John 1:1

[Dan_Parker]

After replying to your post, I thought about it some more and dug a little deeper. As to why we accept Revelation as inspired, you know, probably better than I, the history of how the different books were determined to be canonical in the Catholic (Western) Church. I’m not sure that the papal decrees, synods, and councils of the 4th century will mean anything to a Jehovah’s Witness but I would have to mention it. Regarding Revelation itself, I found this quote in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, compiled by David Bercot, an Anglican priest and scholar:

{With regard to the inspiration of the book (Revelation), we deem it unnecessary to add another word. For blessed Gregory Theologus and Cyril, and even men of still older date- Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus- bore entirely satisfactory testimony to it.}

This is attributed to the bishop and historian Eusebius, circa 324.

This same quote was used by Andrew of Caesarea, a bishop from the 6th century (approx.) in his commentary on the Apocalypse. I found this version in the Ancient Christian Writers #6:

{Regarding, however, the divine inspiration of the book (the Apocalypse of John), we think it a waste of time to spin out the discussion any further, since those blessed men, Gregory the Theologian, I mean, and Cyril, and in addition Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus- all of them men of the older generation- bear additional testimony to its trustworthiness.}

I’m sure that you would like to know about Papias. The same Ancient Christian Writers volume says he was the bishop of Hierapolis in Phygia, Asia Minor, and was most likely born before the year 80. Eusebius says that Papias was, “a hearer of John, a friend of Polycarp, a man of the primitive age.”
I’ll take the word of 1st century Papias over anyone starting an organization in the 19th century.

O.K. I’ve been truly crossed examined. Your turn…teachccd

Dan:
You must have missed it here, right before yours. The problem I continue to have with your explanation is that if these Fathers were really all connected with an unbroken line back to John or other apostles (with no apostasy in between) then there should have been no discussion on the subject. The fact that they were debating it proves that no one claimed the kind of inside knowledge you attribute to them. I would include the same evidence as well, but interpret it a bit differently. The fact that some could have connections to John is a positive in the analysis for the authenticity of Revelation, but he fact that some considered Orthodox did not accept it, or only begrudgingly accepted it, indicates that God is the one who maneuvered events to make sure his message came down to our day, in spite of some of these men and using some of the others.

 

[teachccd]

That answers part of it but not all. The book of Revelation was not considered by all ECF. I think I was originally responding to someone else on this (or maybe it was you) who appealed to a consistent knowledge and representation of books handed down from the apostles until the councils. That does not explain why Revelation was not included in all the lists.

As for the bible being inspired, I believe you still owe me that explanation. You have only clarified the acceptance of Revelation in some quarters. Certainly you don’t consider it inspired just because the Fathers said it was, do you?

I will start on my answer, the short version: I believe it is inspired for a variety of reasons which include both internal and external evidence. The bible does not contradict itself and is accurate when it does describe history and science, even though it is not a scientific book. There are things in the bible that bible writers would have had no way of knowing, which were not discovered for centuries. How would Moses know to record the order of things created which would not be known by science for thousands of years?

The bible is also a book of prophecy unlike any other. The prophecy of Babylon’s destruction was given centuries in advance and with details that are astounding. The fact that the book of Isaiah was found in the dead sea scrolls proves these prophecies were not written down after the fact, because Babylon was not completely destroyed until after the dating of the scrolls. There are many, many more manuscripts of the bible than any other ancient document, and because of this the science of textual criticism is able to re-created very, very close to the original text. That is consistent with a God who protects what he inspires. The internal agreement between the 66 books written over a large span of time and penned by different individuals could not have happened by chance.

I have written this from memory and in a hurried fashion. It may be incomplete and it may have errors… I will Submit Reply anyway.

