rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (04/09/85)
I constantly see people using the writings of Paul to support or attack a stand. This has always bothered me because there are some things in Paul's writings that I can't accept. Some even seem to contradict the words of Jesus in the Gospels. Now as I see it (and I'm sure I'll hear from the one's whom disagree!), Paul was trying to establish and consolidate the first Christian church. Leaving aside the "divine inspiration" argument (and I'm sure I'll be told you can't do that), what else is there to show that his word should be law? I was brought-up RC and we were told this was the Pope's job. [:- )] I have this problem with putting the words of Paul on an equal ground with those of Jesus. Comments? (what a silly question!) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (04/11/85)
> I constantly see people using the writings of Paul to support or > attack a stand. This has always bothered me because there are some > things in Paul's writings that I can't accept. Some even seem to > contradict the words of Jesus in the Gospels. This has been one of my great arguments with Catholicism and with Christianity in general, that Pauline doctrine has wrongly influenced and warped the nature of the beliefs expounded by the man Jesus, called Christ. This seems to be especially so in the way that women have been treated by the Church - Paul seems to have been quite a misogynist, and that carried over strongly into "official" Church policy and teaching. Reading the gospels, one sees that Jesus treated women on an equal footing with men, and encouraged them, but one sees much the opposite from Paul, who seems to have had enormous hangups about sex and women as the corrupters of men. Conversely, in the Gnostic gospels, one sees that women were very active in sections of the early church, as priests and communicants. and leaders of religious communities. This was all later vigorously suppressed by that branch of the church that finally became the "establishment". -- jcpatilla "'Get stuffed !', the Harlequin replied ..."
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (04/12/85)
From Robert D. Zarcone: >I constantly see people using the writings of Paul to support or >attack a stand. This has always bothered me because there are some >things in Paul's writings that I can't accept. Some even seem to >contradict the words of Jesus in the Gospels... >I have this problem with putting the words of Paul on an >equal ground with those of Jesus. Comments? (what a silly question!) I, too, have difficulty with most of Paul's writings. As somebody in this newsgroup recently remarked, `Paul was hardly a free-thinker' -- what an understatement! And one cannot blame the translators. In Greek, his words are often MORE severe than they seem in the English translations I've encountered. The huge portion of the New Testament written by Paul strikes me as the most powerful motivation I know for not being a `fundamentalist' -- by this I mean someone who rejects all writings of the middle ages and derives everything from the Bible -- since many of the best Catholic theological philosophers are far more palatable than Paul. BTW, the so-called `Fundamentalist Revival' now taking place seems to be a misnomer to me. Don't most Falwell-types accept Catholic dogma up to approximately the Protestant era? Is it not true that these same Falwell-types consider the more unusual sects, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses (who seem like fundamentalists in the truest sense of the word, and for whom I have an odd sort of respect), to be too weird? Or am I very mistaken? And does anyone know of any Christian sects that reject everything except the 4 gospels? Xristos Anesti -michael
purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) (04/12/85)
In article <765@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: I have this problem with putting the words of Paul on an >equal ground with those of Jesus. Comments? (what a silly question!) > Comments? Yes - but just one. I agree. I must admit that I do take Paul as a higher authority than modern Christian writers (even C.S. Lewis who I adore) but I do disagree with some of his ideas, and I find that they do contradict the words of Christ. There is, however, a lot of good and a lot of wisdom in the epistles, and I would not ignore them just because there are a few ideas that I don't agree with. I've had a lot of problems with people that take the word of Paul without any further thought. But like I said, there is a lot of good there. In fact, (I don't have my Bible with me now) but I believe that it's I Corinthians chapter 13 (maybe II Corinthians) that is one of my favorites. It's an old standard, I know, but I still love it. elizabeth (Lady Godiva)
seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) (04/14/85)
In article <765@ccice5.UUCP> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >I constantly see people using the writings of Paul to support or >attack a stand. This has always bothered me because there are some >things in Paul's writings that I can't accept. I have trouble with some of his stuff as well. > Some even seem to contradict the words of Jesus in the Gospels. Examples would be useful here. (hint hint) > I was brought-up RC and we were told this was the Pope's job. [:- )] You mean Paul wasn't the first Pope? :-) > I have this problem with putting the words of Paul on an > equal ground with those of Jesus. > Yes. It seems obvious that no ordinary human's words should be considered to equal to those of Jesus, even special cases like Paul or the Pope. I *think* what has happened is that Paul wrote letters to specific groups of people, at a specific time. There