1. This document to which I am replying is not a "review" as the title claims, but an attack on the Authorized Version and a plea for the Revised Version.
2. The reviewers failed in this document to notice, much less to justify the apostate, Romanizing, and Unitarian character of Westcott and Hort, as presented in my book.
3. They likewise failed even to notice, much less to answer, the grave charges my book brought against Philip Schaff, President of both American theological colleges.
4. Their document, likewise, ignored and failed to meet the argument drawn from the Oxford movement which Jesuitized England, revised her Protestant prayer book and articles of faith, and created the men and measures which could produce the Revised Version.
5. They failed to notice, much less to answer my argument drawn from the fact that five great churches which never bowed the knee to Rome the Celtic, the Gallic and Italic, the Syrac and Byzantine early possessed a Bible of the Textus Receptus type.
6. They failed to notice or to meet the arguments drawn from the Council of Trent, which voted as its first four articles: (1) Putting the Vulgate on its feet; (2) Establishing the Apocryphal books; (3) Establishing tradition, and (4) Taking the interpretation of the Bible out of the hands of the laity; all of which split the world into Protestantism and Catholicism.
They failed to meet the indisputable testimony which I brought forth from Catholic scholars, that in the Revised Version were restored the Catholic readings denounced in Reformation and post-Reformation times.
7. They made no attempt to handle the argument drawn from the chapter, "The Reformers Reject the Bible of the Papacy."
8. They failed completely to meet, or even to notice, the tremendous argument drawn from the great struggle over the Jesuit Bible of 1582.
9. They failed to notice, much less to answer the tremendous argument drawn from my chapter, which gave the history of the men, the documents and the methods under which the Authorized Version was born.
10. They paid absolutely no attention to my chapter. "Three Hundred Years of Attack on the King James Version", which showed the monumental work done by Jesuits, higher critics, and pantheistic German scholars in undermining the inspired evidences laid by the prophets of God for His divine word, which evidences lead all men to see that the miracle of inspiration. These higher critics substituted for these evidences their subtle, pantheistic, Romanizing, Unitarianistic figments of imagination under the dignified title of critical intuition.
11. When my book found that the text of the Revised Version was wrong in the margin they fell back on the manuscripts; when they could find no refuge in the manuscripts they plead parallel passages in other places; then there was no help in parallel passages, they sought refuge in tearing up the established usage of words, they resorted to theological argument.
12. They failed in their argument on MSS because they grouped together two thousand noble cursives as one witness and called them the Textus Receptus, even though they ranged over a thousand years, representing many different countries and representing many different churches.
13. In this reply I have completely vindicated myself from the severe charge brought by the review of "untrustworthy manipulation" "deliberate perversion of facts", "splitting sentences", and other like charges. I have shown that these accusations were based largely on my reviewer's mistakes.
14. In section II, I sustained the MSS on which the Textus Receptus was based against the unjust charges of being late, faulty and unreliable. I brought the testimony of even the Revisers that it was as ancient as any other text, and represented by thousands of manuscripts. I vindicated Erasmus from the charge of being a Catholic, subservient to the papacy and of bringing out a Catholic text. These charges were made in the face of the Spirit of Prophecy, crediting him with (1) correcting errors of former versions; (2) of giving a great impetus to the work of reform and (3) of completing through Tyndale the work of giving the Bible in England.
15. On the other hand my reviewers failed to show why the world in general and our people in particular should not have at least one book which tells them the real truth against the misrepresentations appearing everywhere, cast upon Erasmus, upon the Authorized Version and upon the Waldenses.
16. In Section V, I vindicated the AV against the charge that it was out of date because it was not based upon the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. I prove these MSS to be corrupt documents and would render questionable a version based upon them.
17. My reviewers failed to prove why God, as their arguments indicate, left his people fifteen hundred years or more exposed to that faulty Textus Receptus (As they say) until the excellencies of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were revealed; the one through the courtesy of the pope, the other through the courtesy of a Catholic convent.
18. My reviewers did not tell why we should endorse the most marked and deplorable departures of the Revised Greek N.T. from the Textus Receptus, when those were supported by less than one per cent of all available witnesses.
19. In section III, I cleared the Waldenses from the charges that they did not possess manuscripts directly descended from the apostolic originals. My reviewers denied this fact notwithstanding the opposite statements of the Spirit of Prophecy, and other authorities.
20. In section IV, I vindicated my book and my conclusions as being in harmony with the Spirit of Prophecy, which according to the Index, makes 15,117 references to the Bible. Of these, more than ninety-five out of every one hundred are from the Authorised Version. On the other hand Sister White endorsed over thirty of the AV texts considered in my book, but which were changed or omitted in the Revised Version. These changes were endorsed by my reviewers, placing themselves here, with the textual critics against Sr. White.
21. They failed to show how my book could have any detrimental influence, since it represents the position of Sister White and fundamentalists in general, and the vast majority of the lay members of this denomination.
22. In Section VI, I vindicated the sacred origin given to words when Tyndale, as Sr. White says, was impelled by the Spirit of God to open a closed Bible to the people of England. I further vindicated the established usage of those words such as "miracle", "be converted"; "world" etc., against modernistic, pantheistic and Romanist substitution therefore.
23. My reviewers failed to justify those changes. They attempted to do it on the ground of textual criticism and took their stand with modern textual critics.
24. A very significant fact which my reviewers overlooked is that the General Convention of the American Episcopal Church formally refused, in 1892, to give the clergy liberty to use the English Revised Version and they took similar action in 1904 regarding the American Edition.
25. They also overlooked the fact that the Revised Version was not accepted by the northern half of the Church of England.
26. They failed to inform us that a committee of 34 Hebrew and Greek Scholars appointed to investigate for the Tercentary Celebration of the Authorized in 1911, the Validity of its original texts in the light of 300 years of history, in its report rejected 98% of the changes made by the Revisers.
27. I also sustained the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ against the license taken with such texts as 1.Tim.3:16 in the ARV.
28. I also vindicated our great truth, special to Seventh-day Adventists, of the cleansing of the sanctuary against the modernistic translation of Acts 3:19 in the ARV.
29. I also sustained the AV rendering of the texts on the law, 1.John 3:4, Col.2:16; Rev.22:14, supported by the Spirit of Prophecy against the damaging change in the ARV.
30. I also sustained good old Protestant and Adventist texts on the Second Coming of the Lord against the vague, and modernistic renderings in the ARV.
31. I also sustained those texts on the state of the dead which were changed by the Revisers to favor the intermediate state, purgatory, and spiritualism.
32. I also sustained the AV in its rendering of the texts on the Sabbath against such damaging changes as opened the way for Sunday keepers to defend the abolition of the Sabbath.
33. My reviewers failed to show that in my book I said anything against any article of faith of the Seventh-day Adventists or that I was: in any way guilty of heresy.
34. They gave no reason why all the different versions which contain dangerous readings should not be checked up and their dangers as well as their advantages be made known to the people.
35. They failed to show why the people shouldn't have a book to tell them the story of how the Bible has come to us, not according to the vagaries and varied whims of textual critics, but in accordance with the spirit of Prophecy.
36. They failed in the way they wrote this "review" to show any just cause for the document. It is highly controversial. By their exaltation of the Revisers and the Revised Version, and their disparagements of the Waldenses, of Erasmus, the Textus Receptus, and the AV, they have vindicated more than ever the need of just such a book as I have written.
37. They failed to show why, when the modernistic press is pouring forth books belittling the Waldenses, Erasmus, the Textus Receptus and the AV., it is not only highly desirable, but positively necessary that a book such as mine should give the public the viral facts.
38. When I published my book I did not know of the action of the Minority Quorum of the General Conference voting to consider the AV and the RV on an equality. But when my reviewers published their document, they knew of this action. Nevertheless in their document they plainly violated this action, for any one who reads their document cannot help but see that they uniformly argue for the superiority of the Revised over the Authorized.
