Brother Parks,
You've got quite an impressive array of quotes here! There is one glaring omission tho. The actual original books themselves are not quoted when comparing what they say with later books. When they are quoted as in one of your previous emails, we are told we have to get out our thesaurus to understand correctly what was written. You quoted showing that God protects his word. Exactly! Just as God has given us the Textus Receptus with several translations of that, he has also preserved the original Spirit of Prophecy writings - praise him for his mercy!!

Your bringing up quote after quote purported to be from Ellen White, even an original handwritten letter - wow!, shows exactly the problem: by taking books or letters with 'Ellen White' printed on the cover, it's possible to prove just about any position you want. Which brings us to one of the first problems posed by this: did God inspire the first books printed by James White with Ellen White's name on them? I know for a surety that the Holy Spirit inspired those early books. By reading them over and over and over again, it becomes easy to spot error.

When James White died and a man opposed to the Testimonies became the chief editor and publicly stated he was going to change the books, shouldn't our ears pick up? Shouldn't we be concerned? If someone said they were going to "remove the imperfections" in the Bible, wouldn't we be very careful to examine everything they published to see if it was true to the originals or not? And when not........what should we do?

I am not a follower of Verne Bates. This issue of tampering with the books was settled in my mind before i ever heard the name "Verne Bates". I have one leader. He's the one who when we are discouraged: "Then Jesus would encourage them by raising his glorious right arm, and from his arm came a glorious light which waved over the Advent band, and they shouted Hallelujah!" (A Word to the Little Flock).

Hallelujah!

May we stay on the narrow path all the way to the Holy City (^-^),

Daniel Winters

MORE ON THOUGHT INSPIRATION

"SATAN WILL WORK INGENIOUSLY, IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND AND THROUGH DIFFERENT AGENCIES, TO UNSETTLE THE CONFIDENCE OF GOD'S REMNANT PEOPLE IN THE TRUE TESTIMONY." LETTER 12, 1890
. . . . . .
ONE EXAMPLE: I COUNTED ONLY THE LETTERS AND MANUSCRIPTS IN SELECTED MESSAGES, BOOK ONE, FOR 50 PAGES. I DIVIDED THE 50 INTO 416 [NUMBER OF PAGES IN THE BOOK] AND THEN MULTIPLIED BY THE NUMBER OF QUOTATIONS, AND CAME UP OVER 600. ADD TO THAT BOOKS 2 AND 3, AND YOU HAVE AN ASTRONOMICAL NUMBER OF QUOTATIONS THE BRETHREN WOULD HAVE HAD TO 'BOOTLEG' OR FALSIFY.

PROBABLY OVER 800 IN THE SELECTED MESSAGES ALONE. ARE WE GULLIBLE ENOUGH TO BELIEVE SUCH CLAIMS AS THIS COMING VERNE BATES AND HIS FOLLOWERS?

ALL FOR NOW AND GOD BLESS,
BILL PARKS

According to this Review and Herald article of October 8, 1867, Ellen White wrote: "...THE WORDS I EMPLOY IN DESCRIBING WHAT I HAVE SEEN ARE MY OWN, UNLESS THEY BE THOSE SPOKEN TO ME BY AN ANGEL, WHICH I ALWAYS ENCLOSE IN MARKS OF QUOTATION."

What should be the first thing a good student should do? Check it for yourself! We are very blessed with having some of the originals and many fascimile copies of the original Spirit of Prophecy material still available. And not in some hard to understand Greek or Japanese either!!

So let's check the 1858 The Great Controversy Between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and His Angels (you knew it was coming - i loooove this book!!) Looking in a fascimile copy, how many times do you see quotation marks? You can count them all without using ANY fingers! That's right, not even one time are quotation marks used in this book. So were there no words spoken by the angel to her?

Chapter 3, The Plan of Salvation, has the first reference in this book to an angel talking to Ellen White. It reads: Said my accompanying angel, He is in close converse with His Father.

There are 25 times in this book where it says something like: The angel said, or My accompanying angel said etc. None of these are in quotes. There are direct quotes of what Satan said like this: Satan told his angels that the churches were all asleep. He would increase his power and lying wonders, and he could hold them. But the sect of Sabbath-keepers we hate. They are continually working against us, and taking from us our subjects, to keep that hated law of God. And later in the same chapter (31, Covetousness) it reads: Then he and his angels take the mean and covetous acts of these individuals, and present them to Jesus and the holy angels, and reproachfully say, These are Christ's followers! They are getting ready to be translated! Satan marks their deviating course, and then compares it with the Bible, with passages which plainly rebuke such things, and then presents it to annoy the heavenly angels, saying, These are following Christ and his word! These are the fruits of Christ's sacrifice and redemption! Angels turn in disgust from the scene. God requires a constant doing on the part of his people, and when they become weary of well and generous doing, he becomes weary of them.

