Daniel and the Revelation, U. Smith

Date: Sep 6, 2015

RE: Daniel and the Revelation, U. Smith

Date: Sep 6, 2015

R. & H., 5, p. 110:-- That which I have written is what the Lord has bidden me write. I have NOT been instructed to change that which I have sent out. (1905)

R. & H., 5, p. 231:-- I am NOT to retract one word of the message I have borne. (1906)

Date: Sep 7, 2015

With these additions I see the careful acknowledgement of the various sources Ellen White referenced in her work and common courtesy to those other authors for their valuable insights and contributions to recorded history. Sister White was certainly able, through the Holy Spirit, to identify correct historical facts from opinion or incorrect recorded history. She it the ultimate authority, being an inspired source herself, to discern fact from fiction.

Acknowledgement of sources from another author in ones work was not a common practice in her day, for any author. But it is a good idea and became common practice with the growing advent of the printing press and the steady increase of knowledge. Why should these sources remain unknown? She has nothing to hide, nor should any author hide the source from which they drew historical facts. When she cites a particular aspect of history I want to know the source!

Consider "D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation" for instance. Sister White spoke very highly of this work. It was often read in her home and she encouraged others to read it. That work is a treasure trove of recorded history and is widely acclaimed for its accuracy. There is certainly nothing improper about citing that source in her books, where ever she may have used reference from it. Or acknowledging the many other authors and sources of information she cited. This work, above all others, was often cited by our pioneers for its records of historical events and that continues to be the case today for authors.

When Luke authored his epistle in the bible I have no doubt he did what he could to verify the facts, to separate fact from fiction, to record in detail, the circumstances and events of which he wrote. He was actively involved in verifying these details. Without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it would have been impossible for Luke, or any inspired author, to discern what was fact, what was embellished and what was truth. He had a work to do, to go out and interview people, to confirm the facts, to write down what he had been shown in vision, told by angelic beings or heard from people the Holy Spirit would then confirm to him as to the accuracy of those statements. Humanity working with divinity.

In the end, Luke's efforts we see as inspired, that is, authorized and confirmed by the Holy Spirit, every word, that Luke wrote with his own hand. So it was with Ellen White, through inspiration she was able to discern the truth, from whatever source she may have borrowed it from.

Date: Sep 7, 2015

seeing through a cloudy glass

Date: Sep 7, 2015

NB, are you suggesting these credits and acknowledgement of the source for historical references should be swept under the rug? Ellen White made no apologies for citing D'Aubigne, History of the Reformation as source material. In fact, she encouraged others to read his work for themselves. Her father used to read from it to his family. It is often cited as an authority on historical facts.

Why are these so called "additions" a concern? Its honest journalism and a testimony that God is able to protect His work, just as through the centuries He has protected the bible from corruption so He has protected Ellen Whites work from corruption. I don't see a problem here...

Date: Sep 7, 2015

As it concerns what Prescott wanted changed in the Great Controversy, she entirely controlled what was and what was not allowed. He wanted much more, sweeping and dramatic changes, she disallowed it. It was her desire that as long as new printing plates were being made, for the 1911, that everything possible should be done to make the book as perfect as possible. Spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, historical facts and credit where credit was due for other authors. That's just good ethical honest work, she was not ashamed of it, nor am I.

The cloudy vision here appears to be a lack of ability to understand how inspiration works and the combined efforts of humanity working with divinity. Ellen White was not a robot, nor was Paul or any other biblical author. They wrote, in their own words, descriptions of what had been revealed to them, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Some understand this to mean, word for word dictation of the Holy Ghost to the writer, allowing no room for the writer to enter into the process. That being the case, God could simply have used an angel to do the writing, or a computer, or a robot.

Date: Sep 8, 2015

Studies, your comment: "They wrote, in their own words" has already been refuted several times in this thread.

Are you actually reading what God's words say, or are you just not currently able to comprehend God's words?