39. Plain evidence of the bias and unfairness of the situation is the fact that although the Authorized holds, and always has held, the field about ninety-nine per cent strong, the insistent effort to exalt the Revised bring it into public notice, and even disparage the Authorized, is accepted without protest. But whenever someone raises his voice and pen to defend the Authorized, he is regarded as raising an issue, starting a controversy and being the instigator. According to such logic a man may be living peaceably and quietly in his own home, when an intruder comes into his home, attacks the members of his family, breaks up the furniture; this is not a controversy or an issue; but if the head of the house defends his property and family, he is raising the issue and causing controversy.
I absolutely plead "not guilty" to starting a controversy over the Versions, and raising this issue. All I did was to come to the defense of the Authorized Version when it was attacked; and immediately there was a cry; "Let us have no controversy".
I submit that about ninety-nine per cent of our people (1930) read the AV and that one per cent has no right to upset the faith of the piney-nine per cent. I submit further that anything said in behalf of the AV will confirm the faith of these ninety-nine percent, whereas anything said to disparage the AV has in it the danger of unsettling the faith of niney-nine per cent.
40. Inasmuch as in at least three of our leading Colleges, a course in the origin of the Bible is given in which pro-Revised Version text books such as "The ancestry of Our English Bible" by Ira M. Price is used, my reviewers failed to show why there is no need for a book to correct and counteract the misleading influence and teachings of such books.
41. My reviewers failed to show why they should have liberty to use the Versions of their choice, and to tell the people why they are their choice, which liberty no one has denied them, and at the same time to take away from the people their liberty to read the reasons for the superiority of the AV which is used by over ninety-nine per cent (1930) of our people.
42. There are five, if not six reasons why I, from the Spirit of Prophecy, believe that the AV is the authoritative Word of God in English:
(1) Because Sister White says that the Waldenses, not the proud hierarchy of Rome, were the guardians of the Word of Truth. Since Rome, and Rome only, was the guardian of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, this statement rules out the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus or the Greek Bible guarded by the Papacy.
(2) She says that the Latin Bible (the Vulgate) contained many errors. This rules out the Latin Bible of the Papacy.
(3) She further says that the Bible of the Waldenses was entire, was of apostolic origin, and kept uncorrupted through the ages. We know that this must be the Old Latin, which never bowed the knee to Rome, or to the Vulgate. Since the Textus Receptus type of Latin and the Vaticanus type were rivals, the Bible of the Waldenses was the Textus Receptus.
(4) Sister White endorsed the Textus Receptus or Erasmus as...
(a) Correcting errors of Vulgate.
(b) Giving us a Bible that had clearer sense
(c) Giving new impetus to the work of reform (the reformation).
(d) As completing, through Tyndale, the giving of the Bible to England. (Great Controversy) p.245
(5) She said that the gospel received by the Britons in the first centuries was then uncorrupted by Romish apostasy. This again was the Old Latin or Textus Receptus type.
(6) Sister White in her writings said "no" to over 30 of the texts of the Revised Version; that is, over 30 of the passages compared in my book; of course there were many more that I did not cite in my book.
RESUME OF TEXTS CHANGED IN ARV
2.Sam.21:19 changed in ARV. Sr. White used in AV Job 19:25,26 changed in ARV.
Job 26:5 changed in text and (margin) in ARV. Sr. White used in AV Isa. 7:14 changed (margin) in ARV
Matt. 2:15 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV 5:44 omission of part in ARV
Sr. White " " " 6:13 end of Lord's Prayer omitted in ARV.