Sorry if I put you out but you surely cannot think that you can come to Catholic Answers Forum and promote your beliefs and not have to explain the very Scriptures that you quote from. I have a repsonse to your post above but I too am pressed for time and I want it to be well written also. I’ll be posting soon…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

Dan:
You must have missed it here, right before yours. The problem I continue to have with your explanation is that if these Fathers were really all connected with an unbroken line back to John or other apostles (with no apostasy in between) then there should have been no discussion on the subject. The fact that they were debating it proves that no one claimed the kind of inside knowledge you attribute to them. I would include the same evidence as well, but interpret it a bit differently. The fact that some could have connections to John is a positive in the analysis for the authenticity of Revelation, but he fact that some considered Orthodox did not accept it, or only begrudgingly accepted it, indicates that God is the one who maneuvered events to make sure his message came down to our day, in spite of some of these men and using some of the others.

Yes, but what about the books that were used and read in the liturgies of the early Church but then never regarded as inspired? I absolutely agree that God is the ultimate source for divine revelation and that only God would have directed all those involved to acknowledge only His word. But, if you remember, I said that His Church is human and divine. There were quarrels among the apostles and they had the Word of God standing right in front of them. My contention is that Jesus left an authoritative Church through which He would continue to reveal Himself to this day. The Catholic Church has roots to the Early Church Fathers in that if you read Justin Martyr, for example, you will see that in the year 150 he describes the Catholic Mass celebrated in its basic structure as we still do today. The Eucharist is still celebrated today as it was in the first century Church. We have a line of apostolic succession beginning with Peter.

Dan, if it were not for the Catholic Church you would not have the Bible today since it was maintained and painstakenly copied for centuries through the monastic era and beyond. If there was some kind of apostasy, as you mentioned, then how did the bible make it to us today? Yes, God is in charge to see that it didn’t happen so it didn’t happen. Jesus said that He would build His Church and the gates of the netherworld would not prevail. He did not say that He would write a bible. He said that He would build a Church. And it is from that Church that divine revelation was preached, written, and maintained.

Dan, I know that Charles Taze Russell made some great claims back in the 19th century. Can I believe an organization that promoted so many false prophesies about the end of the world? Can I believe an organization that initially used the King James Version and then not until 1950 came up with the New World Translation? Can I believe an organization that changed the wording within the NWT to suit taught doctrines? (cf. Colossians 1:15-17 where the word “other” is inserted and never to be found in the original greek)

Dan, you claim that Michael the Archangel is not taught to be the pre-incarnate Christ where I have Watchtower magazines that say otherwise. And if He is not then just who was Jesus prior to His taking on flesh?

Dan, I have three NWT bibles and so much of your literature that I could go door to door with you. I have yet to find a list of translators for your translation. Why, if your transaltion is the most accurate would there not be a list of translators so that I can contact one for verification?

I spent a few years researching your organization inside and out. I could go on for days but there is no need. I am conviced that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. I know that I am a goat in a Jw’s eyes and that I will be annihilated at Armagedon according to your teachings but that doesn’t change the truth about our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I will pray for you even though I know that you do not recognize my prayers. You cannot pray with me as I have asked other JW’s to do. It really makes me sad but, hey, I can pray for you and I will…teachccd

 

[Dan_Parker]

Yes, but what about the books that were used and read in the liturgies of the early Church but then never regarded as inspired? I absolutely agree that God is the ultimate source for divine revelation and that only God would have directed all those involved to acknowledge only His word. But, if you remember, I said that His Church is human and divine. There were quarrels among the apostles and they had the Word of God standing right in front of them. My contention is that Jesus left an authoritative Church through which He would continue to reveal Himself to this day. The Catholic Church has roots to the Early Church Fathers in that if you read Justin Martyr, for example, you will see that in the year 150 he describes the Catholic Mass celebrated in its basic structure as we still do today. The Eucharist is still celebrated today as it was in the first century Church. We have a line of apostolic succession beginning with Peter.

