...
According to the Wikipedia author quoted before, whose ip is from
Norway, Rolf is a Jehovah's Witness.
I don't know that he has ever identified himself as such, ...
... The book itself was not reviewed before
publication, which is what peer review means.
So really, in the end, a small point. I just said it was published privately,
and Rolf stated that it was not, despite the fact that he apparently knows
full well that he published it privately, since he is himself the publisher.
...
... Maybe thisIf Rolf were simply to point out that we cannot prove that the NWT translators were wrong because we don't know enough about the system, then he might have a good point. But by trying to insist that they are correct (if that is what he is doing) he overreaches himself.
book is to be criticised for expounding a Jehovah's Witness verbal system
in the guise of academic study. That is, this isn't a simple revolutionary
attempt to read the verbal system of Hebrew. It is an attempt to defend a
Jehovah's Witness outlook on the verbal system. For example, perhaps
let us assume that because of some lack of expertise on the part of NWT
translators, some verbs which were intended past were translated future.
Rolf's study then comes to an aid and says that this is not a problem
because it is not that NWT translators got it wrong. It is that we don't
understand the verbal system of Hebrew.
...
I welcome the study by George Athas. I am not saying a new reading
of the Hebrew verbal system is out of place. I also think most Jehovah
Witness members of this list are probably wholesome in their intentions,
although I would probably be double checking from now on. But I cannot
trust the data, conclusions, and methods as discussed by Rolf. ...
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.