How did Ellen White know the exact words that Satan says to his angels, or what he says to God's angels? Did Satan tell her? Did she have some hallucinations? Did she lie? Did God give her some thots and she diffused it into her language? Or did the Holy Spirit open it directly to her, and give her the words to write, and she wrote them down?

In chapter 32, The Shaking, there is this part written about those in the time of Jacob's trouble: Through the day and night their cry ceased not. I heard these words, Thy will, O God, be done! If it can glorify thy name, make a way of escape for thy people! Deliver us from the heathen round about us! They have appointed us unto death; but thine arm can bring salvation. These are all the words I can bring to mind.

Perhaps not having quotes for what the angel told Ellen White is somehow confined to just one book. Let's check A Sketch of the Christian Experience
and Views of Ellen G. White (1851). There on page 6 it says: Said the angel, If you deliver the messages faithfully, and endure unto the end, you shall eat of the fruit of the tree of life, and drink of the water of the river of life.

No quotes here either.

What is the straight testimony? It is what is going to wake up the Laodiceans, cause a shaking, and get God's people firmly in line. So it is very important! The following is what we need, MUST HAVE! 1858 GC, chapter 32, The Shaking: I asked the meaning of the shaking I had seen. I was shown that it would be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the true Witness to the Laodiceans. It will have its effect upon the heart of the receiver of the testimony, and it will lead him to exalt the standard and pour forth the straight truth. This straight testimony some will not bear. They will rise up against it, and this will cause a shaking among God's people.

I saw that the testimony of the True Witness has not been half heeded. The solemn testimony upon which the destiny of the church hangs, has been lightly esteemed, if not entirely disregarded. This testimony must work deep repentance, and all that truly receive it, will obey it, and be purified.

May we obey it and be purified (^-^),
Daniel Winters
www.earlysda.com

....SPECIAL NOTE ON WORD DICTATION - REVIEW AND HERALD, OCT. 8, 1867
"ALTHOUGH I AM AS DEPENDENT UPON THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IN
WRITING MY VIEWS AS I AM IN RECEIVING THEM, YET THE WORDS
I EMPLOY IN DESCRIBING WHAT I HAVE SEEN ARE MY OWN, UNLESS THEY BE THOSE SPOKEN TO ME BY AN ANGEL, WHICH I ALWAYS ENCLOSE IN MARKS OF QUOTATION."

SHE KNEW VERY WELL HOW, AND WHY, QUOTATION MARKS ARE
USED. IF EVERYTHING SHE WROTE WAS DIRECT QUOTATIONS FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT, SHE WOULD HAVE PLACED ALL THE WORDS IN QUOTATION
MARKS! .....

ALL FOR NOW AND GOD BLESS,
BILL PARKS K7CWV@ROSENET.NET

Thank you for your 2nd reply here brother Gordon. I'm afraid i have to disappoint you in that i'm not a trained scholar in the way of quoting contemporaries of Ellen White, or having some PhD pass that gets me into the vaults at the White Estate. I have no clue about Hebrew or Greek languages either. I was trained at my mother's side to read the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy, and received training in college to become a computer programmer.

So the whole discussion is going around and around because there is a fundamental difference in the view of how the words get from God to the printed form. I maintain with lots of Bible quotes and quotes from published Ellen White books that the words themselves are from God. You maintain with several quotes from unpublished manuscripts or compilations of letters etc. that God diffuses his thots and each writer writes down in his words what the thots of God are. That's fine if you want to believe that way. I choose to believe the prophets who said: "Thus saith the Lord God".

I will answer your email out of courtesy, but without agreement on the most fundamental part of the discussion, it's pretty much a pointless exercise.

You didn't comment on the 1858 Great Controversy quote about the Holy Spirit dictating the Bible, or the 2 Bible quotes i had showing that the words themselves are from God. In looking at the 01/22/80 Review article it's obvious that you are looking at it with an object in mind - that of disproving the verbal inspiration idea. Somehow i'm supposed to believe that because the main object of the article is to talk about writing the good and bad things of the Bible characters, that a quote in it that says:
"The scribes of God wrote as they were dictated by the Holy Spirit, having no control of the work themselves" is supposed to mean that the Holy Spirt gave them some facts and they were not at liberty to drop out facts as they saw fit? Ask 10 normal people what the word "dictated" means to them. Or better yet, show them that quote, and ask if the writers wrote down God'sthots, or his actual words. If any secretary in the business world took dictation and just wrote down the boss's thots, diffusing them into their own language, they would get fired on the spot.