Date: Sep 9, 2015

I am convinced the biblical authors indeed wrote in their own words, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Words approved and authorized by our Father, through His Son and inspired by His Spirit. There is no contradiction to this view AND the view that the every word was dictated by the Holy Spirit. Such a view is not only consistent with the bible and it is well balanced. I believe a reasonable study on this question, especially a close study of the many different comments from Sister White herself, would lead to only one of two conclusions:

1. Ellen White was not a prophet, she used her own words, the words of others and tried to hide it, or...

2. Someone else fabricated vast portions of her many of her books, important books, like the 1911 edition of Great Controversy and Desire of Ages. The end result of position #2, that others wrote in her name, will lead to rejecting important information, INSPIRED counsel from her books. Thus, the spirit of prophecy will not be denied, it will instead be "made of little or no effect". Which is exactly what she said would happen, and so it has come to pass.

I understand this is a major problem for you and you have battled many people for a long time over this issue, you have my sincere sympathy in that regard.

I am glad you posted the information about Sister Thrash, I had not heard until now. I knew her well and worked with her closely for a year or so. I found her to be well balanced and have no doubt she understood and held the same view I hold concerning how inspiration works.

Date: Sep 16, 2015

"The interest in Daniel and the Revelation is to continue as long as probationary time shall last. God used the author of this book as a channel through which to communicate light to direct minds to the truth". 1MR 63

...scratches head trying to figure out why quotes like this one and so many more concerning Smiths book are so easily dismissed...

Date: Oct 2, 2015

We do not believe Russia is the king of the north.It is our opinion that any power that reigns over Syria [the Ottoman Empire] is for the time being the king of the north, spoken of [in] Daniel XI; hence that the Turkish Dynasty is now that power. If Russia, Austria, England, or France should become possessed of supreme power over Syria, then it whichever it might be would become the king of the north. Till then none but the Turkish Dynasty occupies that position, in our opinion. James White, Review and Herald, Dec. 12, 1854

James white reprinted this article from another author in the "Advent Review" (ARSH) in the same year and month it was first printed in the "Bible Examiner". The author, like James White himself, used words like "WE" and "OUR" when speaking of the position held by the pioneering Adventists. James White focus was on Daniel 11:45, his focus on THIS verse, who was the king of the north, what would he do, where was the "glorious holy mountain" continued until his death in 1881. Like all of the pioneers, he believed all the verses of Daniel 11 had met their fulfillment and only verse 45 remained.

Date: Oct 4, 2015

Ellen White was one of the pioneers, and she did not believe that all of Daniel 11 except verse 45 had been fulfilled in her day.

Date: Oct 4, 2015

Her comments in 1881 concerning a "thorough study of prophecy" by the pioneers shows she was in complete harmony with them on Daniel 11. There is no comment at that time or later to indicate she believed any differently than the Church at that time believed, that all of Daniel, except verse 45, had long been fulfilled. 1881, by the way, was when Daniel and the Revelation was first published. Coincidence? Certainly not!

James White and the Adventists at that time (1854) were already focused on the fulfillment of verse 45 and recognized that verse 44 was being fulfilled right before their eyes with the Crimean War of 1853-1856. Had Russia been victorious in that war, then it would have become king of the north. But as James White notes, until then, Turkey remains king of the north. Turkey remains the power that controls the northern area of Alexander the Greats divided kingdom even today. The division of Alexander's kingdom into the "four winds of heaven" is how the "north" is defined. It is not based on its position relative to Palestine, its relative to the "four winds of heaven".

Date: Oct 4, 2015

turkey never has been or will be king of the north...

this is diversion from the real king of the north, the papacy

look at the characteristics, turkey fulfills none of the characteristics

Date: Oct 4, 2015

Daniel 11:4 puts forth the primary characteristic for establishing the king of the north, the divided kingdom of Alexander. Daniel 11:9 speaks of this northern king invading the kingdom of the south (Egypt) and then retreating to his homeland. In the time frame of Daniel 11:9, Daniel is after a straight up chronological timeline of history, where do you see the Papacy invading Egypt and then retiring back to his land in this time frame?

