Review of Scripture Texts Cited in Chapters VI, XI, XII When the Reviewers brought against my various statements such high-sounding expressions as these: "The authenticated texts"', "The major MSS", "The best of all Greek MSS", "The best attested MSS", etc. it must have almost overwhelmed you with the thought that my book was being demolished by these outstanding authoritative MSS. In their reply to many of the scripture texts which were handled, they largely attempted to vindicate their opposition to what I said by appealing to manuscripts under the titles just given. However, this method involves six serious difficulties: (1) They did not tell us what manuscripts they are: (2) they did not tell us how many there are; (3) they did not exhibit what right they had to apply these approving titles to the manuscripts; (4) they did not tell how many manuscripts were on the opposite side; (5) neither did they tell us what manuscripts were on the other side; and (6) finally, they have offered us no justifying reason why they grouped all the thousands of manuscripts on the opposite side under the name of Textus Receptus and counted them as one witness. Evarts in the Bibliotheca Sacra of January 1921 quotes a textual critic to say that John 8:1-11 on the woman taken in adultery is witnessed to in 1650 codices. Since less than 1/10 of these are unicials, this authority must reckon the remaining 1490 cursives as each an independent witness. What right then, have my Reviewers to take a handful of manuscripts on their side, whose voice discounts from thousands of manuscripts on the other side of the question and count each one of this small handful of theirs a separate witness; while they counted the thousands of manuscripts on the other side as simply one witness. When their repeated appeals to those high-sounding but meaningless terms to justify their defense of the following texts are shown to mean nothing, when each one must stand or, the poverty of the other reasons they offer. An examination of this poverty makes very interesting reading. But what are the facts? Which are those wonderful manuscripts to which they refer - "the authenticated, "the major", "the noted", "the most valuable", "the best," the best attested?" Would you be surprised to find that generally, they are just two principal manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus? What right have they to describe them by all these high-sounding adjectives when they know and told you (on page 12, Section II of their Document) that authorities were divided in their estimate of their value -- one side regarding the Vaticanus, the better of the two, as the most vicious manuscript in existence. What right had they to try to overwhelm your thinking with the idea that the great authorities were against me? This is some new logic. They prove the AV wrong and prove me in error, mainly two witnesses, the better of the two even being held as the most vicious MS in the world. Do you prove that the Prohibitionists are wrong by bringing in anti-prohibition witnesses, by calling the witnesses most noted, major, best, best attested, best authenticated? Does anyone think that the AV and my position relative to it can be set aside by such witnesses, witnesses without ancestry, without history, by witnesses which are rejected as corrupt and unreliable? They are condemned by their own internal evidence and by 99 witnesses out of every 100, condemned by the overwhelming testimony of the patristic writings, the MSS, and he Versions. My Reviewers' wise assertions that they are the best, major, best attested, etc. will not convince those who think fairly. Their nine (9) indictments of my methods (Section III, chapter II, pp. 2, 3) were built upon their unjustifiable use of these high-sounding but meaningless terms about MSS; (2) their endorsement of doctrine-changing mistranslations; (3) their acceptance of the ruin of the established usages of words; (4) their unjustifiable claim upon parallel passages, on the ground that because God had said a thing once, there was no harm to cut out where he said it in another place; (5) upon their own self-made theological arguments . When all these questionable procedures are duly shown to be valueless these nine (9) indictments of my methods mean just nothing at all. They will stand or fall upon my examination of the individual texts. In order that his document may not be too long, I propose not to notice, at length, a number of the scripture texts which are argued by my Reviewers. In fact, I am under no obligation to notice their arguments about doctrine with reference texts used in Chapter 6 of my book. Chapter 6 was not given to show how the Revisers changed doctrine. It was given to show the similarity, if not identity, of many passages in the ARV with the same passages in the Jesuit Bible of 1582, and how these two versions are leagued together on one side of the gulf between and the AV on the other side. The accumulative argument produced by the totality of these comparisons is tremendous. This accumulative argument my Reviewers ignored. It was easier for them to notice the compared passages, one by one, on the basis that they were arguing a change of doctrine; thus the main effect of Chapter 6 they missed. Nevertheless, I wish to discuss in reply a number of these compared passages which they reviewed. III-6-3 OABV-91 Let us first notice my Reviewers' defense of the Revised Version in 2.Sam.21:19, which declares that Elhanan killed Goliath. My Reviewers indict the translators of the AV because they supplied certain words in italics and so made the Bible consistent with itself. They approved the ARV which translated the Hebrew text without italics and so made the Bible contradict itself. By this argument the ARV is convicted, because in 2.Thess.2:3 it supplied the four words, "it will not be"; for supplying which, they had no justification, except that internal evidence demanded these words to be supplied. The AV, therefore, stands justified because it supplied the proper words which a powerful internal evidence supported, in the case of the killing of Goliath, while the Revisers here side-stepped. This deplorable act of the Revisers has rocked two continents with needless and doubt scattering debate. The King James translators made the Hebrew agree with itself, while the ARV made it contradict itself. Then the Revisers emphasized the contradiction, by reading into the margin the AV reading. Modernists, at once, seize the contradiction and claim to prove that David did not kill Goliath. Then, and we have proof for this in the "Literary Digest" of March 9,1929, modernists take the contradiction as the most historical. They actually claim that Elhanan did kill Goliath. Where now is your acid text? Where now are your primal laws of evidence? Do sincerity and fairness mean that we should make the Bible contradict itself? If the Revisers were justified in supplying the four words in 2.Thess.2:3 by internal evidence which made common sense , how can they escape the charge of deliberately playing into the hands of skeptics, critics, and atheists by failing again to take advantage of what was the strongest kind of internal evidence. The famous Dr. Frederick Field, who spent his life on the Old Testament in Greek, brings as one of his strongest indictments against the Revisers that they ignored the great law of internal evidence, under the pretense of being obliged to be exactly literal. III-6-4 OABV Matt. 6:13 - On the Abbreviation of the Lord's Prayer. We now come to the famous omission of the last part of the standard account of the Lord's Prayer. My Reviewers, in line with the Revisers and the Jesuits of 1582, defend this omission. Against it, the great Reformers indignantly protested. Have you ever noticed that the King James, or Authorized Version, make the Lord's Prayer begin with the Lord and end with the Lord? But the ARV makes the Lord's Prayer begin with the Lord and end with the evil one. Sister White did not agree with the ARV, for she said:        "The last like the first sentence of the Lord's Prayer, points to Our Father." "Mount of Blessing", p. 174. This puts the AV and Sister White on one side; and on the other side it puts my Reviewers, the Revisers, and the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. In defense, it is claimed that "the omitted part is not found in the oldest Greek MSS". The truth is it is lacking only in the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and three unicials and five cursives; while on the other hand the other remaining uncials and the thousands of cursives are for it. Dr. Cook says: "in support of the rejected clause I have noticed the immense perponderance of authorities." "Revised Version", p. 57. This is proof enough that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are corrupted. The probable reason why they are the oldest MSS is because they were so corrupted, they were not used or worn out in the hands of the people who studied or copied them. My bible is worn out. To quote as my Reviewers did, that the Expositor's Greek Testament" says it was a liturigical ending, and no part of the Lord's Prayer, means nothing. How comes the Expositor's NT to be authority, especially greater than Sister White? The "Expositor's Greek N.T." work does not purport to enter the field of textual criticism; it is no authority therein, and simply repeats parrot like what the critics furnished. My Reviewers give also, as additional evidence, a quotation from Dr. Scrivener which says "yes" and "no" on the question, therefore nothing. "Prophets and Kings" page 69, and "Mount of Blessing" pages 174-176 quote this portion of the Lord's Prayer which the ARV omitted, and therefore it should be in the text, the place of honor. It has been dishonored, it was placed in the margin. Now where is your acid test? Who says that the changes of the Revisers did not affect doctrine? What is doctrine? Why didn't my Reviewers , recognize sister White? III-6-5 OABV- 92 Matt.5:44 On Praying for Enemies Here again my Reviewers fail in catching the argument in my book. The claim that because the ARV omits, "bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you," and also "which despitefully use you," that I declare on the strength of this omission that the Revised Version is not a revision in any sense whatever, but a new Bible based on different MSS from the King James, on Catholic MSS in fact." This is not true. I quoted Canon Cook, that well-known scholar who had been invited to sit on the Revision Committee but who refused. My Reviewers ignored his quotation. He said: "Yet this enormous omission rests on the sole Authority of Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus)." And since my Reviewers admit on this same passage that these two oldest MSS came to us directly from Catholic sources, I had a right to claim that the Revised Version was based on Catholic MSS, unless they could present some mitigating circumstances. What mitigating circumstances did they present? They brought up again Erasmus, that he was Catholic, that his new Greek Testament was dedicated to the Pope and received the written endorsement of the Pope; and that further, Erasmus printed in parallel columns the official Roman Catholic Testament in Latin with Greek Text. Thus they sought to parry the indictment of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as Catholic MSS by trying to make us believe, that the Textus Receptus of Erasmus' was just as Catholic. Now notice the facts in the case. Was Erasmus a Catholic in reality? Was he in submission to the Pope as all really and truly Catholics virtually are? No. His work shook the Roman Catholic Church, and his books were put on the Index. Luther and Erasmus were at first Catholic in name, but Protestants at heart. Erasmus was protesting. The Revisers, on the other hand, were Protestants in name, but ceased protesting; were Catholics at heart, and headed toward ritualism and Romanism. Erasmus was driving the world toward Protestantism, it was toward Catholicism that the Revisers were driving the world. Why tell the world again that all Erasmus printed in parallel columns was the Greek Testament and the Catholic Vulgate? Why not tell the whole truth? Why not tell the world and our dear people that he printed in a third column his revised Vulgate which brought down upon him the storm of Catholic Europe. Why not tell everybody, everywhere, that later the Pope put all his books on the Index Expurgatorius? Will somebody please tell me when the Pope put all his books on the Index Expurgatorius? Will somebody please tell me when the Pope put the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus on the Index Expurgatorius? Thus Putnam speaks of it: "In the Index of 1559, the name of Erasmus is placed under the class of Auctores quorum libri et scripta omnia prohibentur. After the entry of the name however, comes the following specification: cum universis Commantariis, Annotationibus, Schollis, Dialogis, Epistolis, Censuris, Persionibus, Libris et Scriptis suis, etian si nil ponitus contra Religionem, vei di Reliqione contineant." "The Censorship of the Church of Rome," Vol. I, p.335. But there is another angle to this proposition. How many Protestant Versions have been influenced by these two MSS? None but the Revised over which the discussion now is. You might include the individual versions, but they are not recognized, either by the Reviewers or by the authorities they quoted. My Reviewers say in so many words, speaking of the ARV, "Because its translators are guided by the oldest and most complete MSS". If my Reviewers mean by these words that the ARV translators were guided by the two oldest and most complete MSS which is virtually the truth then the ARV is built on Catholic MSS. My Reviewers next claim that, "There is no historical proof that any Greek text was more directly influenced by Catholic hands, a Catholic version, and Catholic approval than was that of Erasmus, yet