Why, our whole Seventh-day Adventist denomination stands or falls on just one little word. We SDAs are usually quite happy to point out that the 4th commandment says to keep "the" 7th day holy, and not "a" 7th day.

Yes, the manuscript you quoted purported to be from Ellen White directly contradicts her published earlier works. Both cannot be correct as she was a true prophet/messenger of God. You are absolutely offering your own opinion about inspiration by doing the exact same thing as the editors etc.have done to the SOP. You have ignored quotes and Bible quotes showing completely opposite opinions, and concentrated on something that supports your formed opinion.

Here again are the 3 ways you said changes may have occurred:

1. Someone had been changing Ellen White's writings without her knowledge or consent.This is what I understand by 'tampering.'

2. Someone had been changing Ellen White's writings with her knowlege and consent. This is what I understand as editing.

3. Ellen White herself may have initiated or sanctioned changes herself, either to make them suitable for a different readership or application, to make the meaning clearer, to improve the grammar or wording, or for a variety of other reasons, known to herself.

Because i didn't comment on numbers 2 or 3, you said: "I assume that you agree that any of the three could explain the reason for changes. You didn't dispute any of the three, so can I assume that you agree?." Again, a basic difference in understanding how the words come from God leads to entirely
different views of this. Numbers 2 and 3 cannot possibly be correct. Ellen White received the words from God, and wrote them down. She would not possibly have consented to any change, neither by herself nor others.Especially changes that are directly contradictory! Anyone who believes numbers 2 or 3 will throw away their SOP books like my brother did, because the changes are there. I know that the SOP was originally given directly by God, so anything that contradicts it cannot be from God.
This leaves number 1 as the last available option in your scenario. As you asked me then, and again now, to show documents from her or contemporaries of her showing that there were changes, all i can say is read the most powerful evidence. Not evidence from someone else, not from something
hiding away in some vault somewhere, but from the strongest source available - the printed works themselves. They should be enough of an authority to persuade anyone who is seeking for the truth with all their heart, soul, and might.

You wrote in this email: "I wrote that, if changes are made after the death of a writer, they must be tampering since it is impossible to make such changes with the knowledge or consent of the original writer". Yet you say you don't see where you are saying that God is dependent on his vessel to be
alive to keep his writings pure. That is obviously because you know the date of Ellen White's death. What if you were some Sunday-Christian, living up to all the light you had, and someone handed you every book ever written with the name Ellen White on it? In your reading of the books, you would
start noticing that there are contradictions. What do you do? According to your method, you would immediately say all those ofter 1915 that are contradictory have been tampered with, but as those before that date were written while Ellen White was alive, and she didn't point out any tampering,
that we have to believe all of them (perhaps while trying to explain away those not supporting our own views like Review 01/22/80). Again, this is saying God is indebted to his vessel being alive to protect his words.

I would compare the books with the Bible, and where there is any contradiction between the books the older would be given more weight, and of course the Bible would be the final Word. In reading the original works, i can tell you that the early works agree with the Bible 100%. After a man who was openly rejecting the Testimonies became the chief editor at Battle Creek, things changed drastically tho.

For some reason the vault at the White Estate is not open to just everybody. It is not possible for me to go there unless God literally opens the doors.

What was God's plan in not pointing out the tampering directly to Ellen White? (i believe the vision described on page 12 of volume 13 of the original Testimonies does point out that something would be done to herwritings). What are God's purposes in the entire Great Controversy? They are vast, and complex, and i'm happy to just be a miner in that mountain of truth:)

Your thinly veiled threat in the first email is forgiven. May we work together to protect and promote God's word, and help bring about the Shaking which will "be caused by the straight testimony called forth by the counsel of the true Witness to the Laodiceans."

Daniel Winters

Ha!
Exactly right about the honor as it's in short supply it seems. Doesn't seem like the demand is very strong for it tho either.....
I've been looking for what i sent Vance Ferrell last year, but i guess it went down the sectors when i reformatted last year. Sorry. The main three items i remember pretty well, but this will be from memory, not exactly what i sent Vance.

Three examples of changes to the Spirit of Prophecy books that affect major SDA doctrines. Please answer the question immediately after each number the way you believe is correct, and then read the following quotes.

#1 Does God accept everyone's repentance anytime and everytime?

Here is the entire 3rd Paragraph in the original 1858 GC:

"After Satan was shut out of heaven, with those who fell with him, he realized that he had lost all the purity and glory of heaven forever. Then he repented and wished to be reinstated again in heaven. He was willing to take his proper place, or any place that might be assigned him. But no, heaven must not be placed in jeopardy. All heaven might be marred should he be taken back; for sin originated with him, and the seeds of rebellion were within him. Satan had obtained followers, those who sympathized with him in his rebellion. He and his followers repented, wept and implored to be taken back into the favor of God. But no, their sin, their hate, their envy and jealousy, had been so great that God could not blot it out. It must remain to receive its final punishment."