were various circumstances, customs, etc., which he didn't bother to specify, since these were *letters*. His intended audience already knew the circumstances and customs. But not everyone who reads these letters today, as part of the Bible, understands the original context. Sort of like if a few of these USENET messages were saved for 2000 years and someone then tries to figure out what ":-)" means, or better yet: *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSIAH *** Example: I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expen- sive clothes, but with good deeds, ap- propriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent. 1 Timothy 2:9-12 NIV Braided hair? I can see objecting to wasting large amounts of time and money on personal appearance (some people really overdo it), but are we to read this as outlawing braided hair altogether? Gee, I hope not. Women cannot teach but must be silent? This really makes very little sense (if any), and his explaination involving Adam and Eve ( 1 Tim 2:13-14) doesn't really help. He seems to imply that since Eve was fooled by Satan, that *all* women are easily fooled by Satan. And that men are not easily fooled be Satan, but are easily fooled be women. (especially those with braided hair? :-) ) In a way, it seems that Paul is undoing the work of Christ. Christ came and took away the Law, all those rules. Then Paul comes in and makes a bunch of new ones? It doesn't seem that this would be Paul's intention, yet that's how it reads. I would like to be able to say that Paul was writing about specific cases, and didn't mean for his letters to be interpreted as creating a new set of rules to be followed. But that's not how it comes out when I read chapter 1. Verses 6-10 are especially interesting. He says that the law is good if used properly, that it is not for good men, but for bad. And then a few paragraphs later he comes up with a bunch of rules for people to follow, presumably people that he considered good. AAUUGGHH! Anyone have any insights here? _____ |___| the Bavarian Beagle _|___|_ Snoopy \_____/ tektronix!mako!seifert \___/
seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) (04/15/85)
In article <179@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > BTW, the so-called `Fundamentalist Revival' now taking place seems to > be a misnomer to me. Don't most Falwell-types ... > these same Falwell-types ... Just a reminder, Fundamentalist != Falwell-type (the definition of "fundamentalist" received quite a bit of discussion last winter) > And does anyone know of any Christian sects that reject everything except > the 4 gospels? Can't help you there, but this brings up the old saying of something being "the Gospel Truth", which sort of implies that the Gospels are more highly regarded than other parts of the Bible. Why isn't that saying: "the Bible Truth" ? _____ |___| the Bavarian Beagle _|___|_ Snoopy \_____/ tektronix!mako!seifert \___/ "Why should the devil have all the good music?" -Larry Norman
larryg@teklds.UUCP (Larry Gardner) (04/15/85)
Well, I didn't realize that people would look at it this way. The words of Paul ARE the words of Jesus..... or isn't the Bible the inspired word of God? Maybe we could say that Matthew was just the writings of Matthew, I mean Jesus never wrote one word of the Bible with His own hand. If sayings are hard, well, maybe we don't quite understand or we don't want to... The epistles are not the writings of Paul but of God Himself. About the quotes regarding braided hair. I think the principle there is not to look like prostitutes, because they were the ones who wore all the jewelry and braided their hair.....it's not that women can not braid their hair. karen
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (04/15/85)
> > The huge portion of the New Testament written by Paul strikes me > as the most powerful motivation I know for not being a > `fundamentalist' -- by this I mean someone who rejects all writings > of the middle ages and derives everything from the Bible -- since > many of the best Catholic theological philosophers are far more > palatable than Paul. > The problem with that is who said palatable = true. Because you happen to like what some of the Catholic theological philosophers have said it's therefore true?? Because you don't like what Paul said, it's therefore untrue?? That sounds like an odd criteria for objective truth. > Is it not true that > these same Falwell-types consider the more unusual sects, such as > the Jehovah's Witnesses (who seem like fundamentalists in the truest > sense of the word, and for whom I have an odd sort of respect), > to be too weird? Or am I very mistaken? [Michael] Fundamentalists in the truest sense of the word?? I would think that any common definition of Fundamentalist would have to have some reference to accepting the Bible literally. The Jehovah's Witnesses, however, have their own translation that continually contradicts accepted, standard translations by experts in both Greek and Hebrew. One of the founders of the JW's (Charles Taz Russel sp?) was convicted of perjury when he lied under oath that he could both read and write Hebrew. He and another man whose name I forget both claimed to be the scholars that originated the New World Translation, but Russel was proven in a courtroom to have not even the most rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew. Is this a Fundamentalist? I hope the respect you have for them is very odd. Rick Frey (ix415@sdcc6.UUCP)
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (04/17/85)