the text of Erasmus was the basis of what has since been called the Textus Receptus, which the author lauds so highly as a pure, uncorrupted text." What are my Reviewers trying to do? Are they trying to make out the AV, the Protestant Bible, as taken from the Textus Receptus to be in fact: a Catholic Bible? My astonishment knows no bounds. The Pope put the Textus Receptus on the Index, condemned it, and condemned (as well) the AV. Faber, one of the perverts from Protestantism to Catholicism in (the Oxford Movement called the Authorized Version "one of the greatest strongholds of heresy". Eedie, "English Bible," p. 158). And the Catholic Bishop of Eric calls it "their own vile version." Probably the Bishop learned it from Dr. Hort, who at the age of 23 called the Textus Receptus "vile" and "villainous". Cardinal Wiseman attempts to show that the rush of certain Protestants to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, proves that the Vulgate was taken from the best MSS. (Wiseman's Essays, Vol. I, p. 104). Do my Reviewers then arrange themselves alongside of Faber, Cardinal Wiseman, and the Catholic Bishop of Eric? Do they also try to make out that our great Protestant Bible is, in fact, a Catholic one? I protest, in the name of Protestantism and Seventh-day Adventism, and in the name of truth. Might as well brand Luther, and the Reformation also Catholic. See to what lengths the defenders of the Revised Version are driven. My Reviewers next defend this "enormous omission" from Matt.5:44 by declaring that the ARV, with great fidelity, has retained in Luke 6:27, 28, the words omitted in Matt.5:44. This is the old story. On that principle you could leave out all the gospels but one making a composite gospel and thus improve on what the Lord has done. My Reviewers talk about an "imposition on the laity". What would the people in the field think if you went out and gave them such principle as this namely: Because the Revisers did not corrupt every text therefore they are at liberty to corrupt this one? Will my Reviewers claim because the Revisers did not knock the whole wall down, therefore they did not make any breaches in the wall? Do they mean to imply that it is not necessary for the Lord to say a thing twice because He said it once? Did He not repeat the story of taking of Israel out of the land of Egypt many, many, times? Will my Reviewers say that once was enough? Would not taking this position make the Bible out as being full, of redundancies and superfluities and repetitions? Why have four gospels; why not be satisfied with one? Why have parallel readings? Why tell the story of the Cross so often? Is not once enough? Why not have an abbreviated Bible? Do they really mean to defend the Revisers in omitting a passage of Scripture, because it is found elsewhere in the Bible? Are they defending the Word of God or the Work of the Revisers? Did not Sister White plainly say in "Great Controversy", page 245, speaking of Erasmus and his Greek and Latin Versions of the New Testament: "In this work many errors of former version: were corrected, and the same more clearly rendered." She also said: "He (Tyndale) had received the gospel from the Greek Testament of Erasmus. He fearlessly preached his convictions, urging that all doctrines be tested by the Scriptures. To the papist claim that the church had given the Bible, and the Church alone could explain: it, Tyndale responded... 'far from having given us the Scriptures, it is you who have hidden them from us; it is you who burn those who teach them, and if you could, you would burn the Scriptures themselves.'" Great Controversy",  pp. 245, 246. In the face of this ringing testimony from the Spirit of Prophecy, how can my Reviewers claim that the Greek New Testament of Erasmus was Catholic? My Reviewers have spoken about imposing on the people. How long shall we stand to have these things told to the people the way they are here telling them? How long shall we line ourselves up with this campaign against Erasmus and his Greek Text; and consequently against Tyndale and the Authorized Version, and the Spirit of Prophecy? Do you think that our own dear people should be saved from hearing these things in the wrong way and should be given the correct information? That is why I wrote my book. I wrote my book in order that the world at large and our own dear people should have the correct information on this whole situation. III-6-6 OABV-92-3 Luke 2:33. on Joseph's being the Father of Jesus. Here again the Reviewers neglected to answer a telling witness. I showed that Helvidius, the devoted scholar of Northern Italy (400 A.D.) who had the pure MSS, accused Jerome of using corrupt manuscripts on this very text. I gave my authority for this, which authority is indisputable. By looking at the Vulgate, we know that in Luke 2:33, Jerome did exactly what the American Revised and Jesuit Bibles did, that is, they gave Jesus a human father. How could Helvidius accuse Jerome of using corrupt Greek Manuscripts if Helvidius did not have the true manuscripts? Moreover, Dean Burgon says that his rendering is a "depravation of the text". ("Revision Revised", p. 161.) All the answer my Reviewers give is a theological argument. They bring forth Luke 2:48 where Mary says to the child Jesus, "Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Well, these are the words of Mary, they are not the words of inspiration. Nevertheless, the record of what Mary said is inspired, but we are not told that what Mary said was inspired. My Reviewers make a further appeal to verses 27 and 41 where the word "parents" is used. My Reviewers ought to know that the word "parents" is an omnibus term; it includes the father and the mother. It is so used that it might refer to a mother and a foster-father. Therefore no argument can be grounded upon any of the three texts which my Reviewers offer in opposition to the testimony of Helvidius and of Burgon. Why did not my Reviewers call attention to Luke 2:43 which also was changed from Joseph and his mother" in the AV to "his parents" in the RV, a change in the direction of the text under discussion? III-6-7 OABV-93 Luke 4:8. On Get Thee behind Me Satan My Reviewers commit three errors in discussing the omission in the Revised of the words, "Get thee behind me, Satan". First, they claim that the testimony of the MSS is so positively against including this omitted clause. On the contrary, Burgon and Miller say: "It is plain, from the consent of (so to speak) all the copies, that our Saviour rejected the Temptation which stands second in St. Luke's Gospel with the words, 'Get thee behind me Satan."' "The traditional Text",  p. 169. The second error of my Reviewers is in leading us to believe that the omission of the clause in Luke 4:8 is fully compensated for in Matthew 4:10. This is not the fact. The clause in Matthew reads, "Get thee hence, Satan". Quite a difference as I will now proceed to explain. The third error of my Reviewers is in their attempt to say that doctrine is not affected. It is evident that they are not acquainted with the testimony either of Origen or Jerome on this text. Origen distinctly says that the reason why Jesus said to Peter "Get thee behind Me, Satan;" while to the devil he said "Get thee hence" without the addition, "behind me", was, that to be behind Jesus is a good thing. Jerome follows Origen in his reasonings. This omission was made evidently to point out that to put Peter directly behind the Lord was to put him in a good place in line, following Jesus, to receive apostolic succession, The argument of my Reviewers seems to be in harmony with this doctrine of Peter receiving apostolic succession because they support the change. In fact my Reviewers appear to me to be more anxious to support the Revisers than they are to support the text. My reason for saying this is that the Spirit of Prophecy quotes Luke 4:8 just as it reads in the AV. Thus the AV and Sister White again are on the same side of the question. Volume V, page 409 reads: "They will meet the adversary with the simple weapon that Christ used, 'It is written,' or will repulse him with, 'Get thee behind me, Satan.'" III-6-7 OABV-93 Luke 11:2-4. On the Lord's Prayer in Luke. This shocking mutilation of the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 is accepted and justified by my Reviewers on the ground that it agrees with "the best attested manuscripts". What are the facts? Besides one phrase being omitted in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, it is omitted in only one other uncial and two cursives. What about all the other unicials and all the thousands of cursives? (See Dr. Cook, p. 85). The other phrase is omitted in the five uncials only, Aleph ABCD. The perponderance of authorities in favor "is immense". p. 86. On this depravation Dean Burgon says: "An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to Marcion's mutilated recension of St. Luke's Gospel." Then, after noticing the blundering mutilations, he says: "So then these five 'first class authorities' are found to throw themselves into six different combinations in their departures from S. Luke's way of exhibiting the Lord's Prayer, which, among them, they contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yet they are never able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading;... What need to declare that it is certainly false in every instance? Such however is the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries of B are all taken for gospel." "The Revision Revised", pp. 34, 35. The testimonies of many other eminent critics could be given here, who are shocked beyond measure at this mutilation of the Lord's Prayer. Again the Reviewers attempt to parry the thrust of this mutilation by calling attention to the Authorized readings in the margin. Here again my Reviewers flee to the margin for refuge. They make a good deal of the fact that I use the margin as evidence in certain things. But they have no right to relegate constituent parts of the Lord's Prayer to the margin. III-6-8 OABV-94-VI Acts 13:42. On the Sabbath of the Jews We are asked to notice verses 14, 15 and 43 to solve the difficulty here. They fail to solve the difficulty. The authorized Version in verse 42 has *the Jews leaving; the Gentiles are then left in the synagogue with Paul; and request that these words be spoken again to them the next Sabbath. In the AV the Gentiles and the Sabbath are put together, not so in the ARV. The only excuse the Reviewers have again, is to fall back upon the manuscripts. They confess, however, that this text is found in the Textus Receptus MSS. If so, I want to tell you it is found in 950 out of every 1,000 MSS. Right here I desire to take special notice of the last sentence of the comment of my Reviewers, which seemed to say that the AV creates more embarrassment with regard to the Sabbath than the ARV. *(the Jews leaving the synagogue) If so, why did the American Revised make such an astounding change in Col. 2:16. Notice the difference: King James: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days:" ARV: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or of a sabbath day:" Why did the Revisers in Col.2:16 translate a plural noun in the Greek meaning "sabbath days" by a single noun, "a sabbath day"? Do you not see how Seventh-day Adventists, by this translation are reduced to embarrassment when they put this verse to comparison with the other damaging way that the ARV translates the Sabbath command: Exodus 20:8-10 ARV: "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Jehovah thy God"... The AV makes the Sabbath commanded in Exodus, singular and definite,... "the Sabbath day"; but in Col.2:16, the AV makes the sabbaths abolished, plural and indefinite. On the other hand, the Revised Version makes both the Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20:8 singular and indefinite; and that which is abolished in Col.2:16 also singular and indefinite. That is, according to the Revised Version the identical thing which is commanded in the law of God, "a sabbath" is abolished in Col.2:16, "a sabbath day". And this, in spite of the fact that the Greek noun of Col.2:16 is in the plural. Where now is the boasted accuracy of the ARV, and that on a vital point of doctrine? How many can the claim of being literal be sustained? In this rendering we have neither the literal, nor the accurate, nor yet a translation. Where now is the acid test? The document talks about our being a laughing stock. By this fatal combination in translation between Exodus 20:10 and Col.2:16, Seventh-day Adventists are now where they cannot protect themselves on the doctrine of the abolition of the Sabbath. I say that this is systematic depravation. As proof of my contention, I have ample evidence that our enemies have not been slow to use against us this very systematic depravation. In the newspaper debate between MacLennan (Seventh-day Adventist) and Brewer (Christian Disciple) as issued from the General Conference Press Bureau, we read these words from our antagonist the Disciple minister. "There is no authority at all for Christians to keep the Sabbath. Rather we are strictly admonished to allow no man to judge us with reference to the Sabbath. (Col.2:16.7" (ARV). Again he says: "There is no excuse for saying 'sabbath DAYS' in this passage. A 'sabbath day', the Revised Version says, and that gets all of them." Brethren, I would not know how, in view of this, to defend the Sabbath if I were totally dependent upon the ARV. I thank the Lord for the King James Version as an anchor to our faith in such difficult situations as this. In fact our ministers in the field have been greatly troubled to know how to meet an opponent on the Sabbath question who faced them with the Revised Version. This demonstrates the close affinity between the King James Bible and the fundamentals of our message. For over 80 years it has been possible ably to defend the third angel's message with the AV. The AV is a complete whole, its teachings are clear. On doctrinal points we find in it no contradictions. All its parts form a complete harmony and it leads us to the truth by the authority of the fitness of things. The united appeal to its consistent testimony is irresistible. It is not a Greek N.T. put together by scissors and paste. It is the Textus Receptus witnessed to by thousands of MSS, having the highest antiquity, harmoniously witnessed to by various nations and various centuries, and has been since the beginning, the generally accepted Bible of God's people. It is an eternal bulwark of the church and the truth of the Living God. III-6-8 OABV-94-7 Acts 15:23 On the Clergy and the Laity. Again I must protest against my Reviewers' ignoring the evidence of the change in Acts 15:23, by leaving out the two Greek words which stand for "and the"; ignoring, I say, that this opened the way for Romanizers to claim that the clergy ruled the church without the presence of the laity. I gave sufficient evidence in my book that battles on this text raged in the Reformation period. I will give additional evidence from later writers. Dr. Meyers' "Commentary on the New Testament," (Acts p. 282) says: "The omission of kai oi is on hierarchical grounds." This is just what I said in my book. The only manuscripts he quotes in favor of this, are the usual five unicials which are found together, the greatest ones of which are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Another quotation on this point from Dr. G.T. Stokes , whose work on "The Acts of The Apostles" is one of to latest and most up-to-date. His words are very directly to the point: "A great battle indeed has raged round the words of the Authorized Version of the twenty-third verse. 