Sr. White " " " 17:21 entirely omitted in ARV
Sr. White " " " 18:2,3 changed in ARV
Sr. White " " " 24:3 changed (margin) in ARV
Sr. White " " " 27:46 changed (margin) in ARV
Mark 7:19 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV 16:8-20 branded with suspicion in ARV
Luke 1:72 changed in ARV
2:33 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV Luke 4:8 omission of part ARV
Sr. White used in AV Luke 9:55,56 omissions in ARV
Sr. White used in AV Luke 11:2-4 omissions in ARV
Luke 23:44,45 changed in ARV
John 1:3,4 changed (margin) in ARV
Sr. White used in AV John 2:11 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV John 8:1-11 branded with suspicion in ARV
John 14:2 changed (margin) in ARV
Sr. White used in AV Acts 3:19 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV Acts 8:37 entirely omitted in ARV
Acts 13:42 changed in ARV
Acts 15:23 changed in ARV
Acts 16:7 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV " 24:15 omission in ARV
Sr. White used in Av Romans 5:1 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV 1.Cor.5:7 omission in ARV
Sr. White used in AV 1.Cor.11:24 omission in ARV
Sr. White used in AV 1.Cor.11:29 omission in ARV
Sr. White used in AV 1.Cor.15:3,4 changed in ARV
15:47 omission in ARV
Eph.3:9 omission in ARV
Eph.5:30 omission in ARV
Phil.3:20,21 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV Col.1:14 omission in ARV
Sr. White used in AV Col.2:15,16 changed in ARV
2.Thess.2:2 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV 1.Tim.3:16 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV 2.Tim.4:1 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV Titus 2:13 changed in ARV
Heb.1:2 changed (margin) in ARV
Heb.7:21 omission in ARV
Heb.9:27 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV Heb.10:21 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV Heb.11:3 changed in (margin) in ARV
Sr. White used in AV James 5:16 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV 1.Peter 4:6 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV 2.Peter 2:9 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV Rev.1:7 changed in ARV
Rev.13:8 changed in ARV
Sr. White used in AV Rev.13:10 changed in ARV
Rev.13:18 changed in ARV
Rev.22:14 changed in ARV
RE. GENERAL CONFERENCE INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
I think it is proper that I should state to this Committee the facts as I see them relative to the introductory statement read by your Secretary, Monday, April 20 since this places squarely before me the case as your Committee view it.
I should first like to call your attention to the chronological order of events connected with the Version controversy.
The correspondence with the parties involved, as mentioned in the statement read by the Secretary, was not really a correspondence, but simply a letter from Elder Spicer, dated November 18, 1928. After this letter the public utterances, so far as I know, occurred in the following order:
1. An article in the SIGNS, November 12, 1929, by Professor Wirth.
2. A series of articles in the SIGNS, beginning December 3, 1929, by Elder Prescott.
3. The world's Best Book published by the Pacific Press Publishing Association, early in 1930.
4. "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" by me, June 1930. I did not publish my book until after the foregoing responsible agents of the Denomination had published the other side of the question.
5. A letter from Elder McElhany to the field July 27, 1930. A copy of this was not sent to me and I learned of it later only incidentally. His statement in this letter was the first knowledge I had of the action passed by the Minority Committee of the General Conference, March 20, 1930. I did not know that I was going contrary to this action when I published my book; for I did not know that any action of any kind pertaining to the Versions had been passed by this body.
In regard to item "4" of your statement, that many workers fear that a general reading of this book will tend to imperial confidence in all Versions: so far as I am informed, only one person besides the reviewers who have read my book have adversely criticized it, or have seen anything harmful in it. On the other hand I have letters from many presidents and union presidents from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from brethren in good standing in the work, some of them veterans in the cause, from Australia, from Europe, from Africa, from Asia, from Canada, and from South America, from every part of the globe. These letters speak in the highest terms of appreciation of the book and many believe it was written in the providence of God. I am sure that if all the testimony from the field were considered, it would overwhelmingly favor the book. Those who have not read it, are its chief opponents. Ninety-nine out of every one hundred of our people (1930) read the King James. I am told on every hand that my book confirms the faith of this ninety-nine per cent in the Word of God. I know it does this for those who read the AV.
[previous chapter] [book - index]
To Order this Volume
[ link ]
In some chapters certain text portions appear colored.
This feature is not part of the paperback available from
the publisher Leaves of Autmn but was added for
internet viewers to emphasize important facts.