Posts by bchamber

29

JESUS CHRIST -- I AM WHO I AM

by UnDisfellowshipped in

(exodus 3:13) and moses said to god, behold, when i come to the children of israel, and shall say to them, the god of your fathers has sent me to you; and they shall say to me, what is his name?

(exodus 3:14) and god said to moses, i am who i am: and he said, thus you shall say to the children of israel, i am has sent me to you.. (exodus 3:15) and god said moreover to moses, thus you shall say to the children of israel, jehovah the god of your fathers, the god of abraham, the god of isaac, and the god of jacob, has sent me to you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.. (john 8:24) i said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you do not believe that i am, you shall die in your sins.. (john 8:28) then jesus said to them, when you have lifted up the son of man, then you shall know that i am, and that i do nothing of myself; but as my father has taught me, i speak these things.. (john 8:53) are you greater than our father abraham, who is dead?

and the prophets are dead: who do you make yourself?.

bchamber

Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation

[email protected]

TRANSLATION COMPARISON

JOHN 8:58

Does John 8:58 show identity or pre-existence? The following translations and versions show pre-exist. Noticed that many of these translations are done by translation committees. Are they all wrong? Impossible.

1) New American Standard Version N.T. 1963) "Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born 2a , I am." Note: 2 or, I have been a comp. John 17:5, 24

2) Goodspeed, E. N.T. (1923) "Jesus said to them, I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born."

3) Williams, C.B. N.T. (1950) "Then Jesus said to them, I most solemnly say to you, I existed before Abraham was born."

4) Lamsa, G.M. N.T. (1940) "Jesus said to them, truly. truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I was."

5) Parker, P.G. Clarified N.T. "Jesus answered, before Abraham existed, I existed."

6) Twentieth Century N.T. (1904) "In truth I tell you, replied Jesus; before Abraham existed, I was."

7) The Living N.T. (paraphrased) (1967) "Jesus: The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham was ever born."

8) Kleist - Lilly N.T. (1956) Catholic "I tell you the plain truth. replied Jesus, I am here - and I was before Abraham."

9) Cotton Patch Version (1970) "To this Jesus replied, I existed before Abraham was born."

10) Ledyard, G.H. New Life Testament (1969) "Jesus said to them, for sure I tell you, before Abraham was born, I was and sum and always will be."

11) Dr. E.C. Dymond N.T. (1972) "Yes, indeed!; said Jesus: He saw me in prospect. The fact is, that long before Abraham was conceived in his mothers womb, that individual who I now am had been conceived in Gods mind: He had completed the plan and specifications, so to speak, and therefore He was able to give Abraham a mental preview of me".

12) Beck, W.F. N.T. (1967) "I tell you the truth, Jesus told them, I was before Abraham."

13) Good News for the World (1969) "Jesus answer, I tell you the truth. I already was before Abraham was born."

14) Wade, G.W. Documents of the N.T. (1934) "Jesus said to them, in very truth I tell you, before Abraham came into being, I have existed. "

15) Noli, M.F.S. N.T. (1961) "Jesus answered them: Well, well, I tell you, I existed before Abraham was born."

16) Greber, J. N.T. (1937) "I am speaking the truth, Jesus answered, I am older than Abraham."

17) Swann, G. N.T. (1947) "Jesus said to them, verily, verily I say unto you, I existed before Abraham was born".

18) Schonfield, H.J. Authentic N.T. (1956) "Jesus told them, I tell you for a positive fact, I existed before Abraham was born."

19) Murdock, J. N.T. Syriac Peshitto Version (1893) "Jesus said to them, verily, verily, I say to you, that before Abraham existed, I was."

20) Noyes, G.R. N.T. (1878) "Jesus said to them, truly, truly do I say to you, from before Abraham was, I have been."

21) Hanson, J.W. New Covenant (1884) "Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, I am before Abraham was born."

22) Moffatt, J. N.T. (1950) "Truly, truly I tell you!, said Jesus, I have existed before Abraham was born."

13) Moffatt, J. A Bible, a New Translation (1926) "I existed before Abraham was born."

23) Kraeling, E.G. Four Gospels (1962) "With another amen-saying, Jesus declares to them that before Abraham was, He (Jesus) is (hint of His preexistence) ."

24) Lewis, A.S. Four Gospels (Sinaitic Palimpsest) "He said unto them, verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I have been."