In article <560@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Clark) writes: >The words of Paul ARE the words of Jesus..... or isn't the Bible the >inspired word of God? Maybe we could say that Matthew was just the >writings of Matthew, I mean Jesus never wrote one word of the Bible >with His own hand. If sayings are hard, well, maybe we don't quite >understand or we don't want to... > >The epistles are not the writings of Paul but of God Himself. > >About the quotes regarding braided hair. I think the principle there >is not to look like prostitutes, because they were the ones who wore >all the jewelry and braided their hair.....it's not that women can not >braid their hair. > >karen What? Do I see Karen saying that Paul didn't mean what he said? How do you determine that he didn't mean what he said here, yet he meant every word and moreso when he mentions homosexuality? Do I percieve a double standard? -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
gkm@hou2b.UUCP (G.MCNEES) (04/20/85)
Jesus said in John 16:12 "I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak: and He will show you things to come. ..." Many things that the apostle said were directly from the Lord, however, occasionally he gave his own opinion, and says so in those specific places. The Apostle Peter says concerning Pauls writing, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are SOME THINGS HARD TO BE UNDERSTOOD which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction." II Peter 3:16. Critics of the Bible have long asserted that it is filled with contradictions. Those of you who have children have experienced the situation of trying to explain to them something which is not really a contradiction to your understanding but because of their immaturity and lack of knowledge and understanding, they thing the thing being explained is contradictory. I have found that as I've studied the scriptures more, that what seemed contradictory in the past is not really contradictory. As Paul the apostle says none of us now understands fully; but THEN we will fully understand even as we are fully understood.(BY GOD) For this reason we have disagreements as to the meaning of the scriptures. For those of you that "like" the sayings of Jesus but "dislike" the sayings of Paul: I say that you may not have or thought much about some of the HARD sayings of our Lord. I'll give a few examples: John 5:46 "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me..." John 6:65 "... Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come to me, except it were given unto him of my Father." John 6:37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me..." John 17:9 "I pray for them: I pray not for the world..." Matthew 10:34 "Thing not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came no to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 11:25 "... I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." Matthew 24:22 "And except those days should be shortened, there should be no flesh saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. The above verses are but a sample. My point is that Jesus said many things many things which are harder to receive than what Paul has said. The Spirit within me bears witness that what is written in the Bible is all from God. (save those things which are specifically said to have originated elsewhere e.g. the lies of Satan, etc.) However, all that is written is not binding upon Christians today. For example, the various laws that were given to the Jewish people were specifically NOT GIVEN to us Christians to follow. I find it very interesting to see that new Christians expect to be able to understand everything God has said in just a short time when many devoted men of God have spent their lives serving Him and studying His word and still readily admit that there are many things they don't understand. Even as Paul has said, I Corinthians 13:9- "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then ... but then I shall know even as I also am known." "By faith we know that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Hebrews 11:3 By faith also we know that the Bible is the word of God and that we should, "study to show ourselves approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (quote from II Timothy 2:15.) I have been quite startled by the responses to this query concerning "Paul=Jesus" from the Christians on the net who have so far responded. If we remove from "our" scriptures those portions we don't like, I'm sure that soon very little would be left. If, as someone has said, the words recorded in the gospels were not actually spoken by Jesus, then we have little to "stand on"! And statments such as, "My words shall never pass away..." attributed to Jesus have no meaning! I believe the Bible, especially the words and teachings of Jesus are self authenticating. By this I mean that we should listen to His words and those of others, such as Rich. Then we will know that what Jesus says is true, authoritative, and ALL who listen KNOW IT! I submit that all who are arguing this point, do as Paul says in Romans 1:18, and hold down the truth in unrighteousness. (verse 20) "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" sincerely, Gary
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (04/20/85)
