Sunday April 15, 2012

Continuing the 1919 Bible Conference comments.

     In the statements relating to the 1911 revision of Great Controversy, neither Ellen White nor her son considered the revisions in the same light as did Prescott. Mrs. White stated: p. 52, Para. 5, [1919BIBL].  

     “When I learned that Great Controversy must be reset, I determined that we would have everything closely examined, to see if the truths it contained were stated in the very best manner, to convince those not of our faith that the Lord had guided and sustained me in the writing of its pages.” p. 52, Para. 6, [1919BIBL].  

     “As a result of the thorough examination by our most experienced workers, some changing in the wording has been proposed. These changes I have careful examined, and approved.” p. 52, Para. 7, [1919BIBL].  

On our site, sopvindicated.org, we do a chapter by chapter comparison between the 1884GC, which, I believe,  Willie created in corrupt harmony with Uriah Smith, and the 1911GC, and show plainly that the 1911 was way far and away, more than a few word changes.

     In discussing the revision, W. C. White referred to word changes because of availability of more accurate translations of historical sources, usage of more recent sources necessitated by an inability to locate and thus verify sources previously used,

Let’s see here… humm… I am looking at our comparison, and in the 1884GC, on page 31, and in the 1911 it is page 29, and we have a change that directly contradicts what Willie has just stated. In the 1884GC Willie is quoting from Josephus, book 6, chapter 5, p. 582; this is the part about “A comet, resembling a flaming sword, for a year hung over the city.”

So Willie had to have had access to Josephus, otherwise he could not have found the information. But in the 1911GC he changed it to a quote from Milman, and the comet got left behind. So his excuse in this instance holds no water.

    changes of different expressions to avoid giving unnecessary offense. White noted, “In each of these places the more accurate form of expression has been duly considered and approved by the author.”

We are rather partial to our recent find of the very words of Willie, written in Ellen’s name, “Sister White is not the originator of these books.” We think the sentence exactly accurate, just as it reads; though in context Willie would have you believe otherwise. Speaking of which, here is the clear statement, right from the church. We quote.

“In the absence of direct instruction from Ellen White, or clues in the materials themselves, Miss Davis consulted carefully prepared harmonies of the Gospels, and as the work progressed made considerable use of S. J. Andrews’ “Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth,” which as noted on the title page took into account “Historical, Chronological, and Geographical Relations.”
“As the work [Desire of Ages] was thought to be nearing completion in 1896, Marian [Davis], working on the three general introductory chapters, “‘God With Us,” “The Chosen People,” and “The Fullness of the Time,’” sought the counsel of Herbert Lacey of the Avondale school on the arrangement of the paragraphs.” “The Australian Years,” page 385.

Just looking this over, it doesn’t look like Ellen is writing; no, it looks like Marian Davis is writing; which, of course, was part of the trouble in Willie’s team; i. e. Marian laying claim to authorship.

    In dealing with certain substantive changes, where certain statements in the original edition were strongly disputed by Roman Catholic scholars, W. C. White quoted his mother as follows: p. 52, Para. 8, [1919BIBL].  

     “What I have written regarding the arrogance and the assumptions of the papacy is true. Much historical evidence regarding these matters has been designedly destroyed; nevertheless, that the book may be of the greatest benefit to Catholics and others, and that needless controversies may be avoided, it is better to have all statements regarding the assumptions of the pope and the claims of the papacy stated so moderately as to be easily and clearly proved from accepted histories that are within the reach of our ministers and students.” [100] p. 53, Para. 1, [1919BIBL].  

I am sure readers of the Bible will be familiar with God, toning down testimonies he sent to people, because they might be offended. NOT! God never does this; only man is guilty of such things.

  One can gain some understanding of the deep involvement of W. C. White with the denominational debate on the “daily” by merely totaling the pages of his letters to some of the participants. He wrote his brother a 20-page letter in June of 1909. The next year Daniells, P. T. Magan, and Washburn received letters of 11, 23, and 36 pages respectively. White believed the statement, in Early Writings pertained to the prophetic periods relating to the “daily” rather than to the character of the “daily” itself.

Time to insert that passage. “Then I saw in relation to the “DAILY,” that the work “SACRIFICE” was supplied by man’s wisdom, and does not belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the “DAILY;” but since 1844, in the confusion, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion has followed.” The Present Truth, No. 11, page 86.

Now go back to the top of the paragraph and read Willie’s words again; it’s like a sick joke, he looks like a buffoon, when you put the passage from God next to what he is saying!

God Bless your study

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment