Biblical Hebrew Forum

[GregStffrd AT aol.com]

In a message dated 06/16/2001 7:07:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
montyself AT byhisgrace.com writes:

<< In closing I feel the need to make a response to Greg Stafford.  It is bad
 form to accuse a person of inappropriate scholarship and then make
 inappropriate scholarly remarks to that person. >>


It's called responsibility. If a person veers off track and makes horribly 
inaccurate and misleading comments about one's religion and favored 
translation of the Bible, then it is a duty of the other to correct the error 
if possible. It is bad form to criticize the correction of horrific error. 
His scholarship on the issues raised was very bad, and his methods of 
presentation equally troubling. 


<<  It is possible that Dave
 Humpal is incorrect about his assessment of the NWT as a whole and it is
 even more likely that his assessment of the NWT and its translator only has
 indirect influence upon the determination of "Dynamic Energy" being a good
 translation of "WYNM", but this is no grounds for implying that he is a poor
 Reverend or that he is unobjective. >>>


This was not the grounds on which I suggested that a Reverend would act in 
some other manner. You need to read more carefully before you make these 
kinds of misleading comments about another person. It only compounds the 
problem, and forces me to take time away from other pursuits to correct it. 
My comments were very clearly in relation to his comments about issues 
pertaining to the F. W. Franz trial, his knowledge of Hebrew, and his 
inferences about his knowledge of Greek as well as that of the other 
committee members. None of what he had to say in any way helped us appreciate 
why NWT translated Isa. 40:26 the way it did. 

For anyone, but especially one who makes it known that he is a man of God, to 
make the kinds of comments he made is shameful. That you would argue in his 
behalf after what he said and the way he said it, is remarkable and very bad 
form.



<< Please note that Greg Stafford writes
 in response to Dave, "Making inaccurate statements, off-base claims, and
 misleading people about the translation skills of certain people, is not an
 endearing quality. It is certainly not something one would expect from a
 Reverend." Earlier Greg wrote, "But that is not the only training available,
 and I think if anyone with an objective mind looks critically at the NWT OT,
 he/she will find a very high level of scholarship."  I am please that I can
 tell the Philosophy professor at my institution that his students can see a
 prime example of the classical Aristotelian logical fallacy of NAME CALLING
 on my Hebrew list serve. >>



You might also tell them that you imagined such names were called. I see no 
names at all in the above. Can you point them out? I spoke of qualities that 
are not befitting a person claiming to be a Reverend. You obviously disagree, 
but provide no basis in fact for your disagreement. Do you further claim that 
Dave not make inaccurate statements, off-base claims, and mislead people by 
what he said? That was my claim, and I backed it up with data. 


 
<< Unfortunately, this discussion is about Isaiah 40:26.  Being that I am
 interested in a discussion about the level of Hebrew scholarship in the NWT,
 my next post will be about just that! >>


Good. Let's get to it and we will evaluate your level of scholarship in 
dealing with the NWT, even as you evaluate the NWT's scholarship. 

But please refrain from inventing ideas about me calling others names, when 
what I said fits the situation, and was an entirely appropriate response. (I 
have had enough of others on this forum making up ideas about what I said, 
apparently just because I come from a less-than-popular religious 
perspective. But I will not let them, or you, distort what I SAY.)

The fact that a correction of error often results in making the person who 
puts forth the error look less than enviable is not my problem. It is the 
problem of the person who callously and blatantly steered off topic and dove 
head first into an area that made what he said open to question and 
refutation. 

Best regards,

Greg Stafford