Dan, if it were not for the Catholic Church you would not have the Bible today since it was maintained and painstakenly copied for centuries through the monastic era and beyond. If there was some kind of apostasy, as you mentioned, then how did the bible make it to us today? Yes, God is in charge to see that it didn’t happen so it didn’t happen. Jesus said that He would build His Church and the gates of the netherworld would not prevail. He did not say that He would write a bible. He said that He would build a Church. And it is from that Church that divine revelation was preached, written, and maintained.

Dan, I know that Charles Taze Russell made some great claims back in the 19th century. Can I believe an organization that promoted so many false prophesies about the end of the world? Can I believe an organization that initially used the King James Version and then not until 1950 came up with the New World Translation? Can I believe an organization that changed the wording within the NWT to suit taught doctrines? (cf. Colossians 1:15-17 where the word “other” is inserted and never to be found in the original greek)

Dan, you claim that Michael the Archangel is not taught to be the pre-incarnate Christ where I have Watchtower magazines that say otherwise. And if He is not then just who was Jesus prior to His taking on flesh?

Dan, I have three NWT bibles and so much of your literature that I could go door to door with you. I have yet to find a list of translators for your translation. Why, if your transaltion is the most accurate would there not be a list of translators so that I can contact one for verification?

I spent a few years researching your organization inside and out. I could go on for days but there is no need. I am conviced that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity. I know that I am a goat in a Jw’s eyes and that I will be annihilated at Armagedon according to your teachings but that doesn’t change the truth about our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I will pray for you even though I know that you do not recognize my prayers. You cannot pray with me as I have asked other JW’s to do. It really makes me sad but, hey, I can pray for you and I will…teachccd

Who translated the Greek Septuagint? I cannot find a list of translators.

 

[kepha1]

Who translated the Greek Septuagint? I cannot find a list of translators.

The Septuagint Version is first mentioned in a letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates. Here, in substance, is what we read of the origin of the version. Ptolemy II Philadelphus, King of Egypt (287-47 BC) had recently established a valuable library at Alexandria. He was persuaded by Demetrius of Phalarus, chief librarian, to enrich it with a copy of the sacred books of the Jews. To win the good graces of this people, Ptolemy, by the advice of Aristeas, an officer of the royal guard, an Egyptian by birth and a pagan by religion, emancipated 100,000 slaves in different parts of his kingdom. He then sent delegates, among whom was Aristeas, to Jerusalem, to ask Eleazar, the Jewish high-priest, to provide him with a copy of the Law, and Jews capable of translating it into Greek. The embassy was successful: a richly ornamented copy of the Law was sent to him and seventy-two Israelites, six from each tribe, were deputed to go to Egypt and carry out the wish of the king. They were received with great honor and during seven days astonished everyone by the wisdom they displayed in answering seventy-two questions which they were asked; then they were led into the solitary island of Pharos, where they began their work, translating the Law, helping one another and comparing translations in proportion as they finished them. At the end of seventy-two days, their work was completed, The translation was read in presence of the Jewish priests, princes, and people assembled at Alexandria, who all recognized and praised its perfect conformity with the Hebrew original. The king was greatly pleased with the work and had it placed in the library.

New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[teachccd]

Who translated the Greek Septuagint? I cannot find a list of translators.

The septuagint has 70-72 translators as it’s name suggests. Can you at least give me the number of translators of the NWT?

I have a copy of the New World Translation and I have questions regarding this version that I would like to forward to the translators. Do you have a copy of the septuagint? If you do do you think that the translators might still be alive? Things are done a bit differently today. The King James Version that you used to recognize prior to the revised NWT has a list of translators. Why did your organization follow that version and then anonymously translate a version that completely changes the theology of the KJV? Let’s talk successive changes not leaping back 2200 years…teachccd

 

[teachccd]

Who translated the Greek Septuagint? I cannot find a list of translators.

It is interesting that of everything I wrote that is all you came up with. Like I said, I’ve been on this dance floor before and I know the dance…teachccd

 

[Dan_Parker]

The septuagint has 70-72 translators as it’s name suggests. Can you at least give me the number of translators of the NWT?

