Re: LA MENTIRA ELENA G. WHITE Walter T. Rea
JA, JA, JA, JA, JA, JA, JA, JAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Me parece, sectario, que ese camino no lo tengo delante, sino detrás. Vamos a refrescar un poco tu corta memoria. En 1919 hubo un interesante congreso de "educadores" adventistas. Por una de esas "casualidades" casuales del adventismo, las actas de aquel congreso se "traspapelaron" durante más de medio siglo, hasta que, desaparecidos todos los participantes de aquel encuentro, alguien las volvió a "encontrar". Su "redescubrimiento" sacó a la luz algunos intercambios de ideas muy "interesantes" por parte de aquellos "educadores" y dirigentes de la secta adventista. Uno de los participantes fue un tal Arthur G. Daniells. Quizá te suene. Fue presidente de la Asociación General de la secta adventista. Era el presidente en aquel momento. La momia de Ellen White criaba malvas desde hacía cuatro años. Pues bien, el "bueno" de Daniells expresó lo siguiente:
"Now you know something about that little book, (Sketches From) the Life of Paul (originally published in 1883). You know the difficulty we got into about that. We could never claim inspiration in the whole thought and make up of the book, because it has been thrown aside because it was badly put together. Credits were not given to the proper authorities, and some of that crept into The Great Controversy. ... I suppose you all know about it and knew what claims were put up against her, charges made of plagiarism, even by the authors of the book, Conybeare and Howson, and were liable to make the denomination trouble because there was so much of their book put into (Sketches From) the Life of Paul without any credit or quotation marks. ... I found it out, and I read it with Brother Palmer when he found it, and we got Conybeare and Howson, and we got Wylie's History of the Reformation, and we read word for word, page after page, and no quotations, no credit, and really I did not know the difference until I began to compare them. I supposed it was Sister White's own work! ... There I saw the manifestation of the human in these writings. Of course I could have said this, and I did say it, that I wished a different course had been taken in the compilation of the books. If proper care had been exercised, it would have saved a lot of people from being thrown off the track. ..."
Como tiene poco desperdicio, traduzcámoslo con divertimento:
"Ahora sabéis algo de aquel librito (Sketches From) the Life of Paul (publicado por primera vez en 1883). Sabéis en el lío en que nos metimos con eso. Nunca podría haber reivindicado la inspiración en todo el pensamiento y la composición del libro, porque ha sido desechado porque se montó mal. No se dio reconocimiento de autoría a las debidas autoridades, y parte de eso entró subrepticiamente en El conflicto de los siglos... Supongo que todos conocéis esto y conocisteis las acusaciones que se vertieron contra ella, acusaciones de plagio, incluso por parte de los autores del libro, Conybeare y Howson, y eran capaces de poner en apuros a la denominación porque había tanto de su libro metido en (Sketches From) the Life of Paul sin ningún reconocimiento de autoría ni entrecomillado... Supe de ello, y lo leí con el Hermano Palmer cuando él lo descubrió, y echamos mano [del libro] de Conybeare y Howson, y echamos mano de[l libro] History of the Reformation, de Wylie, y leímos palabra por palabra, página tras página, y ni una cita, nada de reconocimiento de autoría, y en realidad no me di cuenta de la diferencia hasta que empecé a compararlos. ¡Yo suponía que era la obra de la propia Hermana White! ... Ahí vi la manifestación de lo humano en estos escritos. Por supuesto, yo podría haber dicho esto, y sí que lo dije, que ojalá que se hubiese adoptado una dirección diferente en la compilación de los libros. Si se hubiese tenido el debido cuidado, habría evitado que muchas personas se apartasen de la senda.. ..."
¡Qué interesante! O sea, según el entonces presidente de la Asociación General (y nadie lo corrigió) las obras "literarias" de la tal Ellen White eran "compilaciones", algunas de las cuales estaban no muy bien hechas. El grado de chapuza plagiaria fue tan grande que hubo al menos una obra, la Vida del apóstol Pablo escrita por los autores británicos Conybeare y Howson, vilmente asaltada y metida a saco en el infame Sketches from the Life of Paul de la tal White, que hasta los autores (no la editorial inglesa, sino los autores) estuvieron dispuestos a "meter en apuros" a la corrupta "denominación" adventista, y, por ello, el libro tuvo que ser "desechado".
Ahora, "Joelice", nos cuentas una de tus típicas mongoladas sectarias de que hay un gran camino por delante para probar lo que ha estado probado desde siempre.
Ha sido un placer.
Saludos cordiales
Vuestras viles acusaciones no son nada nuevas. Estas fueron resueltas hace tiempo. ¿Acaso cree que le tomara el pelo a los adventistas? ¿Crees que somos tan ignorantes?
La famosa CG de 1919 esta llena de polemicas, malentendidos y otros asuntos. Esto a llevado a varios adventistas a formular mitos y teorias los cuales no tienen mucho fundamente. Mucho de la informacion que proveen los ex-adventistas es cierta. Incluso esta famosa cita es totalmente cierta.