'The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles,' which are otherwise rendered in the Revised Version. The presence or the absence of the 'and' between elders and brethren has formed the battle ground between two parties, the one upholding, the other opposing the right of the laity to take part in Church synods and councils." "The Acts of the Apostles", p. 236. So you see my position on Acts 15:23 is correct. My Reviewers have certainly not studied and informed themselves as to the real meaning underlying the Revised reading. III-6-9 OABV-94-VIII Acts 16:7. On the Spirit of Jesus I will simply call attention to the fact that the Revisers broke the higher critics' rule by taking the larger reading for the shorter. This is one of the places where the Revisers added to the Textus Receptus. There is more involved, however than this. Kindly read my book, page. 192. III-6-9 OABV-95-IX Romans 5:1 On We have or Let us have Peace. My Reviewers endeavor to make out quite a case on the way I handle the marginal reading from Romans 5:1. Wherein does the difference between my Reviewers and me lie? The difference is this; they say that what I treated of was a mere marginal note and not an alternative reading. The truth of the matter is that I used the English Revised Version which plainly in the text (not in the margin), says, "let us have peace"; whereas the margin of the ARV says, 'many ancient authorities read "let us have"'. Why were not my Reviewers frank enough to tell you that the expression "let us have peace" is in the text of the English Revised. And in chapters 11 and 12 of my book where I compared texts from the standpoint of doctrine I usually used the English Revised, especially noting whenever I used the ARV. But in chapter 6 now under consideration I was not primarily comparing texts from the standpoint of doctrine; I was showing the similarity if not identity of the American Revised with the Jesuit Bible of 1582 in the passages under consideration. Nevertheless, considering the strength of what is said in the margin of the ARV the Reviewers were not entitled to say that this was not an alternative marginal reading but a mere marginal note. Why should not the charge which they brought against me of perversion really lie against them? Moreover... I deny that, in any way, whatever, I misrepresented Dr. G.L. Robinson. They say (Section I, p. 30) "This is perhaps as striking a perversion of authority as is found in this book." I was not reviewing Dr. Robinson. I was not endeavoring to show he was anti-Revised Version, nor was I under any obligation to say that he endorsed the ARV. I simply used him as a witness when he said that the reading "let us have peace" is a serious error of doctrine. And so it is. If we start out as Paul does in Romans 5:1 to say "Being justified by faith", and then add, "let us have peace" this is plainly a Catholic doctrine, that is justification by works. Dr. Robinson is right; moreover, the constant belittling of Protestant Versions on the ground that they are based on faulty and recent manuscripts turns the hearts of the people to ancient manuscripts. The margin of the Revised Version is full of references to the ancient manuscripts. In the AV you cannot find ten marginal references to other MSS; while in Matthew alone in the Revised there are over fifty. The Revised Version choked its margin with alternative readings from other MSS. Here is one in the margin of the ARV of Romans 5:1. Of course the most ancient and most eminent manuscript used by all the higher critics for the last one hundred years is the Vatican Manuscript, then which there is none other in the world more Catholic. I noticed that my Reviewers are glad to get the help of the margin in other cases where they were ashamed of the text, the shorter account of the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11, for instance. My Reviewers say that in the expression "let us have" the difference is just between the long "a" and the short "o" of the Greek word. It is a vast difference; it is exactly the same difference between the two versions in translating Col.2:16 where a blow against the Sabbath is felt by Seventh-day Adventists. I am surprised that the Reviewers would indicate to you that the difference between omicron and omega is so slight, whereas in this very text it is the difference between the indicative and imperative modes. III-6-10 OABV- 95- X 1.Cor.5:7. On omission of the phrase "for us". My Reviewers defend the omission of the words, "for us" from the passage "for Christ our passover was sacrificed for us" by saying that six other manuscripts besides the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit it. Well, what about the thousands that contain it? Is not this a pivotal text? Is not this one of the most important for the Protestant doctrine of atonement? Suppose the next time they revise the Bible they change another one. Very soon the changed ones, affecting a great doctrine get in a majority and the unchanged ones are in a minority. Is not this a sinister change? If they changed all these texts at once, everybody would rise up and protest. I do not think we can brush aside the protest which I have quoted in my book, from a Protestant minister on this text. My Reviewers offer other Scriptures such as Romans 5:8, 1.Peter 1:17, 21, as if we could find the same expression there. Not so. The first one does not say that Christ was sacrificed for us; while the second one does not even use the expression "for us". "Precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." (Isa. 28:10). So does God teach us. It is the reverse of God's teaching when we begin to weaken one of these precepts or lines. Who is to say that it is not dangerous to mutilate one of these verses because there is another verse left somewhere which contains a truth like it? Catholics teach that any one act of Christ's life would have atoned for us. We do not agree with this. We point to the act of eternal consequence, his death on the cross. We say "Behold the Lamb of God". It is most unfortunate that this outstanding text of 1.Cor.5:7 has been so changed in the Revised that it is adaptable to the Catholic doctrine of atonement. In a few moments we will see that another text has been changed so as to leave out this expression, "through his blood". Sister White referring to this text says; "The slaying of the Passover lamb was a shadow of the death of Christ. Says Paul, 'Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.'' "Great Controversy", p. 399, (See also P.P. p. 277) III-6-10 OABV-95-11 1.Cor.15:47 On the omission of "the Lord". All we will do, is only emphasize once again that this Chapter 6 was given principally to show the similarity if not the identity of these passages in the Revised and Jesuit Bible of 1582, both agreeing between themselves and disagreeing with the King James. I will say here, however, that considerable use is made of this text as it now stands in the ARV to advance the new 'Person of Christ' theory. Notice this, as a little further on I discuss the change in 1.Tim. 3:16. III-6-10 OABV-96-XII Eph. 3:9 On omission of the phrase, "by Jesus Christ" My Reviewers endeavor to defend the omission of the phrase "by Jesus Christ" on the grounds that the truth that Jesus is creator, can be found in three other Texts in the ARV; namely, John 1:1-3, Col. 1:16 and Heb. 1:2. My Reviewers claim that the inclusion of the thought in these three other texts exonerates the Revisers from displaying ulterior purposes in this omission. Quite the contrary. My Reviewers failed to call attention to the fact that I have these three very same texts under indictment elsewhere for revealing these same ulterior purposes. In fact my Reviewers forget that they confessed that I had just grounds for criticism against the first of these texts (John 1:1-3) as handled by the Revisers. III-6-11 OABV-96-XIII Col.1:14 on omission of the phrase, "his blood". My Reviewers attempt to evade the force of the parallelism between the ARV and the Jesuit Bible of 1582 on the omission of the phrase "his blood". It is beside the point for them to say that if I am seeking for parallelisms of this nature I would have to reject the most of the New Testament. Because we are not arguing about where the Jesuit and the Revised agree; but where the Jesuit and the Revised agree in opposition to the AV. What kind of reasoning do you call this? Nobody ever doubted that the great bulk of the verses of all Versions are practically alike. It is where the Jesuit and Revised agree with each. other, but differ from the AV that we must determine our estimation of the Version. My Reviewers again fall back on 1.Peter 1:17-19. So this verse must do double duty. It must bolster us up for the omission of the words "through his blood" in Col. 1:14. Perhaps we shall have to use it again to bolster us up for other omissions from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. If we remove, one by one, the strands from which the suspension bridge is hung, very soon we shall have the whole super-structure supported by only one strand. And what is the need of all this? The Authorized Version is sufficient for all needs. It has been with us in the Protestant world for three hundred years, and for eighty years in the third angel's message. What then is the need of all these omissions defended by such explaining and arguing? III-6-11 OABV-97-XIV 1.Tim.3:16. On the substitution of He who for God. Before bringing the evidence from the Spirit of Prophecy forward on this question, let me say that this text has been the battle-ground for the ages. As it now stands, in the AV it is both a cause and a bulwark of Protestantism. As it now stands in the Revised it becomes one of the great texts for propaganda by Romanizing Protestants and Catholics. To illustrate: on the change of "he who" for "God" Bishop Westcott says: "The reader may easily miss the real character of this deeply instructive change. The passage now becomes a description of the essential character of the gospel, and not simply a series of historical statements. The gospel is personal. The gospel 'the revelation of godliness' is, in a word, Christ Himself, and not any propositions about Christ". Westcott, "Some lessons",  p. 198. The Revisers made this change which confounds Christ with the movement He instituted, the gospel, and leads our minds away from Christ the person on His heavenly throne, to Christ, the bread of the Lord's Supper, (mass), on the ritualistic altar-throne. What is this, if not a change of doctrine? Bishop Westcott was conscious of the change the Revisers were making in this reading. 