I have a copy of the New World Translation and I have questions regarding this version that I would like to forward to the translators. Do you have a copy of the septuagint? If you do do you think that the translators might still be alive? Things are done a bit differently today. The King James Version that you used to recognize prior to the revised NWT has a list of translators. Why did your organization follow that version and then anonymously translate a version that completely changes the theology of the KJV? Let’s talk successive changes not leaping back 2200 years…teachccd

You don’t need a name to send a request to the WTB&TS to answer a question regarding why something was translated a certain way. In fact it was published back in the 50s. They are likely just as dead as the LXX translators. I will tell you that I heard that there were native speaking Hebrew and Greeks on the committee and that there was assistance from scholars like Goodspeed and Moffatt.

I have had John 1:1 brought up on this forum as an example of mistranslation by the NWT, but McKenzie supports that rendering (not interpretation!) with his own “and the Word was a divine being.”

So far it is Catholics 0, JWs 1

 

[teachccd]

You don’t need a name to send a request to the WTB&TS to answer a question regarding why something was translated a certain way. In fact it was published back in the 50s. They are likely just as dead as the LXX translators. I will tell you that I heard that there were native speaking Hebrew and Greeks on the committee and that there was assistance from scholars like Goodspeed and Moffatt.

I have had John 1:1 brought up on this forum as an example of mistranslation by the NWT, but McKenzie supports that rendering (not interpretation!) with his own “and the Word was a divine being.”

So far it is Catholics 0, JWs 1

I didn’t realize that this was a game. I thought it was to save souls.

I’m not too sure how you are taking the term “a divine being” as anything else but God. We are partakers of the divine nature as Peter quotes in his letter but we are not divine beings. And even if that terminology can be twisted to mean whatever you find, why does McKenzie have a monopoly on Catholic doctrine? I have a ton of other biblical scholars that render it correctly. It is quite typical of the JW to find a Catholic dissenter ( And I do not know McKenzie and I am not saying that he is) and publish his work as factual Catholic teachings. I’m sure that there is a Jehovah’s Witness or two who published works contrary to your teachings. The only difference is that your organization would disfellowship him and write him off.

What makes Goodspeed and Moffat such exceptional scholars that their rendering supercedes Church teachings of 2000 years? Tell me why I should give creditt to their interpretation and translations? You “heard” that they were native speaking Greek and Hebrew? Did you know that Charles Taze Russell claimed to be a native speaker of the ancient languages and failed in front of a court of law? How credible is that?

 

[Dan_Parker]

I didn’t realize that this was a game. I thought it was to save souls.

I’m not too sure how you are taking the term “a divine being” as anything else but God. We are partakers of the divine nature as Peter quotes in his letter but we are not divine beings. And even if that terminology can be twisted to mean whatever you find, why does McKenzie have a monopoly on Catholic doctrine? I have a ton of other biblical scholars that render it correctly. It is quite typical of the JW to find a Catholic dissenter ( And I do not know McKenzie and I am not saying that he is) and publish his work as factual Catholic teachings. I’m sure that there is a Jehovah’s Witness or two who published works contrary to your teachings. The only difference is that your organization would disfellowship him and write him off.

What makes Goodspeed and Moffat such exceptional scholars that their rendering supercedes Church teachings of 2000 years? Tell me why I should give creditt to their interpretation and translations? You “heard” that they were native speaking Greek and Hebrew? Did you know that Charles Taze Russell claimed to be a native speaker of the ancient languages and failed in front of a court of law? How credible is that?

You have not addressed my Scriptural argument to the effect that Catholic bibles says that an angel is a god. Your reference to humans as being partakers of the divine nature was not my argument and so you are making a straw man argument.

As for Goodspeed and Moffat, you asked for scholars that had credentials in the languages. I provided them. Now you again shift your argument back to your view that you must be right because you are right. That is circular reasoning.