The king of the north was universally recognized as that power that occupies the northern part of Alexander's former kingdom and his exploits. If this be the papacy, then the papacy should be seen in secular history as doing those things the king of the north is reported to have done since Daniel 11:4. But this cannot be shown. If this not be Turkey, and certainly cannot be the papacy in 11:9, then who is it?

Russia perhaps? Some thought so, which is why James White plainly declared in 1854, it was not Russia, but Turkey. Was James White mistaken? If so, why didn't the prophetess speak up? Yet, she remained silent for a simple reason, she believed just as James and all the other Adventists of that year believed. Just as he reported it in the "Advent Review and Sabbath Herald" of December, 1854. It is a fact we have nothing in Ellen Whites writings, the Advent Review, any pioneer books, articles, tracts or pamphlets to even suggest James White believed other than his colleagues, as it concerns the king of the north, until his position changed, I 1876. And Ellen White DID speak up at that time, she told him to keep his ideas to himself!!

Date: Oct 4, 2015

king of the south is not egypt....

you have been deceived by U. smith and his cronies...they were not inspired

Date: Oct 4, 2015

His "cronies" would have to include James White when he said the king of the north was Turkey in 1854, based on a literal interpretation of Daniel. It has only been since the 1940's or so that the modern theologians has changed their methodology from a literal interpretation to a figurative/spiritual method. As James White believed Turkey was the K.O.N. there is doubt he knew who the king of the south was as well!

The only way you can make the papacy fit into many of the verses of Daniel 11 is with a spiritual interpretation. But ALL of Daniel is literal, if not, then we can throw out chapters 2, 7, 8, 9 and more. Babylon wasn't literally conquered by Medo-Persia, Greece didn't literally follow that kingdom, etc. There goes the 2300 year prophecy, so much for the charts they used to teach prophecy in the mid 1800's. The house of cards utterly fails.

The most recent popular "theory" (NOT the position of the church, just a popular theory), from the 1940's is that all of Daniel IS literal, except from 11:23 forward, then its spiritual. Who made up that rule? Not the pioneers! It is a basic violation of William Millers rules of interpretation, rule #11 specifically. Rules the SOP verified as correct and ordained. This is why James White and his colleagues were focused solely on how verse 45 might fulfilled. They accepted, to a man (and woman) that verse 1 to 44 were already in the past, in their lifetime.

This idea that verse 45 is the papacy is the widest, deepest, most profound error the Adventist Church has ever embraced.

Date: Oct 5, 2015

the biggest mistake that the pioneers made was to make all prophecies of the bible end in 1843 because they thought that Jesus was coming to deliver them....

so they counted backwards from that date 1843 and fulfilled all prophecies.

when Jesus didn't come, however, they never went back and changed their books or writings... only Josiah Litch admitted the error in writing.

trust in the bible the whole bible KJV

Date: Oct 5, 2015

Jesus made it clear that the "abomination of desolation" is for us in the last days. That alone shows that Daniel 11 cannot have all been fulfilled up to verse 45.

Shouldn't we believe Jesus' words over Uriah Smith's?

Date: Oct 5, 2015

nb, I'm not sure what to think about the pioneers' views of prophecy. I think it was in God's will that they interpret everything as finishing up in 1843.

However, when they got the new light on the Sanctuary, they should have gone back and re-interpreted the prophecies in the new light. They did several prophecies, but not all, so they kept many of the old interpretations. When Uriah Smith came out with his Daniel and Revelation book, that pretty much set all the prophecies in concrete for many of us SDAs, and we think we don't have to study them anymore.

You are correct about Josiah Litch, as he rejected his earlier interpretation of the fall of Turkey in 1840 when he saw that nothing of consequence really happened then.

