group would "modernize" the broken translation into conversational english. After the work was released the translator was annoyed that the finished product came out quite slanted.

I believe this accounts for critical review praising the accuracy of a direct translation of the old texts but condemns the translation for the obvious bias it holds in some passages.

Band on the Run

I have Metzger in my library but it can't be about the technicalities of Hebrew. An exception to the rule does not disprove the rule. Also, I wonder if we wrote a letter to the Hebrew Univ. professor, I wonder what he would say. His statement is worded awkwardly. You see approval. Well, I see a lot of disclaimers, qualifications-which make the statement hard to understand.

We know the WTBTS. We know just how extensive Freddie Franz' seminary training and Koine Greek was. The fruits of a dishonest cult will be cultish. No Bible translation will ever be perfect. I read the literal Greek someplace and these translators sure add extra words, tons of them. Yet they agree on most matters. I suggest you do what I've started to do. The women in my church had a Bible Study and we each brought our home study Bibles. We had six choices. There was a difference in emphasis and nuance but not on basic meaning. I use a NIV. My pet peeve is the more accessible, dumed down English translations. You can research which group was behind each translation, what was their goal,.

My favorite is still the NEB. Perhaps one translation was always folly. We kept oohing and aahing at the subtleties.

Frederick Franz, "Bible Scholar"

Share this