Dr. Bergman (page 6)

simwitness

I am reading them, and I am sure others are also.

What kind of assistance do you need to post the documents you reffered to?

spider

I am reading your posts also. I don't understand everything that is said in them but I find them facinating nonetheless. I hope you continue to post.

We need more than just http://www.culticstudiesreview.org to easily find what it is you want us to read. This takes us to a general page. if we need to search all through a site, we will give up and you have lost.

Please give better directions by going to it yourself first.

Thanks.

Bchamber

amac

Bchamber,

I am interested in more information on your book about English Bible Translations. Can you please post some more info?

Thanks.

bchamber

I believe that we should be cautious and/or discreet in how we refer to the work of any religious group. Yes, we should be careful about how we word our negative comments as well.

I have two editions of Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott both dated 1942 and both published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. One of them reads differently in the footnote for 1John 5:7 from the other. One states that "This text concerning the heavenly witnesses is not in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century." The other states "fifth" century. A book the WTB7TS published titled, "Let God Be True" presented the footnote the way it was in the revised edition of the Diaglott (15th century). The 1st edition of the Diaglott, which I have in my collection, states at 1 John 5:7 footnote "fifth century." So, I wrote the WT Society on July 26, 1971 about this contradiction in dates.

In their reply, dated August 17, 1971, the WT Society stated: "Let God Be True' quoted the Emphatic Diaglott and did so for the sake of furnishing authoritative support to the argument in the text of the book. Since Wilson and the Emphatic Diaglott misquoted the original source of information, using fifth' instead of fifteenth,' then it was perfectly proper for the Let God Be true' book to present the correct quotation, instead of Wilson's incorrect quotation... Wilson did not mean for incorrect information to be contained in his footnote and we do not know whether he was incorrect in his original printing of this footnote... So the Let God Be True' book presented the footnote the way it has been corrected in the revised edition of the Diaglott and which conforms to the original source of the footnote (Newcome's translation of 1808), which footnote Wilson intended to be correct, and which may have been correct in its first printing."

My first edition of the Emphatic Diaglott reads "fifth century" and was an incorrect quotation, not from Newcome's translation of 1808 for I have a copy of Newcome also, but from Belsham's revision of Newcome's translation which was published in 1809, which I also have in my collection.

The problem is this: the WT Society changed Wilson's text and did not state so in their copy of his work. The one 1942 edition (the one revised) do not say "Revised" anywhere on the title page or anywhere else in the Diaglott. They were using Wilson as a authoritative support when he did not say 15th century and not telling anyone that was the case.

It makes no difference whether Wilson made an error in his quote from Belsham's translation of the N.T. or not. Maybe he meant to change it to what he had in his Diaglott. Maybe he did not agree with Belsham. Who is the WT Soc. to say that he made a mistake and so change HIS work and then pass it off as HIS words to support their agreement.

Sure, if I was in the position of the WT Society, I would have corrected the quotation and would have made a note that I corrected it on the title page and would never have quoted it in their book the way they did. You just don't pass off something you did and lead the readers to believe that it was the original work of whoever. (To me that is lying to your readers.)

Now, it appears that the Gideons are doing the same thing. They are making changes to the text and not saying so and where the charges are located and passing them off as the original text of the NIV or whichever translation or version they changed. It does not matter whether they had approval from the copyright holders or not. The right thing to do is to place a statement on the title page: "Revised Edition by the Gideons".

This practice is missing leading to the readers.

Bill C

Director of the Bible Museum & Biblical Research Foundation, a non-profit organization, accepted by the IRS under IRS #509(a)(1) & 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). The IRS number for tax deduction purposes is Fed. #38-2633578. The State of MI #733-568.

Vice-President of the International Society of Bible Collectors, http://www.biblecollectors.org/index.htm

Author:

"Catalogue of English Bible Translations; A Classified Bibliography of Versions and Editions Including Books, Parts, and Old and New Testament Apocrypha and Apocryphal Books" William J. Chamberlin. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1991.

(Still in print after 11 yrs. This is a 898 page reference book which has set a new standard in its field. You can find it listed with Barnes & Noble. Its very expensive though.)

Author of 47 published articles.

bchamber

Dear Detective

The reason I responded the way I did was so there would be NO doubt. I just did not want any misunderstandings. People do read things into what is not said as well as what IS said..

Do coincidences happen? Sure they do. However, there are many who may not think so. And so I decided to respond to your question with a little more than just "it's just a coincidence."

I noticed that you did not answer my question about who you are. Why?

When some people hid their identity, it may be for a good reason or, maybe, they just don't want others to know what their biases may be in regards to certain subjects. Those type of people become suspect in the minds of others. Why are they trying to hid? What are they hidding from? What is their agenda?

And so, I always give longer answers than necessary. I want to be perfectly clear with what I say. That way, if someone tried to say that I said such and such, everyone will know exactly what was really said. They would then know what the nameless person's agenda really is.

Now, how's that for a reply to your very simple comment.

Please don't try to make me out to be someone I am not. I am an expert in my field as my book will attest to. I really believe if a perosn would only read Dr. Bergman's writings with an open mind and, if there are questions in your mind, then write to the author and ask those questions, you will find that Dr. Bergman also is an expert in his field. By going to other persons for answers to your questions about someone else's writings your are getting a biased answer (for we are all biased in our beliefs)and, by the way, that person does not know exactly what was in the mind of the writer or the actual purpose behind the writing.

In partial answer to Iarc 082002.

As I said in a previous reply, I did read Dr. Bergman's book on J.W.s and Mental Heath. Since I also follow my own advice, I wrote Dr. Bergman about my questions on what he wrote. Its important to know that at the time he wrote the book he was still a JW in gooding standing with the WT Soc. He wrote the book mainly for those JW's who had problems because the WT Soc. did not encourage JW's to seek help for mental problems, in fact, they told them NOT to seek help. Dr. Bergman, being a psychologist, did research to see what he could find in order to help those JW's, after all this was his field of expertise.

He found that, at that time, there was not a lot of research available and so he used what was out there; ie. items from the 1940 through the 1950s.

My time is running short so I will conclude with this. Dr. Bergman's book is in need of revision to bring it more up-yo-date using more recent data that may be available. There is no doubt about that. Its just as in my own case. My book was first published in 1991. I have kept it up-to-date in my computer. It needs to be republished with all my additionals since 1991 and also the few errors found need to be corrected. Just because it may be out dated does not mean that its still not useful. The same with Dr. Bergman's book.

One last item. Its good to be critical of a writing. It stimulates these kinds of discussions, some bad but most useful. These kinds of interaction helps a writer to improve on the next publication. Isn't that what we all want?

Bchamber

Edited by - bchamber on 22 August 2002 13:23:29

Jerry Bergman

Do a search using my name should get it. The article is on Theocratic War Also there is no way one will follow my response to my German critics without some familiarity with my case. A summary of my BGSU case is found at: http://www.rae.org/BergmanTenure.htm

Dr. Bergman

Share this