Let's be good Bereans and study to show ourselves approved unto God. smile

Date: Oct 5, 2015

true that God wanted them to believe the mistake... but after light was given, they should have followed that light

2/3 of them did not follow the light

Date: Oct 6, 2015

"In the year 1840, another remarkable fulfilment of prophecy excited widespread interest. Two years before, Josiah Litch, one of the leading ministers preaching the second advent, published an exposition of Revelation 9, predicting the fall of the Ottoman empire." Great Controversy pg 334

Those who reject the prophetess plain testimony as seen in the Great Controversy, yes 1911 edition, have lost their anchor to understanding prophecy. They beat upon the rocks of confusion and make of no effect the words of Gods messenger, Ellen White. This is as she said it would be, not denying her gift, but instead making it of little or no effect.

Josiah Litch left the Adventists behind, left God behind, it is no surprise he later denounced his findings. Balaam did the same, so did King Saul. Any of us are ever free to lay down the cross and when we do, the result will always end in fighting against truth.

Date: Oct 6, 2015

Believe that EGW was true prophet and her originals are direct from God.

Date: Oct 7, 2015

That was her prophecy, that people would not deny she was a prophet, they would just make her work of little or no effect.

It was God Himself, through her, that fully authorized the 1911 edition of Great Controversy, to ignore its value and place fulfills her prophecy. When she says "not a word should be changed" she means not a principle, not a prophecy, not a date concerning prophecy should be altered. That what she has written must remain. But she is reasonable, logical, typo's should be corrected, misspelling's addressed, sentence structure corrected where needed, historical facts clarified if need be.

Concerning the bell she identified as ringing in France for the massacre that would follow. History notes it could have been anyone of three bells, it is unclear which one specifically. Its a minor point of which one, the angel did not show or tell her which one, it doesn't matter in principle. She concluded, perhaps correctly, perhaps incorrectly, it was a certain bell, but this cannot be proved from history. It was good to change that sentence to "a bell" rang, not a specific bell rang.

Nathan concluded David should build the temple, he concluded that incorrectly and had to change his mistake. Should we throw out Nathan the prophets work as a result? Certainly not! Nor should we throw out Ellen Whites work.

Date: Oct 7, 2015

nb wrote:
Believe that EGW was true prophet and her originals are direct from God.

only the 1858 GC was authorized by God and dictated to her and printed by James W. ... you can trust it like your kjv bible

Date: Oct 7, 2015

I hesitate to place any of her works on the level of the KJV, but without her work we would not be able to comprehend the KJV much differently than the Baptists do! Without divine guidance as seen in His appointed messenger, Ellen White, there would be no recognized remnant Church at this time. I find great value in all her writings, including the compilations. The Bible has mistakes, but no sincere seeker of truth will be led astray by them. The reason the Bible has mistakes, minor ones, is because of the many times it has gone through various translations. Is the English translation more accurate than the German, or the Swiss? Some of pioneers asked that question and determined that in some cases, verses were rendered more accurately in languages other than English! Yet, God is able to protect His work, its just a matter of faith. God has protected His messengers work, Ellen Whites writings in the same way. Which may or may not be accurately translated in all cases to German or Swiss or Chinese, but not one soul will be led astray because of this and the possible mistakes it may create.

Obviously English must be considered the best version since that was the messengers native language. Unless every single word, bar none, was dictated in German, uh, I mean, Swiss. Wait, it was English, right? :)

Date: Oct 7, 2015

Anonymous wrote:
I hesitate to place any of her works on the level of the KJV, but without her work we would not be able to comprehend the KJV much differently than the Baptists do! Without divine guidance as seen in His appointed messenger, Ellen White, there would be no recognized remnant Church at this time. I find great value in all her writings, including the compilations. The Bible has mistakes, but no sincere seeker of truth will be led astray by them. The reason the Bible has mistakes, minor ones, is because of the many times it has gone through various translations. Is the English translation more accurate than the German, or the Swiss? Some of pioneers asked that question and determined that in some cases, verses were rendered more accurately in languages other than English! Yet, God is able to protect His work, its just a matter of faith. God has protected His messengers work, Ellen Whites writings in the same way. Which may or may not be accurately translated in all cases to German or Swiss or Chinese, but not one soul will be led astray because of this and the possible mistakes it may create.
Obviously English must be considered the best version since that was the messengers native language. Unless every single word, bar none, was dictated in German, uh, I mean, Swiss. Wait, it was English, right? :)

What mistakes are there in the Word of God? Do you realize what you are saying here? This shows a serious lack of faith and trust in the Word of God.