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 Scriptures and church doctrine as to the Person of Christ." "Princeton Review", Jan. 1854 In the great tremendous stirs made the last 100 years by trials of Protestant clergymen for heresy, none was more widely followed than the trial of Dr. Briggs of Union Theological Seminary, New York. He believed this new doctrine of the person of Christ, as did Dr. Schaff here in America, like Dr. Westcott in England, and like the majority of those who were, and are, active in promoting the revision of the bible. By some it is called Christology; by others The Development Theory. Its dangerous possibility can be shown by the following quotation concerning Dr. Briggs: "Dr. Briggs, now a member of the Episcopal Church, has from time to time brought into expression certain ideals in regard to the development of the Church Universal. If one understands him aright, he looks forward to the reconstruction under the new conditions of the twentieth century, of a world's Church or Church Universal, which was so nearly realized under the very different conditions of the fifteenth century. He is, therefore, sympathetically interested in the policy of the Church of Rome and he is in close personal relations with not a few of the scholarly leaders of the church." "The Censorship of the Church of Rome", Vol. II,  pp. 470, 471. This new theory concerning the person of Christ or the Development theory which gives Christ two bodies, one in heaven and another, his church, on earth, was aimed at the Bible. It gives a personality to the church and to the Holy Spirit in the church in such a real way, that the church is self-sufficient, of herself to develop doctrine and to meet the changing problems of the age. How does it affect the doctrine of the second coming of Christ? Let me quote from "The Mercerburg Theology" by Dr. Swander:        "The only question remaining to be touched upon is, when shall the last physical change take place in the history of each second-Adamite? Down to this time, the weight of theological sentiment, as formulated in the confessions and taught in the divinity schools, had favored its postponement to some unknown future period, when the dethronement of death and the aggregate rising of the dead are to constitute the grand and final act in time's great theater. There is now, however, a gradual breaking away from all such interpretation of the Scripture. Many believe that the doctrine never had any fellowship with the truth. As soon as an individual becomes a member of the second Adam, there is a beginning of the process by which 'this mortal shall put on immortality.'" "The Mercersburg Theology", p. 300. Sister White says: "The union of the divine with the human nature is one of the most precious and most mysterious truths of the plan of redemption. It is this of which Paul speaks when he says, 'Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh.'" "This truth has been to many a cause of doubt and unbelief. When Christ came into the world, the Son of God and the Son of man, he was not understood by the people of his time." "Testimonies for the Church" Vol. V,  p. 746. (See also "Counsels to Teachers" p. 262). As usual the Reviewers fall back on a little circle of unmutilated texts found elsewhere to assure us that we still can find a fundamental doctrine which has been destroyed in the mutilated text. Nevertheless, by ten references to the Spirit of Prophecy we find the Authorized Version and the "Testimonies to the Church" in agreement on this point, while the Reviewers uphold the Revisers and others on the other side. My Reviewers (on Section III, chapter 6, page 12) say: "But nothing can be said to be essentially lost whichever reading is followed." What am I to think? Must I believe that the Reviewers are not sufficiently informed about the Mercersburg Theology and the Development Theory to see in the changed reading what is there and what others see who know this theory? III-6-12 OABV-97-XV 2.Tim.4:1 On the judgment and appearing of Christ. Can anybody get anything out of the incomprehensible wordiness into which 2.Tim.4:1 has been changed in the Revised? My Reviewers claim that it does not refer to the executive judgment but that it refers to the investigative judgment. If my Reviewers had taken pains to read all the verses which follow down to verse 8 they would have seen that the Apostle Paul is talking of "THAT DAY". It is the same "that day" spoken of in Luke 21:31, the great day of rewards. My Reviewers talk about my interpreting passages out of their context. What have they done here? Of what value is their discussion between the two Greek words kai and kata? The executive judgment of Christ takes place at His coming; I quote: "And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." Jude 14, 15. My Reviewers do not believe that 2.Tim.4:1 refers to this executive judgment. I submit the evidence to the decision of my hearers without argument. III-6-13 OABV-97-XVI Heb. 7:21. On omitting "after the order of Melchisedec." Here again I will desist from doctrinal argument on this point . These passages were compared to show the similarity, if not the identity, which the Revised Versions and the Jesuit Bible or 1582 exhibit, as against the Authorized version of 1611. III-6-13 OABV-98-XVII Rev. 22:14 On the robes and the commandments. I must contend again for the Authorized Version reading "blessed are they that do His commandments" instead of "blessed are they that wash their robes". Why do my Reviewers claim that the testimony of the MSS is so strong against the genuineness of the clause "that do His commandments", when the "Expositor's Greek Testament" Vol. 5, page 490, in discussing the MSS and versions on this text calls it "the well supported Hoi poiountes tas entolas autou" (that do His commandments)? It is further surprising to note that this same authority, while giving the preference to the Greek of the Revisers, informs us that the clause ("that do His commandments") was "possibly due to the feeling that some moral characteristic was needed after verse 11". This is good Adventist doctrine. My Reviewers think that the Greek will not permit the implication that the saints are washing their robes during the entrance into the city. They say that either reading is orthodox and disturbs no doctrine. We certainly would insist that we shall be keeping His commandments during the entrance into the city, but as equally strong do we insist that we will NOT be washing our robes during the entrance into the city. For a whole year during the plagues we will NOT be washing our robes that is sinning and being forgiven because there is no blood atoning. But for a whole year we will be keeping His commandments and for eternity ever after. In the light of the message of verses 11 and 12 even as discerned by this non-Adventist commentator, it is impossible for the construction "wash their robes" to stand the test. Hina, according to my dictionary, after the word "do", has the sense of causing or affecting. The verb here is the verb "do", poieo. Hence the sentence would then read, "Blessed are they, doing His commandments, causing them to have the right to the tree of life and to enter into the city." In other words it is not purpose. They do not do His commandments in order that they may have right, but because they are doing His commandments they do have the right. "Great Controversy", (page 466) says: "And the Revelator, half a century after the crucifixion, pronounces a blessing upon them 'that do His commandments, they that have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.'" (See also Volume 5, p. 628, 693; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 133, 235; P.P. p. 208; A.A. p. 592; Volume 9, p. 130). Here again the Spirit of Prophecy lines up with the AV on this not insignificant passage; in this great Adventist passage, which belongs to no other people so peculiarly as to Adventist. We regret to say that the Reviewers, and the Rheims New Testament of 1582 are on the other side. Chapter XI Blow After Blow Against the Truth You will recall that in Section I, example 4, on the mistakes of citations by the Reviewers, I proved anew that Bishop Westcott confesses that by repetitive changes, by changing here a little and there a little, the Revisers effected changes in articles of faith. To refresh your mind about this matter I will quote again from Bishop Westcott's book: "But the value of the Revision is most clearly seen when the student considers together a considerable group of passages, which bear upon some article of the Faith. The accumulation of small details then produces its full effect. Points on which it might have seemed pedantic to insist in a single passage become impressive by repetition, the close rendering of the original Greek in the Revised Version appears to suggest ideas of creation and life and providence, of the course and end of finite being, and of the Person of the Lord, who is the source of all truth and hope, which are of deepest interest at the present time." "Some lessons", pp. 184, 185. And further I will give a quotation from Bishop Ellicott, who for ten years was Chairman of the English Revision Committee. This is what he said in his book entitled, "Consideration on the Revision," which he wrote two years after the Revision Committee began its work. He said: "Passages involving doctrinal error. Here our duty is obvious. Faithfulness, and loyalty to God's truth, require that the correction should be made unhesitatingly. This class of cases, will, however, embrace many different instances; some of real and primary importance, some in which the sense will be little affected, when the error, grammatically great as it may be, is removed, and the true rendering substituted. For instance, we shall have in the class we are now considering, passages in which the error is one of a doctrinal nature, or, to use the most guarded language, involves some degree of liability to doctrinal misconception." "Considerations", p.88. This proves the Revisers were not only translating but considering doctrines. Surely it is not the business of translators to consider the theology of the text to be translated. My Reviewers are again shown to be wrong. III-11-1 OABV-184 2.Tim.3:16. On the Inspiration of the Scriptures. My Reviewers say, "Though this rendering by the Revisers is much to be regretted, it does not state an untruth, but only part of the truth, fully explained elsewhere in the same Version." I agree with my Reviewers that the Revised Version gives only a part of the truth. I prefer the Authorized which gives the whole truth. This Scripture, as in the Revised Version, is quoted once in the writing of Sister White, not in the book itself, but in the introductions and it is not listed in the Index. In the immediate connection with it, however, she speaks of the Bible as the "infallible" Word of God. In Vol. 5, p. 747, she affirms when quoting this text as in the AV, thus indicating a very decided preference for the AV. III-11-2 OABV-185 John 5:39  On searching the Scriptures. This text, now under consideration, is not so glaring an example as some. There is not as square a contradiction between the two renderings as there is in some others. The preponderating balance of evidence as we find it, both in the ranks of commentators and the Spirit of Prophecy indicates that the fundamental idea of what Jesus says was a direction, a command. The famous Dr. Frederick Field, who spent all his life in researches, reconstructing the Greek Old Testament, and became famous therein, tells us that the mistake of the Revisers in adopting the affirmatory view instead of the command or direction, was because they placed too much stress upon the parenthetical clause, "for in them ye think ye have eternal life." ("Notes on Translation" p. 90) Leaving out the parenthetical clause, what then do you think is the more clear rendering, the AV, which says, "Search the scriptures for they are they which testify of me", or the Revised rendering "Ye search the scriptures for they are they which testify of me." We do not think that the Jews actually searched the scriptures when Jesus was, speaking because the scriptures testified of him. In other words, the underlying idea of the passage is a command, or direction, or, as Sister White says: (Vol. 2, p. 633); "The followers of Jesus are not meeting the mind and will of God, if they are content to remain in ignorance of his word. All should become Bible students. Christ commanded his followers, 'Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.'" (Emphasis mine) And also Volume 5, p. 388, "Repeat to all the Saviour's command, 'Search the scripture.'" Twice this text is quoted by Sister White as in the RV. In Vol. 5, I find these words, "Repeat to all the Saviour's Command - Search the Scriptures." Several times it is directly stated that it is a "command" and a "duty". This is consistent with the AV not the RV. Twenty-three times it is quoted in the Spirit of Prophecy as in the AV, thus it must be evident that Sister White very much preferred the AV on this text to the RV. III-11-3 OABV-186 John 2:11. On the question of miracles. My Reviewers see nothing wrong in the fact that the Revisers have struck out from the N.T. the word miracle in 23 of the 32 instances where it is used, or that in the case of the other nine, if they use the term in the text they robbed it of its authority by a weakening substitute in the margin; or that in the Old Testament they drove it out entirely in the five instances where it occurred in the AV. THEY SAY: "There are two different words rendering miracle in the New Testament. One is semeion, meaning sign, which is the base of signify, signification, and significance, The other is dynamis, which means power." I REPLY: Do my Reviewers mean to say that it is simply by their grace or the grace of the translators that they allow the idea of miracle or miraculous to enter into these words? If so, there is this against them; (1) the word of God (2) the history of the words; (3) common sense. Hebrews 2:4. "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with diverse miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?" Here the word semeion is placed right along side of "wonders" and "miracles" and "gifts" of the Holy spirit; inspiration declaring that God used all these four things by which to "bear witness". This text specifically shows that semeion is not just an ordinary sign, but is equivalent to wonders, miracles and the works of the Holy Ghost; therefore, inspiration itself has put the supernatural into the word semeion . With regard to the history of the word, it may be said that the word "miracle" comes from the Latin word mirabilia from which, in English, we get the words "marvel", "marvelous," "miracle", and "miraculous", etc.; also in the French, merveille; and lastly common sense would tell us that the authority of the fitness of things would show that this word has in it the miraculous and the supernatural when it is used in circumstances that in themselves betoken the supernatural and miraculous, and when used in connection with the manifestation of God's power. The word "sign," alone, would be utterly insufficient for the proper translation from the Greek. So here both the Revisers and the Reviewers fail to discern the fitness of things regarding the meaning of the word. My Reviewers attempt grouping of instances; and right here I may say, let none be misled by grouping of the uses of a Greek word. It is a striking fact that, the word "miracle" singular or plural is found 37 times in the AV and only, 9 times in the RV. The Greek word semeion, the one in the text under consideration, is used 75 times and out of that is translated 22 times as "miracle" in the AV. Only three times in the ARV is this same word translated "miracle"; and then because they were compelled to do it; for it would have made utter nonsense to translate it any other way. I will now give these 3 times and let you judge for yourself. This is proof positive that the Greek word semeion has an intrinsic meaning in itself of a "miracle." (1) Luke 23:8 "And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad; for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracles done by him." See how ridiculous it would be to translate the word semeion by "sign," as: "he hoped to have some sign done by him." This is why the ARV was compelled to put miracle here. (2) Acts 4:16. "Saying what shall we do to these men? For what indeed a notable miracle bath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem and we cannot deny it." (3) To further get the force of this we will now read the 22nd verse. "For the man was above forty years old on whom this miracle of healing was shewed." Please substitute the word "sign" here and see how ridiculous it would be. This is the last of the three instances in which the Revisers translated the word semeion as "miracle" and in each of the three they were obliged to do so because of the utter nonsense, otherwise. So I still maintain, as in my book, that to change the sentence, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee", shows a radical change of doctrine. Added to it is the fact that the word "miracle" used 32 times in the N.T., 5 times in the O.T. or 37 times in the AV, has been reduced down to nine times in the ARV, only three of which are translated from semeion. Is not this a great step in the direction of modernism and away from the supernatural? Is not this tantamount to a change of doctrine? Can we not say that the doctrine of the Authorized is the supernatural; while the doctrine of the RV is the natural? But I am not through with this case yet: 1. The Greek word angelos strictly means a messenger. Then why, on this theory of literalism, advanced by the Revisers, and followed by my Reviewers, should we not translate, - Hebrews 1:7 (RV) "Who maketh his angels winds", by, "Who maketh his messengers winds". There is a closing note in my Reviewers' comment on this question of miracles which says that they are giving the opinion of a member of the 1611 Revision Committee, namely, Dr. Trench. (Sec. III-11-4). What do my Reviewers mean? Dr. Trench died about 1886. How then could he have been a member of the 1611 Revision Committee. And since Dr. Trench, according to the quotation, would prefer always to translate semeion by sign, this would be a natural procedure for him for he also was a member of the 1881 Revision Committee. Then why in the name of all that is right, make him a member of the 1611 Committee? 2. In Greek the word hypocrites strictly means "actor". In strict literalism why not translate, - Matt. 23:23 "Woe unto you, scribes, and Pharisees, hypocrites" by "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, actors"? 3. And further graphe literally means "writing". Then why not translate, 2.Tim.3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" by "All writing is given by inspiration of God"? What do you think of this, brethren, would this be correct? And so I might go on and on with other Greek N.T. words which have established use different from the Greek use., Greek words have gathered up established English equivalents. Shall we now, after 300 years say "messenger," "actor", writing", when the established use is "angel", "Hypocrite", and " scripture"? In other words, has not the ARV begun a campaign to tear down established truth by uprooting established usage of words? Also is there not a further disastrous result to our beautiful English language? Let me exhort you in the words of Jude, "Beloved... it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3. What can be the purpose of the Reviewers' defense of the Revisers in uprooting the established usage in the New Testament language? III-11-4 OABV-187 Matt. 18:2, 3. On Conversion. The arguments of my Reviewers in their objection to what I have said on the matter of "Conversion" in my book is just another specimen of wrong grouping and re-grouping of the different instances in which a Greek word is used. THEY SAY, "But the author overlooks the fact that these same men (two writers) could have found in the AV at least 9 times as many passages rendered with turn in the sense of conversion, and could have used these to bolster up their false doctrine that a man can convert himself." I REPLY: This is not the case. And I will proceed to show you from their own arguments on the two words (1) Strepho and (2) epistrepho that their groupings are wrong and that their conclusions are wrong. Here we will see the beautiful sense of the fitness of things which resides in the Authorized translation as well as in its more skillful handling of the Greek than in the Revised Version. MY REVIEWERS SAY on strepho "Here are the facts in the case; Matt. 18:2,3, is the one N.T. passage using the simple form of the word strepho meaning turn in the sense of conversion. In the AV this same simple verb form is rendered 14 times in the passive, 11 times in the active, and 3 times in the reflexive." I REPLY: This is not the truth. It is contrary to fact. (1) Strepho is not used 28 times in the Greek. "The Englishman's Greek Concordance" gives it only 18 times. It is barely possible that my Reviewers, when they said "is rendered 14 times in the passive, 11 times in the active, and 3 times in the reflexive" meant to say. 14 times in the passive of which 11 times was in the active; but of course that would be nonsense. It is barely possible they meant 4 times in the passive instead of 14 times, which would make it 17 times and would check nearly with the Greek Concordance of 18 times. In either case there is inaccuracy or bad reasoning in these figures; one or the other. Then (2) in the other 17 times it is used "turned and said" and "turned and saw"; none of which could, of course, have been conversion; and only twice: Acts 7:39 "And in their hearts turned back to Egypt," no conversion and Acts 7:42 "Then God turned, and gave them up" no conversion there. Which examination shows that in all the instances in which strepho is used, only once could it possibly used of conversion, which is Matt. 18:2,3, and on which the Revised Version fell down. You will probably here raise this question of strepho; Since the substantial meaning of the word is turn, how then can you get out of it "conversion"? Here now is where the wonderful mastery of the subject by the King James Translation springs at once to view, which I will bring out when I finish epistrepho. EPISTREPHO In further defense of the Revised Version's elimination of "be converted" my Reviewers say of the verb epistrepho that it is used 41 times in the N.T. 17 times of which are in the sense of conversion; and further, that both the AV and the ARV render nine of these by turn. This is not the fact. These 9 times do not need to handle the word "convert" or "be converted", because the verb turn is used with an objective, such as, "turn to the Lord,'" or "turn from your idols unto the living God"; so that the word "convert" or "be converted" is not necessary. But there are 7 times in the N.T. clearly outstanding where the other application by "be converted" would answer the situation, and on these the Revised Version fell down. Take as an example: Luke 22:31,32. King James Version "And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat:... And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Revised Version "Simon, Simon, behold Satan asked to have you... When once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren." I ask this audience if this is not a clear case where the ARV makes conversion possible through the human agency and not dependent upon God. Acts 3:19 King James Version "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out..." Revised Version "Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out." I submit it to you brethren, is not this a clear case where the ARV makes conversion possible through the human agency and not dependent on God? And so on through the 7 texts. Now here is where the King James translators discerned the fact that conversion is an event dependent upon God alone. This they saw because 4 of the times, in which "be converted" is used in the A.V. N.T. in the sense of conversion, came over from Isa. 6:10, so that in the divine providence of God, at the time when Jesus announced the new birth from above to Nicodemus, epistrepho used passively without any qualifying clause, being a verb for turn in the Greek must have had the meaning of "be converted". The Revisers confess that they made this change for a purpose and were glad they did. I read from Westcott, "Some Lessons," page 172: "The change of a single word brings out the responsibility of man from the first. Thus, when we read in Acts 3:19, 'Repent ye and be converted,' the passive form of the second clause puts out of sight the thought of man's willing action, which lies in the original 'Repent ye, and turn again'." And again on pages 191 and 192: "And the time of the fulfilment of the counsel of God depends on human effort: 'Repent and turn again', is St. Peter's plea to the Jews." Also from Dr. Milligan: "Thus in Matt. 18:3, the opening verb, though passive in form, is properly rendered actively, and the popular error of man being mere passive instruments in the hands of God thereby exploded." "Expository Value of the R.V." p. 130. Again I repeat that those changes in these 7 texts, made where they should not be, were consciously and intentionally made to throw conversion back upon man's human effort. III-11-5 OABV-189 Heb. 11-3 On world for age. My Reviewers write one and one-half pages about the use of the word aion, and how the word aion in Greek is translated. They show how the AV and the ARV handle it in Hebrews, in Ephesians, in Revelation, etc. But what does it all amount to? Her is a significant fact: The word aion occurs, according to my Reviewers, 122 times in the N.T.; according to my "Englishman's Concordance", 125 times. Would it surprise you to learn that the ARV translates it "age" or "ages" 61 times out of 122 in the text or margin while the AV translates it as such only 3 times, text and margin. My Reviewers claim that the literal use of this Greek word is age or ages: then why were not the Revisers always literal in the case of this word, seeing that my Reviewers claim literalness as a great tribute to them? Suppose they had been literal in the case of: Luke 16:8 AV "The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." Suppose we had there substituted "age" as in the margin of the ARV; it would then read, "The children of this age are in their generation wiser than the children of light." This virtually would have said that all the children of the present evil age are wiser that the children of the redeemed world to come. Or that all the people that have ever lived since this age began are wiser then the redeemed members of the human race in Heaven. My Reviewers complained because I said that Westcott and Hort injected evolution into the ARV. First, I will show that they intended to do it; and secondly, I will show that they did it, and you can see it with your own eyes. To show that they intended to do it, I quote from Westcott: "In this connection we see the full meaning of the words used of creation in Hebrews 11:3: 'By faith we understand that the worlds (the ages i.e., the universe under the aspect of time) have been formed by the Word of God.... The whole sequence of life in time, which we call the world' has been 'fitted together' by God. His one creative word includes the harmonious unfolding on one plan of the last issues of all that was made. That which is in relation to Him 'one act at once' is in relation to us an evolution apprehended in orderly succession." "Some Lessons", p. 187. (Emphasis mine) When Westcott said of creation that "the ages, i.e. the universe under the aspect of time have been formed by the word of God," and "His one creative word included the harmonious unfolding on one plan of the last issues of all that was made," or what was to Him "one act at once, is in relation to us an Evolution apprehended in orderly succession," he virtually said that Jesus Christ made not the physical world but he made the ages. Now you cannot make an age in a moment of time. It takes an age to make an age. And several ages cannot dwell together at the same time; they must succeed one another in single file. Therefore Bishop Westcott claims that the Revisers by the use of this word intended to present creation under the aspect of evolution. We will now notice how we can see evolution by the repeated translation of "age" for aion instead of "worlds". The common people do not know much about evolution and would not see evolution in the translation if it were there in terms of evolution. But the intelligent people and these are the ones who concern us here, who have studied evolution more or less, or even if they have not, would be confirmed, by the prodical use of this word 'ages' in this error; for a world can be made at once and age can not. Moreover if the Son of God made the ages, which would be the meaning if we substituted the margin for the text in Hebrews 1:2, what would we have when he got through making it? nothing visible, simply the past and gone forever. Let us read one of these texts from Ferrar Fenton: Hebrews 1:2 Fenton "Whom He appointed Inheritor of all; and through whom he made the ages;" also Hebrews 11:3 Fenton "By faith we comprehend that the periods were arranged by the continuous intention of