The Spirit of Prophecy
My Reviewers have made no greater mistake in all the long list of severe indictments in their lengthy document than that I have cast "aspersion" and "intolerable odium" upon Sister White and on all who use the Revised Version. I have made no criticism, whatever, of Sister White or her use of the Revised Version; or anyone who uses it as she did. The preface of my book substantially states that some texts may be clearer in the Revised than in the Authorized; for the Authorized is 320 years old. The English language has somewhat changed in that time. The ERV is only 50 years old; the ARV but 30. I, myself, prefer the Revised on such texts as John 7:17, "If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from myself." Also "Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne." (Ps. 97:2). I often quote Daniel 7:25 from the Revised or Douay Versions, but I never quote them as authority; only as books of reference in which an occasional text may be clearer than in the Authorized. There are many verses or part of verses that are omitted in the Revised Version that the Spirit of Prophecy quotes from the AV as the inspired, indestructable word of the eternal God. (AV... Authorized Version)
My Reviewers say, (Section I, p. 5) "That our standard publications in English, since 1901, use the two versions with impartiality, and as equally authoritative." I must say to you brethren, that this is not well-known, neither is it the truth. Many of our ministers do not regard the Revised Version as of equal authority with the King James. I have read our standard publications very thoroughly since 1901 and can safely say that the number of scripture quotations from the Revised Version in our books, and in our church paper, "The Review and Herald," are many from the AV, to 1 from the Revised Version. (Leaves-of-Autumn Note: In the 1980s we are seeing almost everything but KJV quotes in our Periodicals and books. The NIV seems to be leading the pack for number of times used. but we also see quotes from many other perversions.) Note that the author. uses "AV" for "KJV" in his text. Both mean Authorized Version or King James Version.
In my book, I have occasion to present in a particular way the death of Christ. Here my Reviewers think that they have found an example of my conflict with the spirit of Prophecy. I will show emphatically that it is not the truth (as stated in Section I, p. 31), that I am in conflict with the Spirit of Prophecy by statements made on pages 158, 217, 218, and 219, of my book relating to Christ's death. I show that in the theology of Romanism and and of Westcott and of other leading Revisers, that death of Christ is not considered as the complete payment for our debt of sin. But that the incarnation, that is, the re-birth of Christ in the flesh as transmitted in the sacraments, is regarded as the all-potent means of salvation.
It is unreasonable for my Reviewers to tell you that I am in conflict with Sister White as that would place her in agreement with this Catholic theology. I have proof in my book that Westcott was at heart a Spiritualist, and thus taught that the real Christ must have never died, but that while his body was dead his soul lived on; and he thus, while dead preached to the spirits of the departed.
Whereas the Bible teaches that "the soul that sinneth, it shall die"; and that, therefore, when Christ paid our debt of sin his soul must have died. "His soul was made an offering for sin." He hath poured out his soul unto death." (Isa. 55:10,12). Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." (Hades, the grave). Acts 2:27.
The Reviewers ( Sec. I, p. 31) quote from an unpublished statement of Sister White, thus:
"When Christ was crucified, it was his human nature that died. Deity did not sink and die; that would have been impossible."
I would reply that I have never said in my book or anywhere else or thought at any time, that Diety died, or that Divinity died. The scripture tells us that men, when converted, become partakers of the divine nature. Does this divine nature of Christians survive death and live as an independent personality after death? Do my Reviewers believe that any part of Christ was conscious in death? I have the word of Sister White in one of her standard publications on this point:
"Then he closed his eyes in death upon the cross, the soul of Christ did not go to heaven as many believe, or how could His words be true,... ' I am not yet ascended to my Father'? The Spirit of Jesus slept in the tomb with his body, and did not wing its way to Heaven, there to maintain in a separate existence, and to look down upon the mourning disciples embalming the body of which it had taken flight. All that comprised the life and intelligence of Jesus remained with his body in the sepulchre (Emphasis mine); and when he came forth it was as a whole being; he did not have to summon his spirit from Heaven." Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 3, p. 203. (Old Edition)
Christ died for us, all that comprised his life and intelligence along with his body. Thus his divine sacrifice payed the debt for the sin of our soul. This was what I meant and there is not the slightest conflict between my views and the statements of Sister White. I will guarantee that 999 out of every 1,000 of Seventh-day Adventist ministers, in teaching from the fifty third chapter of Isaiah, would say, with me that Christ poured out his soul unto death. All who believe the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy believe this and teach it. With them, on this question, I am in perfect harmony.