25) New World Translation "Jesus said to them: Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been."

26) Wakefield, G. N.T. (1795) "Jesus said unto them: Verily verily I say unto you, before Abraham was born, I am He."

27) International Bible Translators 1981 "Jesus said to them, I am telling the truth: I was alive before Abraham was born!"

28) Webster, N. The Holy Bible (1833) "Jesus said to them, verily, verily, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

29) Sharpe, S. The New Testament (1840) "I was before Abraham."

30) The Simple English Bible New Testament 1978) "I was alive before Abraham was born."

31) Gaus A. The Unvarnished New Testament (1991) "I have already been."

32) Miller, R.J. (Editor) The Complete Gospels (1992) "I existed"

33) New Living Translation Holy Bible (1996) "I existed before Abraham was even born."

34) The Book, New Testament "The absolute truth is that I existed before Abraham was ever born."

35) Lattimore, Richmond The Four Gospels and Revelation (1979) "Truly, truly I tell you, I am from before Abraham was born."

36) Contemporary English Version New Testament (1991) "I tell you, that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am."

37) Burkitt, F. C. The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels (1904) "Before Abraham came to be, I was."

38) Horner, G.W. The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect (1911) "Before Abraham became, I, I am being."

39) Christianson, C. J. The Concise Gospel and the Acts (1973) "I existed even before Abraham was born."

40) Nida A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John "Before Abraham existed, I existed, or I have existed."

Edited by - bchamber on 1 September 2002 21:59:59

103

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

bchamber

Earnest

I don't feel quite as strongly about their correction of the footnote as I would if they had amended Wilson's translation but agree some note to indicate the alteration should have been made. It would also have been more prudent to have cited Belsham's revision of Newcome's translation in the book 'Let God Be True' instead.

My point was that maybe they did not correct Wilson's true intention in regard to this footnote. It could very well be that Wilson did not agree with Belsham and charged it to suit his belief about the matter. It may very well be that the WTS charged what Wilson really wanted the footnote to say. We really don't know if that was the case or not. So, the WTS had NO right to change it and not make a note of it somewhere in the Diaglott.

The result of what they did was to mislead others. What they were really doing was using theirselves as proof of "fifteenth" and not necessarily Wilson. The reason they quoted Wilson is that many copies were in existance compared to Belsham.

Either way, what they were in reality doing is called "Theocratic Warfare". Its o.k. to mislead or lie to others as long as it helps the WTS or advances their theology.

I would like tot hank everyone who is a part of this topic list for I have really learned a lot by reading what you have said and by searching for TRUTH.

corrected typos

Edited by - bchamber on 30 August 2002 14:14:48

Edited by - bchamber on 30 August 2002 14:15:45

37

The word, "Jehovah"

by Dia in

.

i just read that the name, 'jehovah' was created 700 years ago by a catholic monk who took the vowels from the word, 'lord' and combined them with the letters yhwh (the unpronounceable, biblical term for god).. anyone ever heard this or know a credible source for this info?.

now here's potentially something to share with your next visiting jw!.

bchamber

Those thousands of bibles you've collected don't seem to have done much for you. All reliable greek nt manuscripts do not have yhwh in them, yet you reject their witness. The bible must be more of a compulsion for you, than a light pointing toward truth. SS

Yes, I have approx. 1435 different English translations of the Bible and parts thereof and many non-canonal books as well. Is it just a compulsion for me? Well, read on and see for yourself.

Its true that my collection might be said to be several collections - - but where does one stop? What is the Bible? What are the limits of inclusion in the Bible? The Jews believe that the Bible stops with Malachi. But up to about 120 yrs. ago, when the Jew used an English version, they had to use the King James, or it and a few selections of corrections. What makes the Apocrypha a part of the Bible? The Catholics? Ah, no, the King James Bible always had its version of the Apocrypha. The King James Bible always included a version of the Apocrypha, even though most Catholic translations dont include 2nd Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses. The books that were not specifically included - - The Pseudepigrapha (Apocryphal, both the Old Testament and New Testament) - - need to be "available" in order to examine their important value in early Christian teachings and also to see why they were excluded.

Some ministers and lay people believe that paraphrases should not be included in this work, because some of these paraphrases take extreme liberties with the text. I have run across some that are pretty padded. So I classified Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" as a padded paraphrase of the historical portions of the Old Testament. Did I stretch his intention too far?