God, so that from the unseen the visible appeared." In other words, the only way the visible could appear from the unseen, here was because the periods were arranged by the continuous intention of God. According the AV the "worlds were framed by the word of God" and from them we could understand how the visible appeared. But if it is no longer worlds but periods, or ages, which were framed by the word of God, then how from those which are invisible, can you understand that the visible appeared; for there was not anything visible there. What is there to look at? This is evolution. This is something developing out of nothing; through long periods. This is evolution.. Even a wayfarer can see this. While of course, we use Ferrar Fenton here, nevertheless, the ARV by inserting "ages" systematically in the margin opens the way logically for this arrangement as given by Ferrar Fenton. Goodspeed, 20th Century, and Ferrar Fenton all translate the last part of Matt. 24:3 as "the close of the age". The ARV here in the margin gives "the consummation of the age". The King James translators studiously avoided this word; the Revisers used it copiously, (61 out of 122 times), getting it into the margin when not possible to get it into the text. Here is where repetition is impressive as Westcott said; it emphasizes the unfolding ages. But with what are you impressed? Acts of creation? No, unfolding of evolving ages, which is Evolution. I am not talking theory and fancy, our ministers are meeting this difficulty in the field. III-11-7 OABV-190 Col. 1:15, 16. On creation in Him, or by Him I regret very much to say that my Reviewers assailed my claim that the Revisers in this text change the doctrine, and concealed from their hearers in their first sentence an essential fact which I gave in my book. THEY SAY: "By quoting from a Unitarian minister the author seeks to make it appear.." Why do they hide the fact that this Unitarian minister was a Reviser, a member of the English N.T. Revision Committee? Why make believe he is a Unitarian minister at random without connection with this situation? He sat on the Committee, he knew what was intended by this charge. The Reviewers talk of unfairness, is this fairness for them to represent one of the Revision Committee as a Unitarian Minister taken up at random? My Reviewers cannot see that it makes any difference whether all things were created in Him or by Him. They admit that the "all things" referred to include the visible and material. But notice the little word "by" implies that the agent is external to the thing acted upon; while "in" might identify the actor with the thing acted upon; and so without any great strain would really mean pantheism. If not pantheism, it would then be vague, indefinite, and mystic. My Reviewers, by admitting that the "all things" created in Him include the visible and material, identify the totality of creation with the creator. What is this if not pantheism? In the AV we are protected in the little word "by"; but if you use "in" then when we look at all things - do we see Him? Or when we look at Him, do we see them? The sun and the moon were not made "in Him"; they were made "by Him". Were all the heavenly worlds made "in" Him? If when we look at the visible creation, we see Him, and if when we look at Him we see the visible creation, the Reviewers are but justifying the charge that the Revisers were pantheists. My Reviewers attempt to justify this construction by quoting Ephesians 2:10, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus". The reasoning fails because Eph. 2:10 refers to a spiritual creation. They take a material creation and make it spiritual; and then they take a spiritual creation and make it spiritual; and then they take a spiritual creation and make it material. Is such confusion justifiable? My Reviewers, referring back again to the Unitarian Reviser, say, "Some man's interpretation of the ARV rendering of Col. 1:15, 16 has no bearing on its correct translation or true meaning,..." They say, "Some man". I say "One of the Revisers". They imply that I took some man, somewhere. He was a duly appointed Reviser, had a powerful influence in mounding the text, and in fact, the regular chairman withdrew and there was a national upheaval because this "some man" was retained on the Committee despite public indignation. (See "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated", pp. 168-169). Why did Westcott and Hort stand for his being appointed on the Committee. Why did they defend him when public indignation demanded his removal? No one can read the life of Doctor Hort without knowing how powerfully he was under influence of Maurice, who was a regular descendant from Unitarian ancestry and was dismissed from the presidency of Kings College for heresy. You will be interested to know that this phrase is translated in the Unitarian Bible just as it is in the ARV. Col. 1:15, 16  Wakefield Version "Who is an image of the invisible God, a first born of the whole creation for in Him were created all the things in the heavens and upon the earth." III-11-9 OABV-191-V-1 1.Tim. 3:16 On God or He Who. See answer in Chapter VI, Section VI. III-11-8 GABV-192-V-2 Acts 16:7 On the Spirit of Jesus. See answer in Chapter VI, Section VI. III-11-8 GABV-192-VI-1 Isa. 7:14 On Virgin or Maiden The Revisers put the word "maiden" in the margin of Isa. 7:14 as synonymous with "virgin". My Reviewers defend this action and claim I have no right to criticize it. Let us see. The deity of Christ is proven by his Virgin birth; and the weight of the proof hangs on Isa. 7:14. There was a Unitarian on the English Revision Committee (as there also was on the American) and there were those of Unitarian leanings on the Old Testament Committee. Unitarians do not believe in deity, or Virgin Birth of Christ; therefore a strong probability was created beforehand that something would be done to weaken the force of Isa. 7:14. That the Deity of Christ is proven by his virgin birth, I quote, from William Jennings Bryan: "If the Virgin Birth be rejected how shall the deity of Christ be proven. It is quite common for modernists to affirm that the deity of Christ is entirely independent of the manner of his birth... If Christ's deity was not demonstrated by His birth, and was not proved by the manner of His birth the modernist will experience great embarrassment in convincing a questioner that there was any other time or way in which the deity of Christ became manifest." "Seven Questions in Dispute," pp. 57,59. The weight of proof for the Virgin Birth of Christ hangs on the great prophecy of it in Isa. 7:14, just as the greatest evidence for all outstanding plans of God usually is grounded upon the prophecy therof. On the point in question, Dr. Howard Kelly, M.D., L.L.D., of Baltimore, says: "Matthew is most explicit in his first chapter, and quotes Isaiah and tells us that the word Almah (Virgin) in the Hebrew of Isaiah (7:14) in his day meant a virgin, and that Jesus was conceived by the Virgin Mary of the Holy Spirit. Every time I call him 'Lord' I mean by that 'God' the Son of God, and proclaim his Virgin Birth." Ibid. 56,57. By the alternative reading in the Revised Version, we can now talk not only of the Virgin Birth, but also of the Maiden Birth. To show how the Unitarian views of the Unitarian scholar on the Revision Committee as well as the strong Unitarian leanings of Dr. Hort and other Revisers on both the Old and New Testament Committees, would reject a clear cut convincing doctrine of the Virgin birth, I quote from a recent advertisement in a Unitarian Book-room in one of our large cities as given in this book by Williams Jennings Bryan: "During the life of Jesus he was understood by all to be the son of Joseph and Mary born in holy wedlock. This is clear from a study of the Gospels in their early and most authentic form. But long after the death of Jesus unknown hands added to the copies of the Gospels, they were making those introductory chapters in Matthew and Luke, which relate the legends of a miraculous birth. These legends... are as manifestly the product of an irrational point of view as are other tales of miracles. Miracles do not happen." Ibid. pp. 50,51. Why did they play into the hands of those who belittle the Virgin birth by using this word "maiden" in the margin? What was the necessity of adding this word "maiden" which lacks the strict thought of absolute chastity or virginity as in the word "virgin", while it contains additional shades of meaning not proper to the word "virgin"? To show how the Bible constantly couples the thought of purity with virginity and with the birth of Christ, we refer to Paul's thought of the church, "I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (2.Cor.11:2); and Isaiah's contrast between the purity of God's people and the heathen, "The Virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee." (Isa. 37:22); and in Revelation, chapter XII, the picture of the pure woman, the Church, travailing with the birth of Christ, as she is about to bring forth the man child. It is certainly adding an unnecessary complication to put in the margin a variant word, which lends itself to questions on so great a doctrine as the Virgin birth of Christ. III-11-8 OABV-193-VII-1 1.Cor.5:7 On the Passover for us. See answer Chapter VI, Section VI.   III-11-8 OABV-193-VIII-1 Job 19:25,26 On the Resurrection. My Reviewers justify the fact that the ARV presents Job rejoicing that if this present body is destroyed he shall, without his flesh see God. My Reviewers in defending the ARV have ceased, in so doing, to represent the Adventist doctrine. They are obliged to take this position because they follow and justify the ARV which in this instance has changed the doctrine of the resurrection. Then in this surrender of grand old Adventist doctrine to the, in their mind, overpowering authority of the ARV, my Reviewers have entangled themselves in three inexplicable and fatal positions. 1. They flee for refuge to Dr. Philip Schaff, president of both American Committees of Revision. Did they expect that Dr. Schaff would abandon his own child, the ARV, by failing to testify in his own and my Reviewers behalf? Moreover, Dr. Schaff was not a Hebrew authority. His remarks about the AV in this passage abandoning the Hebrew text to translate from the Septuagint of Vulgate are neither clear nor of any weight. Over against Dr. Schaff I will put Dr. Kinnicott, and greater authority in Hebrew it is not possible to find. He is recognised as one of the two outstanding Hebrew authorities on Hebrew manuscripts and their variations. Dr. Kennicott, as you will find in the commentaries of  Dr. Adam Clark on this verse, translates it as in the AV. 2. The second count against my Reviewers, and the most serious to Seventh day Adventists, is that they say, "It is not difficult to understand from the ARV translation that Job's sustaining hope was that though his body of flesh might be destroyed in the grave, yet in spite of that fact he was sure to see God. Moreover, Paul says 'Thou sowest not that body which shall be." (Sec. III-11-9). It is a matter of profound regret to me that my Reviewers allowed these words either to be said or to be printed, conveying to the hearers or readers the idea that Job meant according to the ARV to say that without his worm-destroyed body he would see God and nothing more. Why did not my Reviewers make it clear that in both the AV and the ARV Job states that his mortal body, obtained in birth, will be worm-destroyed before he states he shall see God? Why did not my Reviewers make it clear that in the AV Job presents his mortal body as worm-destroyed, but yet in another flesh shall he see God; while the ARV also presents his mortal-body-worm destroyed, but yet without the immortal flesh of which the AV speaks, he shall see God? I feel very disappointed that my Reviewers would permit themselves to stand in any way connected with such an exposition as this. 3. I notice now their third species of reasoning. If argument Number 2 is fatal to an outstanding Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, their argument Number 3 is seriously depressing to belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. They say, "if this were the only passage we had on the resurrection of the body, we might be in a more difficult situation." In other words, relying upon Job 19:26 ARV we are in a ship that is sinking us in the bottom of the sea, but be of good cheer, there are four squadrons of vessels which will hasten to our rescue:            Paul's great discourse on the resurrection.            The bodily state of Adam and Eve in Eden.            The future state of the righteous.            