Whatever I wrote in my book about Christ's death, I intended to refer to His divine sacrifice. I tried to convey the idea that His sacrifice was more than. a human sacrifice, it was a divine sacrifice.
Sr. White says: "In consequence of limited ideas of the sufferings cf Christ, many place a low estimate upon the great work of the atonement." Vol. 11, p. 200.
Next the Reviewers, (Sec. I, p. 31), criticize my statement on page 246 of my book: "The new theology taught that Christianity was not 'A system of truth divinely revealed, recorded in the Scriptures in a definite and complete form for all ages, 'but that CHRISTIANITY IS CHRIST."
Then the Reviewers quote from "Gospel Workers," pages 282, 283, "CHRIST IS CHRISTIANITY". It is surprising to me that they did not see at once that the two statements are not the same but reversed. One says, "Christianity is Christ", and the other that "Christ is Christianity" but I deny the false theology of modernism that Christianity is Christ."
Christian science teaches that "God is all", and then reverses the statement and says that therefore "All is God". The first statement is a great truth, the second is a pantheistic error. They ring the changes also on "God is life" and therefore "Life is God." The first is true, the second is not. The Scriptures teach that God is love but never that love is God. If that were so then God would be a mere sentiment, a principle, but not a person.
God is light, but light is not God. This is pantheism again.
Most emphatically, "Christ is Christianity" as taught by Sister White, but is Christianity therefore Christ? Is Christianity, the righteous living of men, all there is of Christ? This is a subtle error. Christ is a person from whose mighty influence Christianity flows; but Christianity is not Christ. On this the Princeton Review says: "Making Christianity a life - the divine-human life of Christ - has far reaching consequences. It confounds and contradicts the scripture and church doctrines as to the Person of Christ." (Jan. 1854) In section I, page 32 my Reviewers accuse me of using the expression in my book (Page 246) that Christ is Christianity." No such statement is found on page 246 of the book under review. How could my Reviewers so misrepresent me? All I did say on page 246 was that the new theology taught the untruth that Christianity is Christ. This is different from the divine truth as stated by Sister White that Christ is Christianity. My critics should be accurate and avoid such misrepresantation.
The following statement is quoted by the Reviewers from Sister White (Page 33, of Section 1) :
"I saw that God bad especially guarded the Bible, yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it more plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean to their established views, which were governed by tradition. But I saw that the word of God, as a whole, is a perfect chain, one portion linking into and explaining another. True seekers for truth need not err; for not only is the word of God plain and simple in declaring the way of life, but the Holy Spirit is given as a guide in understanding the way of life therein revealed." "Early Writings", pp. 220, 221.
And then the Reviewers say, "The quotation has no bearing whatsoever, upon versions, but deals with the Bible as a whole in any language or Version." (Emphasis mine.) I think that all here will admit that the Bible Sister White had in mind when she wrote this was her own Bible, the King James. No modern version had yet appeared.
Will my Reviewers maintain that "ANY VERSION," EVERY VERSION is the true word of God? This is impossible. When the authors of the books of the Bible wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the first writing was, of course, the true word of God. A true copy, or a true translation would be a true manuscript, or a true version of the word of God, but if one thought was changed that would, to that extent, not be a true manuscript or a true version.