Where does the N.T. stop? The Syriac claim that Revelations and some short books preceding are not part of the canon. Some Church Fathers have accepted other titles such as the Shepherd of Hermas. And the old Uncials included 1st. Clement and others. Are we going to let Catholic councils refuse us the permission to examine the evidence?

What is Muhammadanism but an offshoot from Christianity? It refers to the Bible in places and seems to tell a different account of what happened in the few instances they "compare." If I "must know that much" surely accounts didnt stop there, that claim non-human origin. So, would it suit one better if I called it a Scripture in English collection?

"Bible History" as researched by modern scholarship dont do more than intrigue the curiosity. I want to examine the ancient written evidence myself. "Theology" doesnt interest me from modern viewpoints. I want to see what it is based on. If I am to know truth, surely I need to know it for myself, and not somebody elses digest and opinion of it. What did they believe "then"?

Your reaction to all this may show you that I am not a Bible collector for collecting sake, but for understanding. I liked English little enough in school. I have no desire to be bogged down in the technicalities of the original languages. Variant translations seem the ideal way of understanding the opinions of what was originally written, though there is no full equivalency to be expected between languages. Therefore, we need translations that better reveal how the original expressed itself (literal), translations that express the thought that the translator "understood" and paraphrases which bring out the opinions of what scholars conclude was understood by the original readers.

"If I am to know truth, surely I need to know it for myself, and not somebody elses digest and opinion of it." That statement should hold true for JWs as well.

Just because I don't agree with some on the topic list, does not mean that I am a JW nor that I don't know what I am talking about, etc.

Joseph

The real evidence is that the name does not appear in any reliable manuscripts and another argument can be made that it was added in some obscure translations or copies instead of being deleted and so the argument never ends.

Partly true.

"The real evidence is that the name does not appear in any reliable manuscripts..." What do you call reliable manuscripts? Is it just those that support your agrument?

"...another argument can be made that it was added in some obscure translations or copies instead of being deleted" conjecture on your side of the argument. Who is to say it was added in these "obscure" translations or copies? Yes, "so the argument never ends." There is no way in which to prove or disapprove just as their is no way to prove or disapprove how YHWH is to be pronounced.

I really do learn a lot from lists as this one and for that I thank you all who participate. Yes, even SS.

103

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

bchamber

Earnest

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. With that in mind, I humbly submit the following about the Emphatic Diaglott.

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 WTB&TS 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: "The '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."

The first edition read "fifth century" and was an incorrect quotation, not from Newcome's translation of 1808 for I have a copy of it 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. Neither 1942 edition states "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. 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"

rev. typos

Edited by - bchamber on 27 August 2002 18:38:44

37

The word, "Jehovah"

by Dia in

.

i just read that the name, 'jehovah' was created 700 years ago by a catholic monk who took the vowels from the word, 'lord' and combined them with the letters yhwh (the unpronounceable, biblical term for god).. anyone ever heard this or know a credible source for this info?.

now here's potentially something to share with your next visiting jw!.

bchamber

37

The word, "Jehovah"

by Dia in

.

i just read that the name, 'jehovah' was created 700 years ago by a catholic monk who took the vowels from the word, 'lord' and combined them with the letters yhwh (the unpronounceable, biblical term for god).. anyone ever heard this or know a credible source for this info?.

now here's potentially something to share with your next visiting jw!.

bchamber

The copy of the Septuigent that I seen a copy of retained the Hebrew letters where God names was and did not translate them into Greek. It wasn't until after the time of Jesus (which is an English word - not Hebrew) that the YHWH was removed from the Septuigent.

So, if Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and he was quoting from the Septuigent, it seems to me he would have also reatined YHWH in his writing.

Did Jesus ever use his Father's name when speaking (John 17:6 & 26)? By the way, I don't believe (I could be wrong) that there is a Greek word for YHWH.

pomegranate isn't even worth responding to for he just is not rational or reasonable. He has had a really bad experience and it shows in his replies. He hates Jews. More and sadly, he hates God and it shows. There isn't anything I (we) can say to help him. He has got to want to be helped first and its evident that he is not at that point.