As for your comment on Russell, please provide a verifiable quote where he makes the claim to be a native speaker of the ancient languages. I am going to use your ability or inability to do this to help me decide whether or not to continue discussions with you.

 

[John7]

Can you at least give me the number of translators of the NWT?

I don’t know if this is an exhaustive list. Material below from article freeminds.org/doctrine/bible/translators-of-the-new-world-translation.html

"**Frederick W. Franz: **Main translator.

Took liberal arts sequence at University of Cincinnati; 21 semester hours of classical Greek, some Latin. Partially completed a two-hour survey course in Biblical Greek in junior year; course titled “The New Testament–A course in grammar and translation.” Left in spring of 1914 before completing junior year. Self-taught in Spanish, biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Entered Brooklyn headquarters facility of Watchtower Society in 1920. Probable ghost writer for J. F. Rutherford (2nd president of WTS) from late 1920s through 1942. Vice president of WTS from 1942 to 1977, president from 1977 until death in 1992 at age 99.

Franz writes in his autobiography: “What a blessing it was to study Bible Greek under Professor Arthur Kensella! Under Dr. Joseph Harry, an author of some Greek works, I also studied the classical Greek. I knew that if I wanted to become a Presbyterian clergyman, I had to have a command of Bible Greek. So I furiously applied myself and got passing grades” (The Watchtower, May 1, 1987, p. 24). Franz gives the impression that the bulk of his Greek studies were “Bible Greek” under “Professor Kensella” and that classical Greek was secondary under “Dr. Joseph Harry.” The opposite is true. As mentioned above, Franz only took one 2-hour credit class of “Bible Greek” but 21 hours of classical Greek. According to the course catalog of 1911, Arthur Kensella was not a professor of Greek, as Franz wrote, but an “instructor in Greek.” Kensella did not have a Ph.D. and he therefore taught entry-level courses.

Nathan H. Knorr
No training in biblical languages. Entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1923; 3rd president of WTS from 1942 to 1977. Died 1977 at age 72.

Milton G. Henschel

No training in biblical languages. Private secretary and traveling companion to N. H. Knorr from late 1940s until early 1970s. 4th president of WTS from 1992 to 2000. Still living, age mid-80s.

Albert D. Schroeder

No training in biblical languages. Took 3 years of mechanical engineering, unspecified language courses in college, dropped out in 1932 and soon entered Brooklyn headquarters. Registrar of “Gilead School” from 1942 to 1959. Still living, age 90.

Karl Klein

No training in biblical languages. Entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1925; member of Writing Dept. since 1950. Died 2001 at age 96.

George D. Gangas

No training in biblical languages. Greek-speaking Turkish national, entered Brooklyn headquarters in 1928 as a Greek translator from English to modern Greek publications. Died 1994 at age 98."

Also found this footnote in Wikipedia

"14.^ Martin W, Kingdom of the Cults, Expanded Anniversary Edition, October 1997, Bethany House Publishers, p. 123. “While the members of the [NWT] committee have never been identified officially by the Watchtower, many Witnesses who worked at the headquarters during the translation period were fully aware of who the members were. They included Nathan H. Knorr (president of the Society at the time), Frederick W. Franz (who later succeeded Knorr as president), Albert D. Schroeder, George Gangas, and Milton Henschel (currently the president).”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation#cite_note-13

 

[Danno2281]

You have not addressed my Scriptural argument to the effect that Catholic bibles says that an angel is a god. Your reference to humans as being partakers of the divine nature was not my argument and so you are making a straw man argument.

As for Goodspeed and Moffat, you asked for scholars that had credentials in the languages. I provided them. Now you again shift your argument back to your view that you must be right because you are right. That is circular reasoning.

As for your comment on Russell, please provide a verifiable quote where he makes the claim to be a native speaker of the ancient languages. I am going to use your ability or inability to do this to help me decide whether or not to continue discussions with you.