Other scriptural teachings. In other words, these four groups of scriptures plainly contradict Job 19:26 in the ARV. These four sets of texts, therefore, destroy the bad influence of Job 19:26 ARV. Blessed be the fact there are plenty of contradictions to this text. This text will not hurt us because there are plenty of others to contradict it: Not so. If all the rest of the Bible teaches the resurrection of the body, all the more reason why the Revisers should have squared this passage with the generality of the Bible teaching. They have no business to impose its teaching on the rest of the Bible on the ground of textual difficulty. If 1.Cor.15 teaches one thing and Job 19:25 another, which are we to believe? The translators of (?) happily were not under the influence of the modern rules of textual criticism which fact prevents them from exalting these above the harmony of the Bible. Certain of the members of the Revision Committee were spiritualists, Unitarians, and believers in purgatory. Therefore, our Protestant Bible received wounds in the house of friends. Job in the AV is clear, definite, conclusive. The only interpretation is that body and intelligence will again function together at the last day, and it definitely compels a resurrection. Job in the ARV is equally clear, definite conclusive. The only interpretation is that his intelligence will function apart from his body, which was destroyed by worms, and necessitates no resurrection before seeing God at the last day. This reading makes possible purgatory, prayers for the dead, disembodied spirits and spiritualism. When I proved in my book that some of the Revisers were higher critics, others favorable to Rome, modernists and Unitarians, my Reviewers charged me with using the illogical argument ad hominem; but the issue can not be so easily brushed aside. I showed that they held these theological views. Consequently that they were thus personally biased. Then I showed by their correspondence that they proposed to consider doctrinal questions in their revision. Next I showed that their revised readings lent themselves to these doctrines and that they commented upon their own translations accordingly. And finally, I showed that other prominent men used their readings to defend these doctrines. What more evidence do you want? It is not sufficient that my Reviewers give us critical technicalities upon which the authorities disagree. How much better it would have been if my Reviewers, after reviewing my book, had openly acknowledged that the ARV was wrong on this passage and had here changed doctrine. Why did they not hold in this instance to the Spirit of Prophecy? From "Prophets and Kings," pp. 163 and 164, I read: "From the depths of discouragement and despondency Job rose to the heights of implicit trust in the mercy and saving power of God. Triumphant he declared:... I know that my Redeemer liveth, And that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; And though after my skin worms destroy this body, Yet in my flesh shall I see God." In five other places besides this, the Spirit of Prophecy refers to this same text, always in the sense of the AV. Does this mean anything to us as Seventh-day Adventists? III-11-9 OABV-194 Acts 24:15 On the question of the resurrection. The only answer my Reviewers can give to the indictment of the ARV in omitting the phrase "of the dead", is, "textual reasons". The fact is, the omission has only 8 manuscripts in favor of it and 2,000 or more against it. If you call these "textual reasons" I do not. It is clear that they have chosen the reading of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus MSS and a few others to the exclusion of overwhelming testimony on the other side, to settle what is the true word of God and what is not. By reading 2.Tim.2:16-18 we see that if there was one heresy more prominent than another in the early days of the mystery of iniquity it was spiritualizing away the resurrection. My Reviewers claim that there are 13 other instances in the ARV of the phrase "of the dead". I say this is all the more reason why it should be here. What do you think of such an argument? The phrase "of the dead" is found in 13 other scriptures, hence leave it out here. It is found in the passage in thousands of MSS but omitted in a few MSS! On what ground of reason would you leave it out here, in the face of its being found in 13 other scriptures and in 2000 or more manuscripts. This, then is good evidence that the text under consideration in the AV is good doctrine. How can we say that when God has said a thing 13 times, it is enough; that he does not need to say it the 14th time. Evidently my Reviewers do not hold to Isaiah, "Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little." Are they heading toward the shorter Bible? III-11-10 OABV-194 Matt. 24:3 On the Second Coming of Christ. My Reviewers here defend the marginal reading of the ARV by flatly contradicting me. I said in my book that "the consummation of the age" in no sense means the same thing as the "end of the world". They reply that I criticize the ARV reading although it gives in the margin the literal meaning of the original of the phrase "end of the world". I submit it to my hearers to judge whether "end of the world" means the same thing as "the consummation of the age". If they do not mean the same thing then the margin and the text contradict one another. If they do mean the same thing then the Russellites and Unitarians have been right all along in claiming that Christians look forward to such a consummation of the age, which supports the Russellites' idea; namely, change from one human dispensation to another, as the closing of the Roman age; or the Age of Revolutions; or the stone Age; of the Ice Age; or the Electric Age. I quote here from two modern Bibles: Matt. 24:3 Unitarian Bible "What will be the sign of thy coming and the end of the age?" Matt. 24:3 20th Century N.T. "What will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" Matt. 24:3 Goodspeed's N.T. "What will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" If "what the original means" is consummation of the age," then why did the Revisers not put it into the text as the preferred reading? The only excuse for sometimes putting the literal meaning of the Greek into the margin is in order to give an explanation of what is not very well grasped by the English rendering, but that is not needed in this case. The "Consummation of the age" naturally indicates the finishing of a period as the running out of the sands of an hourglass, without fore-shadowing great physical convulsions of nature. These convulsions were in the disciples' minds according to the prophecy of Isaiah and other prophets, as accompanying the end of the world and so they meant to ask that of the Saviour, namely, when would the convulsed end of the world come? The Russellites rejoice in, this ARV marginal translation so they put 1874 as the consummation of the age. There was no need to confuse good, plain, simple doctrine by putting in the margin the "consummation of the age." I must again insist that when the ARV put "presence" in the margin of Matt. 24:3, for "coming" it is indicative of a change of doctrine. My reviewers say, no; they say that without knowing the literal meaning of parous we would miss the vividness in describing the return of Christ and the restoration of that marvelous presence. All this then is missed in the AV. But by putting "presence" in the margin of the ARV it is restored. You ask a child about the return of its father. The child may reply, "His coming will be tomorrow", or "His presence will be tomorrow". There is an entirely different thought, the last has no sense. "Presence" makes us think of a spiritualistic seance; all of a sudden a "presence" is there. Can't you feel his presence? But "coming" has a start, a sweep, and an arrival. "Presence" in place of "coming" fits in with "consummation"- for "end". Jesus said "I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am..." My Reviewers underline "where I am" they should have underlined I will come again. The coming is necessary in order to produce the presence. The coming is first. His presence does not appear until after His coming. If "coming" means presence" then why expect the future advent of Jesus if we have His presence now. "Presence" is a continuous relationship; "coming" means an event. The question, "What is the sign of thy presence", would mean, what is the sign of thy fellowship with us, as now; the "sign of thy coming" would demand forerunning events which show he is not here now, but will come. Jesus went on to tell of the darkening of the sun and falling of the stars; they were signs; they were not to be signs of His presence, they were precursors of His coming. We hold that "presence" is not the same as "coming". The "presence" of Jesus will be true 10,000 years after his coming, but his "coming" will be one event, once in the end of the world, also not a continuous process. I cannot admit that the words "presence" and "coming" are synonymous. If "presence" and "coming" do not mean the same thing, then the margin and the text of the ARV contradict each other, which is a change of doctrine. III-11-10 OABV-195 Phil. 3:30, 21 On our vile body. King James Version: "Who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body." Revised: "Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of His glory." My Reviewers defend the change in translation from "His glorious body" in the AV to "the body of His glory" in the ARV, by again claiming that the Revisers gave the literal meaning. As I pointed out in my book, this is a Hebraism or an idiomatic structure in the Hebrew language, which often used two nouns in place of a noun modified by an adjective. This Hebriac construction of Phil. 3:20, 21 is found in the Vulgate. Therefore, Wycliffe in 1380 and the Jesuits in 1582 followed this construction. Beginning in 1534, however, it was rejected by the outstanding English Versions, Tyndale, Crammer and Geneva, as well as the AV; so that it is not because this translation was so wonderful and so new or that is was unknown to the Revisers that they adopted it. They rather took their stand with the Vulgate and the Rheims of 1582. If the excuse for so translating this was that they should be literal then why (in Luke 18:6) did they not translate the "judge of unrighteousness" instead of the "unrighteous judge" or "wonders of falsehood" instead of "lying wonders" (2.Thes. 2:9). Why this inconsistency? Could they not see that changing "His glorious body" into "the body of His glory" was weakening the second coming of Christ? Why did the Revisers choose a second coming of Christ passage to emphasize transliterating, not translating a Hebraism? What does "the body of His glory" mean? Sister White says that "it is the glory of God to pardon the chiefest of sinners." A body of glory might mean the sum of total virtues. The change in the King James Version is physical: the ARV may be a spiritual change. It may be like this, "Who shall fashion our sinful body that it may conform to His perfect life or to the sum total of His virtues." If it is a spiritual change, it is possible for this spiritual change to take place now. Then so far as this version is concerned, the physical coming of Christ is not necessary to execute the glorious physical change. This is another proof that the Revisers have dimmed and blurred the second coming of Christ. If this translation is literal, why not put the two other places I just mentioned; and I could cite many more, into the text? What does Sister White say on this passage: "As the antitype of the wave-sheaf, our Lord was raised from the dead on the third day, 'the first-fruits of them that slept,' a sample of all the resurrected just, whose 'vile body' shall be changed, and 'fashioned like unto His glorious body.'" "Great Controversy," p. 399 "Who shall change our vile body, that it may be like unto His glorious body." "Early Writings," p. 31 I am willing to accept Sister White and the AV on this text. III-11-11 OABV-195 2.Thess.2:2  On the day of Christ at hand or now present. King James; "That ye be not soon shaken in mind... as that day of Christ is at hand." Revised: "That ye be not quickly shaken from your mind... as that the day of the Lord is now present." My Reviewers refer us to Heb. 9:9; also Romans 8:36, 1.Cor.3:22; and Gal.1:4 where a form of the same Greek verb is rendered with the meaning, "present". They omitted to tell us that in the places referred to we have a participle used as an adjective, whereas in the text under discussion we have a verb. Also they did not refer us to the well known 2.Tim. 3:1 where the same verb is used with future meaning in the expression, "grievous times shall come". The verb used in the text under discussion is in the perfect tense and can mean, "to stand in sight"; "to impend,"' and "to threaten," and "to be close at hand". My authority is Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament". Thayer was an American Reviser. The Century Dictionary is quoted by my Reviewers to define the phrase "at hand" as meaning "within reach, nearby, present." We would simply (ask?) Which of these three meanings would you use if you were talking of the day of the Lord? You certainly would not use the meaning "present". You might use "they were all present in the room with you"; but you would not use it of the day of the Lord, unless you believe as the Russellites do that the day of Christ is now present. Therefore the citation from the Century Dictionary does not apply III-11-11 OABV-196 Titus 2:13 On the glorious appearing. King James: "Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." The change from "the glorious appearing of the great God" in the AV to the "appearing of the glory of the great God", I contend does not give a picture of Christ's personal, visible, bodily return. As usual, my Reviewers plead the fact that the original gives two nouns. I have already criticized this literal bringing over of a Hebraism found in the Greek, into the English. If my Reviewers are textual critics, they know I am right on this point. Suppose we translated into English the idioms of other languages on this same plea of following the original literally; where would we come out? Mark Twain said that if he had invented the German language he would have put the verb where you could find it at the end of at least two or three pages. I do not need to give here many German expressions familiar to you, to show you that that what is a splendid language to the German, if turned literally word for word into the English would make nonsense. Here is an example "Do you see that barn? Will you go that barn around?' Or as the father said to his son, "Fritzie, run the stairs up, and look the window out." Any one who has studied language to any extent whatever, ought to know that it is absurd to translate the idiom of a language literally. Just a remark here from the grammar by Dr. Blass which says something about the Hebrew idioms found in New Testament Greek: "The national Hebrew or Aramaic element influenced Greek-writing Jews in a threefold manner. In the first place it is probable that the speaker or writer quite involuntarily