In article <5194@fortune.UUCP>, brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) writes: > > > >The epistles are not the writings of Paul but of God Himself. > > > >About the quotes regarding braided hair. I think the principle there > >is not to look like prostitutes, because they were the ones who wore > >all the jewelry and braided their hair.....it's not that women can not > >braid their hair. [Karen] > > What? Do I see Karen saying that Paul didn't mean what he said? > How do you determine that he didn't mean what he said here, yet > he meant every word and moreso when he mentions homosexuality? > Do I percieve a double standard? [Richard Brower] No you do not perceive a double standard, you perceive an unfortunate side effect of the imperfections of human language. Human language is at its best imperfect and full of pictures and analogies that must be agreed upon as to their meaning. When I say I walk down the street am I really walking down? Don't streets for the most part run on the horizontal plane? But because it is so much easier to use pictures and analogies that have commonly understood meanings, human language can often be misunderstood and misrepresented when these pictures are taken literally or when literal words are taken as pictures. The Bible uses both of these types of speech acts. When Christ said he was the bread of life is He saying that He is a gian loaf of wonder bread? Of course not, he's most likely referring to the common memory that the Jews shared of getting manna from God during the exodus, bread from heaven. That's what Christ claimed to be. Are we using a double standard when we say that Christ wasn't speaking literally? Maybe, but the Bible isn't intended to be taken as literal truth in every situation. When Satan tells Eve that she won't die from eating the fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden, was that true? When Pharoah tells Moses all the bad things he's going to do to him do they ever happen? One has to look at the Bible with an intelligent eye, trying to decide what is to be taken literally and what is figurative. This, however, leads to one huge problem, that you correctly pointed out, where does one draw the line between saying one example is figurative whereas the others are literal. The best guideline to follow when one is presented with just such a translation problem is to try to decide if the point is a moral rule or something that was most likely a guidelines for the times. In the case of eating pork, as well as in braiding one's hair, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to say that God isn't morally concerned with what we eat or how we array our hair. In the case of homosexuality, however, the issue is not so clearly defined. Many people happen to feel that this is a moral issue and that Paul's teachings (along with the old testament teachings) combine to say that homosexuality is a sin. Some feel that it can be treated just like the braiding of hair and that the proscriptions against it were just for the time. That is the gravest danger in Biblical interpretation. One cannot say that every word in the Bible is to be taken literally, but what the next step after that is in Biblical interpretation is a very fuzzy issue. Rick Frey (ix415@sdcc6.UUCP)
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/20/85)
In article <560@teklds.UUCP> larryg@teklds.UUCP (Karen Clark) writes: >The words of Paul ARE the words of Jesus..... or isn't the Bible the >inspired word of God? Maybe we could say that Matthew was just the >writings of Matthew, I mean Jesus never wrote one word of the Bible >with His own hand. If sayings are hard, well, maybe we don't quite >understand or we don't want to... >The epistles are not the writings of Paul but of God Himself. Sorry, Karen; I don't think "Inspired Word of God" means "Straight From the Deity's Mouth". Paul on occaision says things which conflict with the teachings as they appear in the gospel. Paul sometimes contradicts himself. Too many human minds have passed over the NT to where I am unwilling to identify it completely with the divine voice. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) (04/22/85)
In article <493@hou2b.UUCP> gkm@hou2b.UUCP (G.MCNEES) writes: > As Paul the apostle says none of us now understands fully; but THEN > we will fully understand even as we are fully understood.(BY GOD) > For this reason we have disagreements as to the meaning of the > scriptures. Yes, if we understood everything, life could get rather boring, no? > The Spirit within me bears witness that what is written in the Bible > is all from God. ... However, all that is written is not binding > upon Christians today. For example, the various laws that were given > to the Jewish people were specifically NOT GIVEN to us Christians > to follow. Agreed. And it is precisely the fact that Jesus did away with "the Law", that makes it seem so odd that Paul would be making up a bunch of new rules (e.g. not wearing braided hair) for us to follow. >I find it very interesting to see that new Christians expect to be >able to understand everything God has said in just a short time when >many devoted men of God have spent their lives serving Him and >studying His word and still readily admit that there are many things >they don't understand. I'm not sure what you mean by "new" Christians. Speaking for myself, I don't expect to understand everything right away. However, if there are certain rules to obey, I do expect to understand them, and I expect there to be understandable reasons behind them. If the rule is "don't wear braided hair", I don't understand. What is wrong with braided hair? If the rule is "don't spend a great deal of time and money on personal appearance, there are better uses for those resources.", then the rule and it's reason are understandable. (Of course people will then argue over how much time and money is "too much") If the rule is "don't look like a prostitute, prostitution is sinful", this is also understandable. (again, people may argue over just what constitutes looking like a prostitute) > If we remove from "our" scriptures those portions we > don't like, I'm sure that soon very little would be left. It's not a matter of removing things we don't like. (although that would certainly be convienant!) It's a matter of trying to understand *why* Paul (or whoever) wrote those