Date: Oct 8, 2015

I have seen the same reaction from several people, that its almost blasphemy to acknowledge the bible contains mistakes and errors. But it is true, its just being honest. Such mistakes, like in Ellen Whites writings, should not be magnified, nor can they be ignored. Our pioneers recognized this reality.

One of the more obvious mistakes is the incorrect placement of a comma in Jesus' statement on the cross to the thief next to Him. Leaving many the impression that that very day the thief would be with Him in heaven. A simple mistake, but with profound consequences for some who believe in life after death or don't understand the nature of the soul. There are several other mistakes, not commonly known but they become clear with a close examination. The Greek language did not contain punctuation, no capitalization, no spaces between words! Somebody had to make that decision in the translation to English, they didn't always get it perfect in English, or German or Japanese, etc.

Items I wouldn't classify as "mistakes" per se but decisions of those who made the KJV I don't always agree with, this is open to debate, not a major problem. Like the chapter of Daniel 11 would be better rendered if it included the first 4 verses of chapter 12. This shows the work of man, doing the best he could, blessed of God, accepting these minor "problems". None of which will cause the sincere soul to stumble but will become hooks for some to hang their doubts on.

These are the kinds of mistakes Ellen White wanted to correct in her work whenever it was reasonable to do so. She specified the less corrections the better, but some were needful, because man is not perfect, only God is.

Date: Oct 9, 2015

There are no mistakes in the Bible.

There are mistakes in the various translations of the Bible.

There are no mistakes in the original writings of Ellen White. God gave her the words to write, just like he did with the Bible writers. Up until the time of her husband's death, I can find only one direct contradiction in books with her name on them. Personally, I think it is clear who edited that.

After James White died and Uriah Smith took over at the Review, you can find many direct contradictions, things left out, things added etc.

Ellen White was given a vision where fellow SDAs were marching around her house like a Catholic procession "proscribing" her books. Based on the actions of Uriah Smith along with several others including Willie White, we see that in 1883 they decided to form a committee to fix the errors in her books. They tried to make it sound like it was mostly grammatical errors they would be fixing, but a careful look at the part of Early Writings that is supposed to be a reprint of the 1858 Great Controversy with nothing omitted and not a shadow of change of meaning, reveals that they were not truthful.

Why anyone would trust a man who Ellen White pointed out as her worst opponent from 1890-1892 is a mystery to me....

Shouldn't we put away Uriah Smith's material, and turn to the pure fountains of truth contained in the original Ellen White writings?

Date: Oct 9, 2015

"There are mistakes in the various translations of the Bible."

That was my point, and it includes the KJV into the various languages it has been translated. Ellen Whites writings without doubt have suffered some mistakes as it is also translated into various languages. English for her, was as Greek was to Paul, perfectly understood by them, not so much in African languages, some errors will result.

As it concerns can we trust the work of Uriah Smith because at some point in his experience he was in error? Same could be said for David, why in the world would you trust a book written by a guy who was a murderer? Why would you trust Nathan the prophet who clearly erred? Why would you trust Paul, who made a serious mistake that cut his life short by what he did in the Temple? Why would you trust Peter, who was a hypocrite eating with Jews? Why would you trust Moses, he to a murderer and unable to enter the promised land for his sins? Is there ANY biblical author who lived a perfect life? No, not one.

Why would you trust A.T. Jones, and perhaps you don't, because he left the church in later life?

Its the message, not the messenger! Ellen White erred in her personal life as well, should we throw out her work too?

Date: Oct 9, 2015

Every pioneer, without exception, fell and fell hard at some point in their life. Shall we throw out all their work? Discernment is required. Ellen White left James, for about a year, because he was not in a good place with God, with his fellow men. Divorce of course was out of the question, so they separated, at HER demand to do so.

There goes Word to the little Flock, might as well tear that one up, James fell away from the truth for a time... But then, who hasn't?