Noe you have “proposed” G & M’s as credentials for the NWT. In your post #23 you “heard” that they were consulted. If I were to ask you if an adjective in Greek had to agree with the noun that it modifies in case,number. and gender, I could be said to have consulted with you in my translation, but the translation would have had really nothing to do with you. I should need a consultant if and only if my expertise were questionable.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Noe you have “proposed” G & M’s as credentials for the NWT. In your post #23 you “heard” that they were consulted. If I were to ask you if an adjective in Greek had to agree with the noun that it modifies in case,number. and gender, I could be said to have consulted with you in my translation, but the translation would have had really nothing to do with you. I should need a consultant if and only if my expertise were questionable.

I can only tell you what I know. Sorry if that is not enough for you. As for the committee, it is not important to me who they were. Speaking for myself only, I have invested my time and energy into developing the skills necessary to determine for myself what is an acceptable rendering and what is not. I don’t need to rely on someone else’s opinion. As for your concern, perhaps you could select a verse you have in mind that causes you concern and we could discuss it.

 

[Danno2281]

I can only tell you what I know. Sorry if that is not enough for you. As for the committee, it is not important to me who they were. Speaking for myself only, I have invested my time and energy into developing the skills necessary to determine for myself what is an acceptable rendering and what is not. I don’t need to rely on someone else’s opinion.

Precisely my point. If your NWT translators were genuinely competent, they would not have had to seek someone else’s (Goodspeed and/or Moffatt’s) opinion to rely upon.

 

[teachccd]

You have not addressed my Scriptural argument to the effect that Catholic bibles says that an angel is a god. Your reference to humans as being partakers of the divine nature was not my argument and so you are making a straw man argument.

This is always about you. Straw man arguments? HHMMMM…

As for Goodspeed and Moffat, you asked for scholars that had credentials in the languages. I provided them. Now you again shift your argument back to your view that you must be right because you are right. That is circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning? Sounds familiar.

As for your comment on Russell, please provide a verifiable quote where he makes the claim to be a native speaker of the ancient languages. I am going to use your ability or inability to do this to help me decide whether or not to continue discussions with you.

Getting frustrated? Sorry if the truth wtings a bit. If you wish not to talke then you join the many other JW’s who could not continue to provide answers and left. I’m used to that… Anyway here it is. I can provide more detailed documents in a bit:
What is a Greek and Hebrew Scholar?
What is a Greek and Hebrew scholar? A Greek and Hebrew scholar is a person who has studied the Greek and Hebrew languages for many years. They understand all of the words from these languages and they know how to explain what the ancient words mean. When a scholar explains what a Hebrew or Greek word or sentence means in English, it is called translating. Bible scholars who translate are called **translators **because it’s their job to translate the Greek and Hebrew into English. The English bibles we have today were translated by scholars who read and understood the Hebrew and Greek languages. Even though he claimed to be a scholar, Charles Taze Russell was not a scholar. Court papers reveal a time when Russell was tested on his ability to translate the Greek language. They show that he didn’t have even the simplest of skills required to translate the Bible. In 1913, Christian scholars who did know Greek and Hebrew decided to challenge Russell in court. They charged him with lying to the public about being a scholar. Russell was brought into a court room where in front of a judge, jury and public audience, he was tested. In one of the tests, Russell was asked questions even the most poorly trained scholar would have been able to answer. He was asked to read from a verse in a Greek New Testament and simply give the names of Greek letters that the attorney pointed to. Below is the conversation between Russell and the court attorney
Attorney: “Do you know the Greek Alphabet?”
Russell: “Oh yes.”
Attorney: “Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?”
Russell: “Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them.”
Attorney: “Would you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447 I have got here?”
Russell: “Well, I don’t know that I would be able to.”
Attorney: “You can’t tell what those letters are, look at them and see if you know?”
Russell: “My way …” [Russell was interrupted]
Attorney: “Are you familiar with the Greek language?”
Russell: “No.”
As someone who does know the Greek Alphabet, I can tell you that it is impossible for Charles Taze Russell to have been a Greek scholar if he didn’t know the Greek alphabet. Just as you cannot read the English language without knowing the English alphabet, you cannot read and translate the Greek language unless you know the Greek alphabet. Russell was lying about being a scholar.