and unconsciously rendered a phrase from his mother tongue by an accurately corresponding phrase; again, that the reading and hearing of the Old Testament in the Greek version coloured the writer's style, especially if he desired to write in a solemn and dignified manner. Third and last, a great part of the N.T. writings (the three first Gospels and the first half of the Acts) is in all probability a direct working over of Hebrew or Aramaic materials. This was not a translation like that executed by the LXX rendered word for word with the utmost fidelity, and almost without any regard to intelligibility; but it was convenient to adhere to the originals even in expression instead of looking for a form of expression which was good Greek." "Grammar of New Testament Greek." p. 4. The foregoing quotation points out the fact that both by the influence of LXX and by translations not influenced by the LXX, but nevertheless as literal as the LXX, a good many Hebraisms were put into the New Testament Greek. But the question which astonishes us most of all is, why did the Revisers avoid this fault in other places but used it with a serious effect in the two N.T. passages I have handled in the last few pages, touching the coming of Jesus Christ; therefore, I must quote again the citation I gave on this point in my book, from one of the Revisers. G. Vance Smith, a Reviser, says: "This idea of the Second Coming ought now to be passed by as a merely temporary incident of early Christian belief. Like many another error, it has answered its transitory purpose in the providential plan, and may well, at length, be left to rest in peace." "Bible and Theology", p. 281. Dr. Hort held practically the same view; so did Westcott. How could a body of Revisers among whom haziness and confusion marked their idea of the second coming of Christ do differently than to change strong passages on that subject into their own way of thinking. As a matter of fact they did, and I for one, decline to accept the false theology of their unwarranted translation. III-11-12 OABV-196 Rev. 1:7 On wailing because of Him or over Him. King James; "He cometh with clouds.... and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him." Revised: "He cometh with the clouds..., and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over Him." Since Bishop Westcott, dominant Reviser, stated, as I quoted him in my book to state, that the change from "shall wail because of him" in the AV to "shall mourn over Him" in the Revised, was intended to express penitential sorrow, I think he knew more than my Reviewers do what this change was intended for. My Reviewers talk much over the different uses of the preposition in the Greek in order to explain away the damaging force of Bishop Westcott's testimony. Moreover, as I have already pointed out, the majority of the members of this N. T. Revision Committee believed in the Larger Hope or Universal Salvation. The arguments by my Reviewers are no protection against the damaging meaning which can be secured at once by the common people from Revised rendings. Again the plea is here produced that if this text opens the way to fall into false doctrine, the true doctrine is safe-guarded by other scriptures. Such a plea has been made so often in this document in defense of the very questionable translations of the Revisers, we wonder how many passages the Revisers can transfer over on to the side of false doctrine and still leave us a Bible capable of defending the Third Angel's message. The Reviewers argue that if the whole wall has not been thrown down you must not be alarmed because there are many breaches in the wall. The very fact that many other scriptures do teach a certain thing makes it the more evident that any other single scripture should agree with the many, especially when numerous MSS and versions so testify. I am glad that my Reviewers wish that the King James rendering had been retained. Nevertheless they think there is no danger, because, other scriptures take care of the doctrine by giving the opposite view. Are you ready to accept such reasoning? III-11-12 OABV-197 Acts 3:19,20 On times of refreshing. King James: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you." Revised: "Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord; and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus." We now take up that famous passage, Acts 3:19, concerning the blotting out of sins, the times of refreshing, the sending of Jesus, and the restitution of all things. On this my Reviewers say, "This passage is an outstanding example of the help to the Bible student in a more accurate rendering of the original language." It is neither necessarily an accurate rendering of the Greek, nor is it a common sense adjustment to the internal evidence both in this passage and in the Bible as a whole; nor is it in harmony with the Spirit of Prophecy. We will first pay attention to the grammar which is the battlehorse of my Reviewers, and to the quotation they take from the Greek grammar of Dr. A.T. Robertson, a devoted follower of Westcott and Hort, and a member of the present Revision Committee which is now sitting to revise the ARV. Will my hearers notice in this passage that there are three "thats" in the Revised against one in the Authorized. The Authorized says "that", "where", and "and"; but the Revised says "that", "that so", and "that". The argument turns on the little word "an" in Greek which follows the word Hopos after the expression "that your sins may be blotted out." Now the question arises, are our sins blotted out in order to bring the times of refreshing, or are our sins blotted out when the times of refreshing come. It depends whether the expression Hopos an means purpose (in order that) or means time (when). The quotation from Dr. Robertson, given by my Reviewers, claims, in substance, that purpose and not time is intended here. The view of this scholar accords here with the Catholic and modernistic view that this text means that as soon as we repent our sins are blotted out. On the other hand I will bring in opposition to this rendering, four famous Greek scholars, Beza, Castalio, Erasmus Schmid, Eckermann and others mentioned by Dr. Myers in his "Commentary on the New Testament,"...on this text... who consider that the expression Hopos an is a particle of time and equals "when". Even Winer, the great idol of the Reviewers, deserts them in this place. He says, "When the final particle, Hopos is joined with an it indicates a purpose, the possibility of attainment of which is still doubtful; or the attainment of which is viewed as depending upon circumstances.", "Grammar," p. 389. (Emphasis mine) In a foot-note Winer quotes from another authority to say, "When the final sentence expresses an eventual conclusion, i.e. one in which an additional hypothesis is virtually contained, we may subjoin an to Hopos or Hopos; thus... in order that you may, as by going there you will, etc., Compare Jelf 810, Green p. 169." Winer gives (Latin phrases); examples of rendering as does Meyers to indicate the use in a rendering of this kind so that this passage we would say: "Repent and be converted thatsoever, or whensover, the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." Thus it will be seen that we have outstanding Greek grammarians to support the Authorized rendering "when". The internal evidence also forbids the rendering given key the Revised Version. Peter brings before us four great events, not national nor international, but inter-stellar or inter-planetary, if you please: 1. The blotting of our sins 2. The times of refreshing 3. The sending of Jesus 4. The restitution of all things. Not one of these events comes repetitively to each individual at different times; they each indicate a great universal event, overtaking all concerned at one time. This is the Adventist's view; the other is the Catholic or modernistic view. In my book I quoted from Dr. Roberts, a member of the Revision Committee who said that they changed the rendering of the Authorized for "eschatological reasons"; that is, for reasons springing from their view of the events at the end. He considered this change most important. I put this in my book but it made no impression upon my Reviewers. Now in hopes that I may make an impression, I will quote from Dr. Westcott what he says about this change: "And the time of the fulfillment of the council of God depends on human effort: 'Repent and turn again' is St. Peter's plea to the Jews, 'that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come season... of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.' (Acts 3:19). Here the horizon of Faith is immeasurably extended. The immediate forgiveness of the sins of believers is shown to have a wider influence than on their own salvation. 'Seasons of refreshing' are placed in dependence on their personal faith." "Some lessons" pp. 191, 192. (Emphasis mine) Adventists believe nothing of the sort. They believe that the prophetic times of refreshing depend upon the plan of God and not upon our personal faith. What does the Spirit of Prophecy have to say about this? My Reviewers claim that the times of refreshing come either at the coming of Christ or following personal repentance or forgiveness, or both; at least that construction is possible to their wording and punctuation. The Spirit of Prophecy places it at neither of these times, but immediately prior to the close of probation. I quote from "Great Controversy," pp. 611, 612: "The prophecies which were fulfilled in the outpouring of the former rain at the opening of the gospel, are again to be fulfilled in the latter rain at its close. Here are 'the times of refreshing' (to which the apostle Peter looked forward when he said) 'Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come form the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus."' Notice also here that the Spirit of Prophecy used the AV. In the two pages of (the) Great Controversy which follow, Sister White points out that this time of refreshing brings in the final converts just before the close of probation. Apparently my Reviewers disagree with the Spirit of Prophecy on this point. III-11-13 OABV- 198 Rev. 22:14. On the robes and commandment. See answer Chapter VI III-11-13 OABV-199 Acts 13:42. On the Sabbath of the Jews. See answer Chapter VI. III-11-14 OABV-199 Mark 7:19 On Clean foods. King James; "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out in the draught, purging all meats?" Revised; "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean." In a strained effort to make "purging all meats" in the AV mean the same as "This he said, making all meats clean", my Reviewers tell us that by leaving out the supplied words, "this he said", the two readings have exactly the same meaning. But the supplied words are already there. What business had the Revisers to supply these words? Wither they mean something, or they mean nothing. If they mean nothing the Revisers are unworthy of having any confidence put in them, to take such liberties with the scripture. And if they mean anything, they cause the Lord Jesus to be the agent here of making all meats clean. They cause him to break down the ceremonial distinctions between meats as given in Leviticus. This interpretation was given to it by Origen anciently, and is followed by some modern commentators. When the Revised Version says, "This he said, making all meats clean", it makes a statement of fact that is no fact. No such idea can be taken from the original. It makes the Lord Jesus the author of a law which the Saviour never ordered. This is serious. My Reviewers say that I endeavor to make it appear that the Lord was dealing here with the distinction between animal meats. Why do they misrepresent me? It is very strange that any reader of my book should get such an idea. I never said a word about the Lord Jesus doing that. I said that this is the interpretation injected into the scripture by the Revised Version. Their mistranslation where is what makes it appear that the Lord Jesus was breaking down the distinction between the clean and unclean meats. I feel that I cannot leave this case without summoning my Reviewers to a reckoning. They say, "By strange reasoning the author endeavors to make it appear that the Lord Jesus was here dealing with the distinction between animal meats..." I challenge them to produce one scintilla of evidence that I put forth any such endeavor. How do my Reviewers expect to get away with such statements as this? Over and over again they make such random charges against me, charges without foundation, do they expect that people will believe they are so, simply because they say so? I gave a strong quotation from Dr. Milligan, who proves that the Revisers intended to do the very same thing which I pointed out that they did do. My Reviewers find only one fact, bearing on the point from Dr. Milligan, and that is that the "little Change in one Greek letter makes possible the connecting of the phrase 'making all meats-clean' directly with the Lord Jesus as speaker..." Precisely, this little point is not so little as my Reviewers make it. It is the crux of the whole matter. If the participle, "purging" is changed from a neuter construction, referring to the process of the body, to a masculine construction, referring to the Lord Jesus, by the changing of the vowel, then Christ becomes the agent of changing, by law, a thing which he never yet changed in nature. This is impossible; this is unscientific. The examination of the above passage, in the light of my Reviewers remarks, confirms more than ever that the Revisers intended a change of doctrine. III-11-15 OABV-200 Luke 23:44, 45 On the darkening of the sun. King James: "And there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened." Revised: "A darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, the sun's light failing." Moffatt: "And darkness covered the whole land until three o'clock, owing to an e