Ni siquiera te molestastes en "copy paste" de esta pagina:
http://www.geocities.com/alfil2_1999/1919a.html
Suponiendo que dominas el ingles te dejo con estos articulos que conoces concerniente a la CG 1919 y a el libro Sketches from the Life of Paul:
#103: It was plagiarized in its entirety. This writer has both Mrs. White's 1883 book and Conybeare and Howson's book, and this wild charge is simply not true. As well as being different in both wording and size, the books definitely differ on basic interpretations of verses dealing with Paul's life.
F. D. Nichol's book, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, was published in 1951. It gives statistics for how much material from Conybeare and Howson was included in Sketches. Direct quotations of words, phrases, and clauses, along with close paraphrases, amount to 7% of Mrs. White's book being taken from 4% of Conybeare's book. Another book utilized in this way was one by Farrar. 4% of her book came from 2% of his book. If we throw in loose paraphrases for good measure, we have a total of 15.35% of her book being taken from these two sources (pp. 424-426). This is a far cry from being "plagiarized in its entirety."
Script writer Lorri MacGregor sent this author alleged documentation to support this long-ago debunked lawsuit myth. It consisted of the 1919 Bible Conference Minutes published in volume 10, number 1, of Spectrum. Spectrum is a theologically liberal journal which does not take the position that the Bible, the infallible Word of God, is the final authority in matters of faith and practice. This has led through the years to its publishing of articles endorsing evolution and denying the substitutionary atonement of Christ.
In these minutes discovered in the 1970's, General Conference president A. G. Daniells says that he compared Sketches with Conybeare, "and we read word for word, page after page, and no quotations, no credit, and really I did not know the difference until I began to compare them."
Obviously, he didn't know what he was talking about. The books are not the same "word for word, page after page."
A number of major factual errors like this one, coupled with the fact that the minutes were only recently discovered, raises the question of whether they are a forgery. It appears, however, that they are indeed genuine, and that sometimes Daniells would shoot from the hip, without being particular about accuracy. At times he would grossly exaggerate.
The documentation package is supposed to prove this charge under "Point 55." Rather than proof being given, a citation appears from page 27 of The White Lie which claims that Conybeare and Howson's book is "similar" to Mrs. White's book. Thus once again the documentation package proves the falsity of the video's charges, for if the books are "similar," they cannot be identical, and thus Sketches was not "plagiarized in its entirety."
#104: It resulted in a lawsuit. This myth was debunked at least by 1951 in F. D. Nichol's book.
First of all, Conybeare and Howson's book was from Britain. Since there was no copyright protection in the US for British works written prior to July 1, 1891, it was in the public domain. There thus was no legal basis for such a lawsuit.
Second, even if their book had been written after 1891, copyright protection still did not yet cover the making of derivative works. Conybeare and Howson would have had to prove in a court of law that Mrs. White's book was a plagiarized work, not a derivative work. They would have been hard pressed to do so.
The Thomas Y. Crowell Company of New York, a US publisher of Conybeare's book, wrote in 1924:
We publish Conybeare's LIFE AND EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLE PAUL but this is not a copyrighted book and we would have no legal grounds for action against your book and we do not think that we have ever raised any objection or made any claim such as you speak of.—Nichol, p. 456.
Thomas Y. Crowell was just one publisher of Conybeare's book in America. By law they could freely publish the book without sending any royalties back to Britain, and never get sued, for it just was not a copyrighted work. Since they themselves were publishing the book in its entirety without needing to get permission, they well knew that there could be no lawsuit.
D. M. Canright, an extremely bitter former Adventist, included the lawsuit myth in his 1919 book, Life of Mrs. E. G. White. According to Nichol's research, this is the first time the myth appeared in print, the very year of the above mentioned Bible Conference. According to the 1919 Bible Conference Minutes, A. G. Daniells did mention the lawsuit story as if it were a fact. All this shows is that Daniells likely read Canright's book and thought that the myth was factual. Yet Canright offered no proof whatsoever of the charge, and there was no possibility that it could have been true (Nichol, p. 438).
Sketches was published in 1883. Canright's first book against Adventism and Mrs. White, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, came out in 1889. It contained three short paragraphs about plagiarism, but never mentioned a lawsuit. Over the next 25 years, it went through 14 editions, but the lawsuit myth was never included (Ibid., p. 429). All this indicates that nobody had yet dreamed up this particular fable.
#105: It was quickly taken out of print. Sketches was published in 1883. The Signs of the Times [p. 77] promoted it through most of 1885. As late as 1887, editions of The Great Controversy sold by colporteurs to the general public contained direct advertisements for the book.
American editions of The Great Controversy mentioned Sketches on the title page. Editions in England, homeland of Conybeare and Howson, mentioned Sketches on the title page as late as 1907. Nichol put it well: "What a strange way to 'suppress' a book!" (pp. 443-446).
Deshonesto, ¿porque ignoras la otra evidencia? ¿Donde esta la prueba del plagio? ¿Donde estan los autores "reclamando" su vindicacion de sus libros plagiados por EGW?