 

[JeanneH]

I don’t know if any one on this thread would be interested in this?

bible.ca/Jw-NWT.htm

I don’t know how legitimate this site is,. I am not familiar with it.

 

[Dan_Parker]

This is always about you. Straw man arguments? HHMMMM…

Circular reasoning? Sounds familiar.

Getting frustrated? Sorry if the truth wtings a bit. If you wish not to talke then you join the many other JW’s who could not continue to provide answers and left. I’m used to that… Anyway here it is. I can provide more detailed documents in a bit:
What is a Greek and Hebrew Scholar?
What is a Greek and Hebrew scholar? A Greek and Hebrew scholar is a person who has studied the Greek and Hebrew languages for many years. They understand all of the words from these languages and they know how to explain what the ancient words mean. When a scholar explains what a Hebrew or Greek word or sentence means in English, it is called translating. Bible scholars who translate are called **translators **because it’s their job to translate the Greek and Hebrew into English. The English bibles we have today were translated by scholars who read and understood the Hebrew and Greek languages. Even though he claimed to be a scholar, Charles Taze Russell was not a scholar. Court papers reveal a time when Russell was tested on his ability to translate the Greek language. They show that he didn’t have even the simplest of skills required to translate the Bible. In 1913, Christian scholars who did know Greek and Hebrew decided to challenge Russell in court. They charged him with lying to the public about being a scholar. Russell was brought into a court room where in front of a judge, jury and public audience, he was tested. In one of the tests, Russell was asked questions even the most poorly trained scholar would have been able to answer. He was asked to read from a verse in a Greek New Testament and simply give the names of Greek letters that the attorney pointed to. Below is the conversation between Russell and the court attorney
Attorney: “Do you know the Greek Alphabet?”
Russell: “Oh yes.”
Attorney: “Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?”
Russell: “Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them.”
Attorney: “Would you tell me the names of those on top of the page, page 447 I have got here?”
Russell: “Well, I don’t know that I would be able to.”
Attorney: “You can’t tell what those letters are, look at them and see if you know?”
Russell: “My way …” [Russell was interrupted]
Attorney: “Are you familiar with the Greek language?”
Russell: “No.”
As someone who does know the Greek Alphabet, I can tell you that it is impossible for Charles Taze Russell to have been a Greek scholar if he didn’t know the Greek alphabet. Just as you cannot read the English language without knowing the English alphabet, you cannot read and translate the Greek language unless you know the Greek alphabet. Russell was lying about being a scholar.

Dan Parker
As for your comment on Russell, please provide a verifiable quote where he makes the claim to be a native speaker of the ancient languages. I am going to use your ability or inability to do this to help me decide whether or not to continue discussions with you.

I thought that is what you would come up with and it does not prove your claim that Russell claimed to be a native speaker of the original languages. Your quote does not say this. In addition there is no proof of what Russell actually claimed, only an attempt to discredit him.

It is obvious from the dialogue you present that Russell did not claim that he would not make mistakes with the Greek alphabet. You have failed my litmus test.

BTW. Russell was not involved with any translation. The fact that the claims against him are so exaggerated is proof that the truth of what happened is not good enough to condemn him!

As I promised, you are now on ignore.

 

[Tomster]

Dan Parker
As for your comment on Russell, please provide a verifiable quote where he makes the claim to be a native speaker of the ancient languages. I am going to use your ability or inability to do this to help me decide whether or not to continue discussions with you.

I thought that is what you would come up with and it does not prove your claim that Russell claimed to be a native speaker of the original languages. Your quote does not say this. In addition there is no proof of what Russell actually claimed, only an attempt to discredit him.