The most dangerous place that an error can be found is in a manuscript or version of the Bible. A falsehood in history or science would do infinitely less harm than an untruth in a book that passes for a Bible. A hypocrite, though he may do some excellent things, is the worst person in the world. A corrupted manuscript or version of the Bible is dangerous in the degree that the people trust it to be the true word of God. It may be almost wholly true, but one specious untruth may poison and counteract much of the good.
When my Reviewers say "any version", surely they cannot mean the Douay Version is the true word of God that teaches the worship of Mary in Genesis 3:15, "I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." Or image worship, in Hebrews 11:21, "By faith Jacob dying, blessed each of the sons of Joseph, and adored the top of his rod." Neither can my Reviewers mean the Bordeaux Version of the New Testament. This Version, published in 1686, translates Acts 13:2, " They ministered to the Lord" (KJ), as " They rendered unto the Lord the sacrifice of the mass." Can all of this version be the word of the Lord? Further, where the apostle writes " He himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire". 1.Cor. 3:15, this version has it, "by the fire of purgatory." This is a version of the Scriptures, is this Version altogether the word of the Lord?
Neither can my Reviewers mean the Unitarian-Version of the New Testament by Gilbert Wakefield. (1795). This version translates Hebrews 1:2, "by whom he made the worlds", as "through whom he also settled the ages." It also translates John 1:1,2 as follows: "In the beginning was wisdom, and wisdom was with God, and Wisdom was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it and without it was nothing made." Is this irreverent use of the pronoun "it" to designate our Lord Jesus Christ the true word of God? Yet this is a version of the New Testament.
My Reviewers may say that they do not mean any version, although it is here plainly stated in their document, but that they mean any standard version. What is the standard, we would ask? A standard of the word of God must be the truth. The Authorized Version, although the language may not be modern, contains no false doctrine. One scripture in the AV explains another. The Revised Version contains things which cannot be the truth. For instance, Matt. 14:30 reads, "And when he saw the wind he was afraid." We do not wonder that he was afraid, for he was the first and the last man that ever saw the wind. Is this absurdity the truth?
Do we not judge all Versions unconsciously by the Authorized? Are not the dangers of other versions less keenly felt because we have with us the AV to protect us and to which we can flee as a standard? In our reasoning, however, just visualize the King James blotted out of existence or utterly discredited, could we then find the third angel's message in other discordant or corrupted versions?
Note the following seven absurdities as a few illustrations of many similar cases found in the Revised Version:
(1) "The seven angels that had the seven plagues, arrayed with precious stones" Rev. 15:6
(2) "She (Mary) turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew". John 20:16
(3) "The sun eclipsed at the time of a full moon." Luke 23:44,45 (Greek text);
(4) "This he (Jesus) said, making all meats clean". Mark 7:19. Thus accusing Jesus of abolishing the distinction, which nature never yet has abolished, between clean and unclean animals.
(5) "That ye be not quickly shaken from your mind." 2.Thess 2:2;
(6) "But when he (Peter) saw the wind, he was afraid."
(7) "And the third part of the earth was burnt up." Rev.8:7
It is strange that geographers and geologists have not discovered that one third of the earth has been burnt up. Yet this strange fact is found in the Vulgate, in the Jesuit Bible of 1582, and in the Revised. Was the fear of the sailors of Columbus, which led them more than once to threaten mutiny as they sailed westward, due to fear of sailing into a great gap in the earth?
Are these evidences of accuracy? Are these scientific? Sister White said (Great Controversy, p. 245) that the Textus Receptus brought out by Erasmus corrected many errors of former versions and gave the sense more clearly.
In 2.Peter 2:9 it is stated that "the Lord knoweth how... to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of Judgment." That is the direct teaching of purgatory. My Reviewers, themselves, acknowledge that the views of the Revisers colored this text with the tincture of Romanism. Is the rendering of this verse the truth? Does the Revised Version then meet the standard of truth? Because it is called a standard version does not prove that it is.