things. Was he writing to Christians in general, for all time, or was he only writing to a specific group of people at a specific time? I think there are cases of both, the question is, which is which? Certainly Paul had a special relationship with God, if I ever attain 1/10th the understanding Paul had, I will be doing well. I certainly wouldn't casually "throw away" anything he said. However, I do question whether everything he said applies today. Am I to avoid women who braid their hair? Am I to avoid churches in which women teach? These are serious questions. Perhaps I am supposed to do these things. If so, that's fine, but I want good, understandable reasons for them. Following rules blindly is quite dangerous. Sure, I may someday understand this. That will be very nice. In the meantime, I have to live to best life I can. I have to figure out whether to steer clear of women with braided hair or not. It can ba argued that I should "play it safe", and take Paul's writings literally. I claim that this isn't so safe. There is a commandment about keeping the Sabbath, but if your sheep falls into a pit... We have brains, and the Lord expects us to use them. What we have to do is study the word, try and figure it out. Discuss the difficult parts with family/friends (this includes usenet) to get other viewpoints. Pray about it. And after all of this you come up with some sort of conclusion. From time to time the conclusions need to be reexamined, as you gain in knowledge, experience, and wisdom. At the moment, what I get out of the braided-hair bit is the "don't waste too many resources on personal appearance" interpretation, which seems to me to be what Paul is really saying. It even makes sense! I'm still having trouble with the bit about women not being allowed to teach. The only way I see it making any sense is if you say that women are inferior to men, and I just can't buy that. I've got a whole pile of personal experience that shows that women are *not* inferior to men. If anyone has any insights here, I'd like to hear about them. _____ |___| the Bavarian Beagle _|___|_ Snoopy \_____/ tektronix!mako!seifert \___/
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (04/25/85)
In article <720@mako.UUCP> seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) writes: >In article <493@hou2b.UUCP> gkm@hou2b.UUCP (G.MCNEES) writes: >> The Spirit within me bears witness that what is written in the Bible >> is all from God. ... However, all that is written is not binding >> upon Christians today. For example, the various laws that were given >> to the Jewish people were specifically NOT GIVEN to us Christians >> to follow. > >Agreed. And it is precisely the fact that Jesus did away with "the Law", >that makes it seem so odd that Paul would be making up a bunch of new rules >(e.g. not wearing braided hair) for us to follow. AAARRRRGGGGHHHH NO NO NO NO! This is precisely what Jesus did NOT do. Read Matthew 5:17 ; "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prohets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly, I say to you, until Heaven and Earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished." In fact, as far as He told us, He didn't even come for the Gentiles. The fact that we are even let into the Kingdom is an act of mercy. The authority for our not having to follow the Law is the same authority that allowed us into the Church at all: When the question came up of whether to allow Gentiles to join, some churches required the Gentiles to convert to Judaism first, including following the entire Covenant. The apostles, however, came to the concensus that this was a bad idea. The theology of the Holy Spirit maintains a degree of equivalence between the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit means we have a way to access the Word of God. However, this does not guarantee that we will do so. The Law is, at least to the Jews, the Word of God and His Covenant. Paul even went so far as to assert that there are parts of the Law which are "self evident" in Nature. There are some schools of thought which suggest that we OUGHT to follow all the Laws because they are the Word of God. Others suggest that we ought to follow the Spirit of those Laws, because that Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Yet others suggest that we have no requirement to follow ANY of the Laws because we are now FREED from that requirement by the liberating death and resurrection of the Lord. However, when early churches began to be self-indulgent and rowdy, they were rebuked for it, since the Lord came not to destroy but to complete the Law. "Everything is permitted, but not everything is beneficial." If you mean to say "Jesus completed the Law" go right ahead. But don't make the mistake of saying He did away with it; He Himself denies it. Hutch
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/26/85)
In article <2013@sdcc6.UUCP> ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: > ... The Jehovah's Witnesses, > however, have their own translation that continually contradicts > accepted, standard translations by experts in both Greek and Hebrew. > One of the founders of the JW's (Charles Taz Russel sp?) was convicted > of perjury when he lied under oath that he could both read and write > Hebrew. He and another man whose name I forget both claimed to be the > scholars that originated the New World Translation, but Russel was > proven in a courtroom to have not even the most rudimentary knowledge of > Hebrew. Is this a Fundamentalist? I hope the respect you have for them > is very odd. 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? -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (04/29/85)
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)