It is obvious from the dialogue you present that Russell did not claim that he would not make mistakes with the Greek alphabet. You have failed my litmus test.

BTW. Russell was not involved with any translation. The fact that the claims against him are so exaggerated is proof that the truth of what happened is not good enough to condemn him!

As I promised, you are now on ignore.

What kind of man was this Charles Taze Russell? He was certainly an expert at making money, whether in the drapery business until he sold it, or by investments in mines and real estate, or by the selling of his books, and of “miracle wheat.” Unfortunately he was legally compelled to restore the purchasers the money he had obtained for his miracle wheat, on the score that it had been dishonestly extracted from them. But honesty was not Pastor Russell’s predominant virtue. Under oath in court in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, in 1913, he declared in support of his claims to be an expert Scripture scholar that he knew Greek. Handed a Greek New Testament, he was forced to admit that he did not know even the Greek alphabet; and that he knew nothing of Hebrew or of Latin, despite his pretensions to a knowledge of those languages also. Not to know such languages is no crime, of course. But to make lying pretensions to a knowledge of them is scarcely in keeping with claims to be a prophet of God; while to do so under oath is the still worse sin of perjury.

Not less unbecoming in this self-styled prophet was the fact his wife divorced him in 1897 on charges of adultery with two different women, a stenographer and a housemaid; and that the judge flayed him, after granting the divorce, for his general ill-treatment of his wife. To avoid payment of the alimony ordered by the court, Russell promptly transferred his property, worth over $ 240,000, to the “Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.”

Russell died on October 3, 1916, in a Santa Fe train near Pampa, Texas, on his way to Kansas City; and he is now seldom mentioned by the Witnesses of Jehovah. This man, once held by his followers to rank next after St. Paul in the “gallery of fame,” has been practically forgotten by the later generations.

 

[Dan_Parker]

What kind of man was this Charles Taze Russell? He was certainly an expert at making money, whether in the drapery business until he sold it, or by investments in mines and real estate, or by the selling of his books, and of “miracle wheat.” Unfortunately he was legally compelled to restore the purchasers the money he had obtained for his miracle wheat, on the score that it had been dishonestly extracted from them. But honesty was not Pastor Russell’s predominant virtue. Under oath in court in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, in 1913, he declared in support of his claims to be an expert Scripture scholar that he knew Greek. Handed a Greek New Testament, he was forced to admit that he did not know even the Greek alphabet; and that he knew nothing of Hebrew or of Latin, despite his pretensions to a knowledge of those languages also. Not to know such languages is no crime, of course. But to make lying pretensions to a knowledge of them is scarcely in keeping with claims to be a prophet of God; while to do so under oath is the still worse sin of perjury.

Not less unbecoming in this self-styled prophet was the fact his wife divorced him in 1897 on charges of adultery with two different women, a stenographer and a housemaid; and that the judge flayed him, after granting the divorce, for his general ill-treatment of his wife. To avoid payment of the alimony ordered by the court, Russell promptly transferred his property, worth over $ 240,000, to the “Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.”

Russell died on October 3, 1916, in a Santa Fe train near Pampa, Texas, on his way to Kansas City; and he is now seldom mentioned by the Witnesses of Jehovah. This man, once held by his followers to rank next after St. Paul in the “gallery of fame,” has been practically forgotten by the later generations.

I would agree that it sounds like I know Greek better than did Russell, but at this point I have not seen anything from him that claims he was an expert on Greek and certainly not the insane claim that he was a native speaker of the original languages. I don’t have the time or inclination to argue against trumped up charges, particularly not in Sacred Scripture.

 

[Tomster]

I would agree that it sounds like I know Greek better than did Russell, but at this point I have not seen anything from him that claims he was an expert on Greek and certainly not the insane claim that he was a native speaker of the original languages. I don’t have the time or inclination to argue against trumped up charges, particularly not in Sacred Scripture.

Dan,

Make time! The courts in Ontario made time. Re-read the information I gave. C.T. Russell was con.