HALT IRRELEVANT BICKERING
(Investigator 92, 2003 September)
The current Investigator debate about evolution is saying little about
the creationist side I would
expect information on points like:
Darwin believed that all current and past
species are linked by vast numbers of intermediate species—but the fossils have not been found;
200 alleged non-functional vestigial structures in humans it seems all have
function. Even so-called “junk DNA” may not be “junk”;
Haeckel’s teaching that embryo development “recapitulates phylogeny (i.e.
evolutionary history)” now appears false.
On the pro-evolution side I would expect elaboration on points like:
geological eras had different living things—only a few species existed in
multiple eras and survived millions of years;
can measure gene frequencies in the “gene pool” and demonstrate change. Genetic
change can commence with mutations and, nowadays, by deliberate human
intermediate between some major categories of classification, are now known.
such points are not being elaborated.
Holman quoted from among the minority of scientists
(perhaps 7%) with whom he agrees. Subsequently Holman:
concepts irrelevant to evolution such as his dishwashing, humility, democratic
rights and rock-solid convictions;
he need give no evidence since the evidence is on the Internet;
his questioners rather than “substantiate”.
Mr Holman dodging or blowing a smokescreen or what?
The evolution “debate” smacks of
schoolboy bickering and brings little credit to its highly educated
participants! “Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise…” (Proverbs
17:28) Think about that.
Of course I have views too and these can be read on my website at: www.frankrusso.net
Rebuttal of his response:
1 – Most of his response revolves around my "interpretation" of a
passage from the Bible! (Prov. 17: 28).
Actually mine is not an "interpretation" at all! It's his comments
that represent an interpretation! Out of my 83 different Bibles that I possess,
he has chosen the worst one which I never use
or read … I have only contempt for it! The only reason it's in my house at all,
it's because, I saw it in excellent condition at a
give-away price, in a second-hand Lutheran Book-shop! I
would NEVER attempt to prove anything with that "garbage"! Any
Bible-scholar of substance, would know that it's a 'PARAPHRASE" edition …
in other words, it's a rendition of
what someone considers the Bible to be
saying in "his own words": and my version being a "Red Letter
Edition" is oxy-moronic to say the least … it goes
to all the trouble of colouring J.C.'s words in red, when as I've just explained, they are
somebody-else's words! (?)
This Bible is usually insisted upon by Trinitarians – not even JW"s with their own version,
resort to translating what they "think the Bible is
saying"! The only other Bible which
comes close to being as bad as the
"Living" (from my collection), is the Amplified
Version: which, as the obvious name implies, has
extra meaning included to explain the text … THE
PROBLEM IS THAT IT IS NOT DONE AS FOOT-NOTES NOR AS obvious
elucidations, but rather as part of the actual original!
This once again, is a special tool mainly used by Trinitarians!
In the original, the other half of the verse is
conveying the identical message of the rest of the verse: if a
scholar is familiar with Hebrew poetry via its thought parallelism, he would
not attempt to contrast the two against each
2 – I am afraid that whilst Holman may be genuine in what he is saying, the notion that
"creationists … based on more plausible, pure logic"! (???) … is totally misguided, it is good for a Christian to be
reminded that Christianity is based all on CREDULITY! That's the real meaning of
faith, as opposed to "PURE LOGIC"!
3 – My critical comments from issue # 92 were balanced … showing both sides,
some of their
deficiencies – I did not take sides as I actually blend both sides
together – my ideas are completely
4 – Mr Holman's conclusion that he responds, to the criticism of whether he is
"dodging" or "blowing smokescreen", is actually a somewhat
insincere statement, (probably sub-consciously): because he goes on to leave us
in the dark, as to what he is actually doing!
Frank P Russo: www.frankrusso.net
Which Bible was that? I think the NWT is total shit.
It's loaded with wooden literalism, it becomes such a chore
bore to read !