The Spirit of Prophecy says on page 245 of "Great Controversy" that "Wycliffe's Bible had been translated from the Latin text, which contained many errors." And that Erasmus corrected many of these errors. The Spirit of Prophecy thus teaches that all versions are not alike, the true word of God. These false versions may contain many truths, and Sister White quoted from the true passages they contain, but this would not endorse the falsehoods as truth, and could not mean that the whole Version was the authoritative Word of God.
In the same book, "Great Controversy", (page 65), it is stated that the Waldenses "possessed the Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the truth unadulterated ", and (page 69) "In a most wonderful manner it (the word of truth) was preserved uncorrupted through all the ages of darkness." We have evidence that a text like the Received Text was thus preserved until translated by Luther into German and by Tyndale into English, and by the translators of 1611 into the Authorized Version.
We are indebted to the Waldenses and not to the Church of Rome for our Bible. When I saw the gigantic bulwarks of rock with sharp ravines and mountain caves of the Northern Italian Alps, I was profoundly impressed with the statement that the church "fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared of God that He should feed her there" with the living Word of Cod while Rome fiercely fought the Bible and sought in vain during the world's midnight to destroy the Waldenses, the guardians of the Word, and the very Word itself.
On the other hand, can we not truthfully say that there are two foundation MSS of the Revised Version, (the Vaticanus and Sinaticus), early corrupted and changed in more than a thousand places by the mystery of iniquity, which slept through centuries, unused and perhaps forgotten, only to be brought out again, once when the Reformers forced the papacy to it for refuge, and the other later. (LOA note: The second time was when the Revisers resurrected it)
The philosophy of the Revisers and the Reviewers seems to be that the church of Rome was the real guardian of the true Word of God; while the Waldenses held only inferior manuscripts. This is squarely contradictory to the Spirit of Prophecy. I quote from the "Great Controversy" (p.64),
"The church in the wilderness, and not the proud hierarchy enthroned in the world's great capital, was the true church of Christ, the guardian of the treasures of truth which God has committed to His people to be given to the world."
The Vaticanus MS was preserved in the Vatican Library; the Sinaiticus was preserved in a Catholic monastery. Both of these MSS were thus kept and guarded by "the proud hierarchy enthroned in the world's great capital." But Sister White says the church in the Wilderness, and not this proud hierarchy was "the guardian of the treasures of truth", or as she states above, "the written Word of God". What is this but equivalent to saying that the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are not the treasures of truth, the written Word of God. The church in the wilderness did not preserve the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS, but those which agreed with the Received Text.
The Sinaiticus and the Vatican MSS kept by the Roman Catholic Church then could not be the true word of God, if Great Controversy states the truth.
The Spirit of Prophecy is God's last word to His Church in this final crisis, when Rome has regained temporal sovereignty and is fast climbing into the throne of world dominion again, determined to use her fearful power to destroy the truth and reign triumphant just before the coming of Christ. I raise my voice, in my book, in protest against this teaching that the Waldenses kept only inferior manuscripts; and that the church of Rome "who wore out the saints of the most high," the great destroyer, that this power controlled by Satan preserved the true word of God.
My Reviewers, in their defense of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the Revised Version built on these Catholic manuscripts, seem to be driven to depreciate the Waldenses and their Bible and to defend Rome.
My Reviewers take exception to my position on the Waldenses and their Bible, while my position is in harmony with both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, that the Waldenses had the true Word of God. They argue throughout for the MSS of Rome. Has it come to this pass that I must plead for this fact established by the spirit of Prophecy before a representative body of Seventh-day Adventists?