Edited by - bchamber on 23 August 2002 9:51:8

103

IS the NWT really the WT Bible?

by Bleep in

just wondered how many people this this is all true.

feel free to really think about this one and provide proof and examples.

bchamber

Someone on one of the other topics, when he found out that I am an expert on English Bible translations, made a statement to me "you can therefore attest that the New World Translation Bible...is the most scholarly Bible in circulation. It is certainly a refreshing translation that brings the Creators message into our living language".

I would like for you to read my response to that person. It follows with some additional info.

Yes, the NWT is easy to read and understand, mainly, because it was written in the English we use today.

However, there is NO perfect translation of the Bible. There is always something lost when translating from one language into another. Also, ALL Bible translators are bias mainly because of their own religious beliefs.

This is also true of the NWT.

Knowing that, you can then understand my next statement. All translations are the Word of God. It doesnt matter how well the translation is or how bad it is, they are all the Word of God. Do translators make mistakes as well? You bet they do. Does that make their work something less than the Word of God?

The NWT does have a lot of good points that speaks for the translators. Were they bias in their work? Yes, they were as can be seen in many scriptures. This is NOT the place to get into that.

In answer to your unasked question, yes I do use the NWT just as I do my other 1,435 different English translations that I have. I do have a copy of every Bible the WTB&TS published. This includes the two different copies of the Emphatic Diaglott by B. Wilson that they published. Did you know there were two different ones? Until I wrote an article about it, I don't think many other people knew that fact. The WTB&TS does not state anywhere that they changed Wilson's Diaglott. I found the change and confronted them with it and they gave me all kinds of reasons which just doesn't justify changing someone else's work with stating so on the title page.

One last item, would I recommend the NWT to people? Yes I would. However, I would want them to know the above facts first first.

The NWT has a lot of very good points that would recommend it. However, it is no where near a perfect translation. The men who worked on this Bible may not have been fluent in the origial languages and may have taken the good from this taranslation and that one to put the NWT together. They did use some very good expressions that are not in anyother translation that I have investigated and so they did do some original translating on their own.

Another point you may not realize is the the men who worked on the KJV did exactly the same thing as the NWT men did. The KJV men were directed to follow 15 guidelines in putting together a new Bible. One of them was to take the good from the previous translations to make their KJV. 90% of the NT is Tyndale's N.T. They took parts of Coverdales Bible, Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, Rheims/Douay Bible, Geneva Bible, along with very little new translations of their own and made the most important work of all time. So don't criticize the men who put the NWT together. It is still God's word.

Oh, one thing I noticed from one of the other replies. Yes, you can use almost anyother translation when reading the WT and Awake magazines. Why, because they quote from them when it supports their viewpoint. If you were to use just your own translation when reading the magazines, you will find a lot of places that do not agree with your Bible. That is where you nust be very careful.

Let me take a small amount of space to show you why I collect English Bible translations.

I now have approx. 1,435 different English translations of the Bible and parts thereof and many (around 200) non-canonical books as well.

Its true that my collection might be said to be several collections - - but where does one stop? What is the Bible? What are the limits of inclusion in the Bible? The Jews believe that the Bible stops with Malachi. But up to about 120 yrs. ago, when the Jew used an English version, they had to use the King James, or it and a few selections of corrections. What makes the Apocrypha a part of the Bible? The Catholics? Ah, no, the King James Bible always had its version of the Apocrypha. The King James Bible always included a version of the Apocrypha, even though most Catholic translations dont include 2nd Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses. The books that were not specifically included - - The Pseudepigrapha (Apocryphal, both the Old Testament and New Testament) - - need to be "available" in order to examine their important value in early Christian teachings and also to see why they were excluded.

Some ministers and lay people believe that paraphrases should not be included in this work, because some of these paraphrases take extreme liberties with the text. I have run across some that are pretty padded. So I classified Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" as a padded paraphrase of the historical portions of the Old Testament. Did I stretch his intention too far?

Where does the N.T. stop? The Syriac claim that Revelations and some short books preceding are not part of the canon. Some Church Fathers have accepted other titles such as the Shepherd of Hermas. And the old Uncials included 1st. Clement and others. Are we going to let Catholic councils refuse us the permission to examine the evidence?

What is Muhammadanism but an offshoot from Christianity? It refers to the Bible in places and seems to tell a different account of what happened in the few instances they "compare." If I "must know that much" surely accounts didnt stop there, that claim non-human origin. So, would it suit one better if I called it a Scripture in English collection?