Thanks for pointing that out. I forgot that some
people would not be aware, of the
Investigator Journal's text: the
version Holman used was the
You're right, the NWT is
a very literal Translation: however, for any translation to remain
"accurate”, it has to be somewhat "literal"! To attempt to
convey a poetic, (or very "flowing" style), would destroy the
accuracy: I mean if you ever did any translating, (i.e. English/Italian), you
would know what I mean!
Regards and Best Wishes: Frank.
Yes certainly, but at the same time you
have to convey the message, not the words! I
have translated from Italian to English and vice versa,
and when you try and be literal with the words and not the message, you mess
everything up and the message actually becomes
distorted or unclear. I guess that's why most scholars despise the NWT, it's so
wooden... and I guess that's why the WTS constantly
"reminds" us to read their bible
everyday... because few really sit down and read it... it really is a chore.
as far as "adding" to the bible or making
it fit one's belief system, the WTS has got GUILTY
written all over them... I mean last night AR gave
a talk on why the Tetragrammaton exists in the new testament of the NWT. The
only argument he had (as does the WT) is that New Testament
writers often referred back to First Testament writers. Is that a fair
enough argument? perhaps so, for they were referring
or quoting to the first testament. But
at the end of the day, if God had
inspired them to write "Adonay" or Lord... why are they inserting YHWH??
It's obvious, because using Lord instead of the Tetragrammaton
will weaken their defence of their Unity of
Jehovah and Jesus, and it helps them explain away the trinity.
And by the way, they have inserted YHWH many more times
than just when New Testament writers were quoting Old Testament writers!
If you think that reading a couple of anti-JW books,
miraculously converts one into a scholar, you’re mistaken! For a start I’ve got
over 70 dictionary volumes of all sorts! The contrast was between a paraphrased
version and a literal version! Now in some dictionaries, there can
be over 10 shades of meaning for a given word! It would be very instructive for
you to go and read the
prefaces of the
“Young’s Literal Translation”, which is an early one. You must think that Bible
Translators are pretty dumb, to even compare any RUBBISH from the A.
Congregation etc. – their
‘scholar’ did not even finish elementary school, let alone Primary School! When
it comes to Bibles, a literal translation usually means, that one will always
stick to the
meaning of the
INSPIRED words, unless a deviation is obvious.
Where one does deviate, is obviously where there is
an idiomatic meaning: and one must bear in mind that the Bible
Languages are usually referred to as the DEAD
Languages … so don’t imagine that any idiom will stare the
translator in the face!
Often one can’t even pick the
literal word, let alone work out what ancient minds might have perceived! For a
start, there are
homonyms with totally different meanings; furthermore, there are
many words which have no precise meaning: the actual
vowels were added in towards the end of
the first millennium
AD … and chapters, verses, lower-case and punctuations much later! Furthermore,
a great many of the
SENSE-meanings, as you put it, are mere modern interpretations: e.g. the ”camel-gate”
for the “eye
of the needle” … in actual
fact if you investigate, you will find that in Aramaic, rope and camel are
written exactly identically, hence I scholarly would prefer, rope to camel any
day … even in Koine’, there is
only one letter that is discordant between the two
words (i.e. camel and rope)!
Hence a literal translation,
is one that sticks to the
inspired words, wherever this is deemed advisable. Whereas a paraphrase,
is like some Watchtower-answers, where one turns everything inside-out changing
often, meanings, words, contexts, etc.
As far as the NWT,
just because one changes his ‘spots’, does not make the NWT
bad … remember bitter people, who hate anything to do with JWs,
will be labelled as VINDICTIVE! What you should do is choose a camp – do you
want a Trinitarian view of things, or not? Then choose the sort
of Bible to read! One example of an idiom which JWs
cannot be criticised for, is my discovery that when the Bible
mentions “thousand”, that usually means, family, clan or tribe … hence the
massively large numbers in the Bible!
As far as God’s name you’re mistaken, JWs use Jehovah rather than YHWH! This issue is
somewhat complicated and may need appropriate tools to digest! In this area,
you may be surprised that one should deviate from the
Ps – you may have something to learn from Randy: he
changed his name from “Bethel
Ministries” to “Freeminds”.