In the Index to the Writings of Mrs. E.G. White, I find that in the 28 volumes of her works that are there listed, that she is credited with making 15,117 references to the Bible. Of there, more than 95 out of every 100 are from the AV (KJV), and therefore less than 5 in 100 are from the Revised Version and all other versions combined. Less that 14 are from the Noyes', Leesers', and Rotherhams's Versions. The RV was issued in 1881, and more than three fourths of the works of Sister White, listed in the Index were published after that date, so that the RV was accessible while more than three-fourths of her books were being written. In one of her books she gives 406 references to the AV (KJV) and 65 to other versions. This is the largest departure from the AV in any of her works. In another she gives 940 references to the AV, to 59 in the RV and ARV. In Volume 8 of the Testimonies she quotes the AV 666 times, the ARV 53 times, and the RV 3 times. In this volume she refers 45 times to the O.T., in the ARV, only 8 times to the New Testament. She quotes the poetical Psalms sometimes entire and other Old Testament scriptures where the change is largely verbal and slight. In another large book she makes 865 quotations from the AV and 4 from the Revised Version. In several she makes only one quotation from the RV to several hundred in the AV. With this mathematically exact evidence before you, no one can truthfully say that she showed any preference for the Revised Version, or by any means regarded it as on an equality with the AV, but the very opposite. It is a most significant fact that she made no reference whatever, so far as the Index indicates, quoted not one verse in the Revised Version in Volume 9 of the "Testimonies", the last Testimony of the Spirit of Prophecy to the Church. This is also true of 13 other books listed in the index, nearly all of them written after the Revised Version was published, the prophet of the Lord began with the AV alone; she closed with the AV alone. It was to her evidently the supreme authority.
Of the historical quotations in "Great Controversy", Sister White says in her introduction, page XII, "The quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority." It is common knowledge that Darwin got his foundation in evolution form Lyell, when Sister White quoted from Sir Charles Lyell, (Great Controversy), p. 305) did she therefore indorse evolution or uphold Lyell as a scientific and true authority? The answer is plain that she simply took from him a specific statement of some single fact just as she quoted the Revised Version in certain texts where it rendered the text more clearly then the Authorized Version. Therefore, as in other quotations, she uses it as a reference book. If to quote an author makes that author an authority, then Paul indorsed the heathen poets as authority, for at Athens he quoted the following words from a Greek poet:
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of also your own poets have said, For we are his offspring." Acts. 17:28
Will my Reviewers kindly note this fact; if quoting from the Revised Version proves that Sister White recognized it as the true Word of God equally with the Authorized Version, then by the same logic, Noyes', Leeser's and Rotherham's Versions are of equal authority with the AV. But this is impossible. For Sister White quotes in "Mount of Blessing" the closing part of Matt. as a part of the Lord's prayer. All this glorious close to the model prayer is omitted by both Noyes and Rotherham without even a margin to indicate the human amputation of these divine words.
If these inspired words are not a part of the Word of God, then the Holy Spirit, writing through God's prophet, was mistaken. That is impossible; therefore Noyes' and Rotherham's translation are not authority and neither is the ARV. Noyes also preaches purgatory in its rendering of 2.Peter 2:9, which states: "The Lord knoweth how to reserve the righteous under punishment to the day of judgment."