"Bible History" as researched by modern scholarship dont do more than intrigue the curiosity. I want to examine the ancient written evidence myself. "Theology" doesnt interest me from modern viewpoints (although I do read a lot of it). I want to see what it is based on. If I am to know truth, surely I need to know it for myself, and not somebody elses digest and opinion of it. What did they believe "then"?

Your reaction to all this may show you that I am not a Bible collector for collecting sake, but for understanding. I liked English little enough in school. I have no desire to be bogged down in the technicalities of the original languages even if the original autographs were to be found. Variant translations seem the ideal way of understanding the opinions of what was originally written, though there is no full equivalency to be expected between languages. Therefore, we need translations that better reveal how the original expressed itself (literal), translations that express the thought that the translator "understood" and paraphrases which bring out the opinions of what scholars conclude was understood by the original readers.

Thus, our 1435 or more translations and versions.

I, personally, use the RSV, Green's Interlinear, ERV for my study Bibles. However, I do use whatever is necessary in order to better understand.

My most favorite Bible is a small translation of the Psalms by King James, dated 1632. Did any of you know that King James was a scholar and did a translation himself?

One other tidbit is that I have approx. 10 different scripture comparisons on the Web at a JW site and I am NOT a JW. If interested, I will give whoever the address.

Yes, I am an expert in English translations of the Bible. Let me tell you just a little bit about me.

I am the Director of The Bible Museum and Biblical Research Foundation, a non-profit organization accepted by the IRS. IRS #509(a)(1) & 170(b)(1)(A)(vi), Fed. #38-2633578, State of MI #733-568

I operate BMRFBooks (Our outlet for donated books not used)

I am Vice-President of the International Society of Bible Collectors

I am an Author. My book is titled: "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 set a new standard in its field.)

I am an author of 47 published articles.

Edited by - bchamber on 23 August 2002 15:37:45

Edited by - bchamber on 23 August 2002 15:39:38

23

NWT. Question

by searcher in

the nwt is a trnslation of the bible.(jw).

the jw's believe that something is only true if there are two witnesses.. the question is... why do the jw's belive that the nwt is a 'true translation' when there is only one witness to it.

searcher.

bchamber

Little Toe

In ref to your question, I submit the following.

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."

The first edition read "fifth century" and was an incorrect quotation, not from Newcome's translation of 1808 for I have a copy of it 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 1942 editions 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. 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

Vice-President of the International Society of Bible Collectors

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.

37

The word, "Jehovah"

by Dia in

.

i just read that the name, 'jehovah' was created 700 years ago by a catholic monk who took the vowels from the word, 'lord' and combined them with the letters yhwh (the unpronounceable, biblical term for god).. anyone ever heard this or know a credible source for this info?.

now here's potentially something to share with your next visiting jw!.

bchamber

pomegranate

It seems to me that, from all that you say, that you really must NOT have any creditability as to what you say. You are anti-semite, anti-Christian, ant-everything. At least Joseph does try to give an objective opinion. people will listen to him because of that. If you want anyone of any intelligence to listen to what you say, then you need to change your attitude and how and what you say.

How do you know that Yahweh or Jehovah is NOT the correct pronunciation? You don't.

By the way, there are a lot of writings still in existence today from that period of time and so, don't you think it likely that when the Jews stopped pronouncing God name can not be ascertained? Just because they stop pronouncing His name doesn't mean they stop writing the Name or removed His name from their writings.

Joseph

If the Apostles and their immediate followers "kept to strict Jewish tradition", then why did they stop doing some of the traditions? Example being circumcision. This took place before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce and so shortly after the death of Jesus. There are other traditions that we know about that they did not follow and so why would they not continue to use the Name that even Jesus used. That is a fact that you can not deny.

Yes, Paul was instrumental in helping to change some of the traditions that were strictly Jewish.

But, it was until after that when Matthew wrote his Gospel more than likely in Hebrew wher he was quoting from the Septuigent. Yes, he quoted from the Septuigent which can be determined from the words he used.

Well, I got to go. I will try to get back to this soon.

bchamber

109

Dr. Bergman

by Jerry Bergman in

i have now read the section that deals with me.

all i can say is i am amazed!!!

don't my critics have any concern about the facts???

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