Rotherham, who built his version on the text of Tregelles omits Acts 8:37 as does also Noyes, but this precious spiritual statement is quoted by the Spirit of Prophecy as a part of the word of God. (See Testimonies, Vol 8, page 58). Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is authority, the translations of Noyes and Rotherham are not. As for Leeser's translation, I would say that he translates Job 19:26, "Then freed from my body shall I behold God." This is in direct agreement with the ARV, which reads: "Then without my flesh shall I see God." Both are in square contradiction to the AV and the Spirit of Prophecy, which reads, "Yet in my flesh shall I see God." (Great Controversy p. 299, and is thus quoted in four other places.) Leeser also translates Haggai 2:7, "The precious things of all the nations shall come." While the AV and the Spirit of Prophecy agree in applying this prophecy not to national riches, as in Leeser's translation, but to Christ, himself. Sister White says: "The promise of God given to Haggal has been fulfilled; yet in the advent of Jesus of Nazareth, the "desire of all nations", etc, Prophets and Kings. p. 597. So by the authority of the Spirit of God, we know that the Leeser translation is untrue in this passage and therefore not divine authority. But if those three translations are thus proven unauthoritative, by the same evidence over and over again, at least to the Seventh-day-Adventists, the Revised Version is as a whole eliminated as authority. After careful examination of every text listed in the Index of Sister White's writings, I ask: When did Sister White ever weaken the great Scripture fortification on the law by saying, "Blessed are they that wash their robes" as rendered in the Revised Version? In the AV and in Great Controversy, (page 541), and 12 other places, the Holy Spirit thunders down to us front the farewell chapter of the Bible, "Blessed are they that do His Commandments." Where does the Spirit of Prophecy endorse, instead of the mighty statement of 1.Tim. 3.16, "God was manifested in the flesh", the weak Unitarian change, "He who was manifested in the flesh"? This text is quoted as in the AV, in Testimonies, Vol. 5 (page 746) and in several other places in the books inspired by the Spirit of God.
When does Sister White permit the cutting out of Acts 8:37? The RV omits it. The RV is therefore not complete and therefore imperfect and not an authority.
My Reviewers have stated that Sister White quoted the Revised Version as the Word of God. I answer that when the Revised Version or any other version translates a particular text clearly without error or untruth, that that ONE special reference is surely the Word of God, wherever it is found in any version. Many statements may be quoted from the Douay Version that express the same truth as the Authorized Version, which agrees with the text which came through the uncorrupted manuscripts kept by the Waldenses and endorsed by the Spirit of Prophecy as the true Word of God. But a text in the Douay Version which teaches the worship of images or the worship of Mary, cannot be the true Word of God. Therefore she could never quote the Douay Version as the authoritive, complete Word of God. The same with the omissions and changes of the Unitarian Version or the Revised Version.
She quoted scripture as the Word of God from any Version that is entirely endorsed under the inspiration of the Holy spirit, but any text or translation that is not entirely in harmony with that which she has accepted, cannot be the entire and authoritative Word of God. These references in the Revised Version previously indicated, cannot be quoted as the Word of God, therefore, all versions, including the Revised, which hold serious errors and omissions must be quoted by her, not as the complete authoritative word of God, but as the statements of scientists, historians, simply as books of reference.
Certainly Sister White quoted the Revised and several other versions. The question is not, did she quote the Revised Version but what part of it did she quote? Did she ever quote any text from the Revised Version, which is entirely omitted in the Authorized Version? There is no true scripture which is not found in the Authorized Version. It is a complete, perfect, authoritative Bible. But did she ever quote any scripture as the true Word of God from the Authorized Version which is not found in the Revised: Certainly she did. Then which is the complete authoritative word of God? Mathematically, we must say "YES", the Authorized and NOT the Revised. In other words the Revised Version is not the complete, authoritative WORD of God because, first, it is not all there, and secondly, because it is not all there straight.
When Sister White quotes as the Word of God texts which the Reviewers regard as spurious, to that extent, to that degree, they teach that the writings of Sister White are spurious. This is the logic of the Revised Version and those who accept it as authority. The omissions and many of the changes in the Revised are spurious or many of the AV quotations of Sister white are spurious. There is no middle ground.
When does the holy Spirit in the works of Sister White intimate by so much as a marginal note, the foolish proclamation if 616 instead of 666 as the number of the beast? When does the Holy Ghost, through God's appointed prophet in this last solemn message ever endorse the elimination of the glorious finale of the Lord's Prayer or relegate it to the uncertainty of a marginal note? The revised Version is guilty of adding to, changing and omitting the precious words of God. The Vatican and the Sinatic MSS, with more than 1,000 omissions and changes each, the Westcott and Hort text, the foundation of the Revised Version, are thus each and all weighed in the balances and found wanting. All this I say while reminding my hearers that full liberty to use this or any Version is granted, even as I, in the beginning of this chapter, said I use them myself.
The men who are responsible for the 1,000 omissions must come under the solemn denunciation:
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the word of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things Cod will add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Rev. 22:18, 19.
It is not possible that there can be any higher witness as to what is and what is not the Word of God than the Holy Spirit. For all the Word of God came by the Spirit, and the Lord has honoured us above all other people by giving us his Holy Spirit in the wonderful gift of prophecy.
God foresaw that the last glorious third angel's message would originate in the United States. He knew that it would first be proclaimed in the English language. He foresaw that the pioneers would use as their supreme authority the King James Version of 1611. Would the all-wise, all-foreseeing Author and Planner of the last appeal to fallen man, permit the translators of the Authorized Version of 1611 to give us an inferior version? Was the message which was endorsed and sealed by the Spirit of Prophecy, ever based upon and crystallized around a faulty translation?
Was not the great last message preached as fully in its purity by Elder James White and other pioneers from 1844 to 1881, (or 1901, when the American Revised edition appeared), as it has been since those dates? Did the Message start wrong? Did the Message have to wait until the Revised Version appeared before it could be perfect? To every Seventh-day Adventist, the divine foreknowledge of God in this matter is an unanswerable argument for the truly superior authority of the Authorized Version. Of course, we do not claim that the translators of the King James Version were actually inspired, but they were the greatest scholars of the greatest literary age in the history of the world. They had the correct copies of the divinely written manuscripts of the Word of God. And God, foreseeing the tremendous structure of saving, testing truth that would be built upon their translation, must have guarded them from making serious mistakes in translating from the original work into the English language in which the last message was to originate and be first published to a lost world.
We must never lose sight of the fact that of all the boasted MSS to which the Revisers had access, it matters little how many they had, since they used only one out of 100 and brushed the 99 aside, because they did not agree with their two prized manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
While Sister White quoted from a number of texts with slight verbal changes in translation in the English and American Revised, the Noyes, the Rotherham, and the Leeser Version, yet she never quoted the contradictory changes brought in by the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS, the Westcott and Hort text based on them, or the Revised readings that widely change or omit so many important scriptures.
She never endorses those changes or omissions, but quoting them, as in the AV and quoting texts omitted or discarded in the Revised, she thus absolutely denies and contradicts the authority of the Revised Version, and demonstrates that it is not the complete and authorized word of God.
She states that the manuscripts and texts that the Waldenses preserved as the Word of God were "uncorrupted" and "unadulterated." Then how can we need a new revised text? The Received Text was the text from which Luther translated his Bible into German, which was the heart of the Reformation power; the text from which Tyndale translated his English Bible, the divine truth for which he died a martyr's death; the text from which our Authorized Version came to bless and build up the most enlightened nations from whence liberty and truth have gone out to all the world, and to be the foundation, the source of power of this last great Message.
How can you reconcile the fact that Sister White quotes verses of Scripture as the Word of God which the Revisers reject as spurious; and that she quotes verses from the Authorized Version which the ARV changes so as to entirely alter the sense? And how can you justify the Reviewers aligning themselves uniformily on the side of the Revisers on these very passages rather than with Sister White? Whenever you find me defending a body of Revisers and bolstering up their revised readings against the plain usage of Sister White, I will accept the charge. I reject this charge and appeal to the field for vindication. Because every Seventh-day Adventist who has ever known me in Europe or America for these past forty years knows that no one amongst us has held up Sister White and her writings in higher esteem than I do.
When the Holy Spirit, through God's appointed prophet, endorses the MSS of the Waldenses as uncorrupted and unadulterated, then they are the "BEST ATTESTED MANUSCRIPTS", and not the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as my Reviewers told you. On this authority I rest, as final and decisive. To a Seventh-day Adventist, there is no appeal from this authority. On this rock, brethren, we may all build for eternity and "the gates of hell" shall not prevail against it.
[previous chapter] [book - index] [next chapter]
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.