This is from p.495 of the 1911 GC: "Though he had forsaken his position ascovering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office. But pride forbade him to submit. He persistently defended his own course, maintained that he had no need of repentance, and fully committed himself, in the great controversy, against his Maker."

It is very possible that the one in the 1911 GC is talking about before Satan was shut out of heaven, and as such would be entirely true. But by leaving out the part that Satan DID later repent leaves a view of God that says he accepts anybody anytime who wants to repent. That is not true.

A non-SDA who read the 1858 GC quote got upset, and said that the God they served would take Satan back and forgive him right now if he came back and asked for forgiveness!!!!

As a side-note: Doesn't it make sense that The Great Controversy Between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and His Angels should start with the setting in heaven with "The Fall of Satan", than with Jesus overlooking Jerusalem in "The Destruction of Jerusalem"?

#2 When are the Sanctuary service duties by Jesus in heaven completed?

Original 1858 GC chapter 35 "The Third Message Closed". It talks about how Jesus closes his intercession with the words: "It is done" and then in the 4th paragraph says:

" It was impossible for the plagues to be poured out while Jesus officiated in the Sanctuary; but as his work there is finished, as his intercession closes, there is nothing to stay the wrath of God, and it breaks with fury upon the shelterless head of the guilty sinner, who has slighted salvation, and hated reproof. The saints in that fearful time, after the close of Jesus' mediation, were living in the sight of a holy God, without an intercessor. Every case was decided, every jewel numbered. Jesus tarried a moment in the outer apartment of the heavenly Sanctuary, and the sins which had been confessed while he was in the Most Holy place, he placed back upon the originator of sin, the Devil. He must suffer the punishment of these sins."

In talking about some time after Jesus has appeared in the clouds the 1911 GC on p.658 says:

"Now the event takes place foreshadowed in the last solemn service of the Day of Atonement. When the ministration in the holy of holies had been completed, and the sins of Israel had been removed from the sanctuary by virtue of the blood of the sin offering, then the scapegoat was presented alive before the Lord; and in the presence of the congregation the high priest confessed over him "all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat." Leviticus 16:21. In like manner, when the work of atonement in the heavenly sanctuary has been completed, then in the presence of God and heavenly angels and the hosts of the redeemed the sins of God's people will be placed upon Satan; he will be declared guilty of all the evil which he has caused them to commit. And as the scapegoat was sent away into a land not inhabited, so Satan will be banished to the desolate earth, an uninhabited and dreary wilderness."

One says the sins are placed on Satan before Jesus returns the 2nd time, and the other says it happens after Jesus comes and takes the redeemed back to heaven with him. Is it possible that Jesus is going to put off his priestly garments, put on his kingly, come to earth, go back to heaven, and finish his Sanctuary work? The Sanctuary is a central doctrine of only 2 groups in all of history - the Jews & Seventh-day Adventists. Satan couldn't stop many people from believing the "2300-day Sanctuary cleansed" message, so could it be possible he is trying to throw doubt on how it will really end?

#3 Physically, how will Jesus come to earth next time?

Surely not a single SDA would be fooled by this one, but here are the facts. This is from an article by Ellen White titled: To The Remnant Scattered Abroad in the first booklet printed by her husband, James White "A Word to the "Little Flock" (1847):

"Soon our eyes were drawn to the East, for a small black cloud had appeared about half as large as a man's hand, which we all knew was the Sign of the Son of Man. (i) We all in solemn silence gazed on the cloud as it drew nearer, lighter, and brighter, glorious, and still more glorious, till it was a great white cloud. (j) The bottom appeared like fire, a rainbow was over it, around the cloud were ten thousand angels singing a most lovely song. And on it sat the Son of Man, (k) on his head were crowns, (l) his hair was white and curly and lay on his shoulders. (m) His feet had the appearance of fire, (n) in his right hand was a sharp sickle, (o) in his left a silver trumpet. (p) His eyes were as a flame of fire, (q) which searched his children through and through. Then all faces gathered paleness, and those that God had rejected gathered blackness. Then we all cried out, who shall be able to stand? Is my robe spotless? Then the angels ceased to sing, and there was some time of awful silence, (r) when Jesus spoke. Those who have clean hands and a pure heart shall be able to stand, my grace is sufficient for you. At this, our faces lighted up, and joy filled every heart. And the angels struck a note higher and sung again while the cloud drew still nearer the earth. Then Jesus' silver trumpet sounded, as he descended on the cloud, wrapped in flames of fire. (s) He gazed on the graves of the sleeping saints, then raised his eyes and hands to heaven and cried out, (t) Awake! Awake! Awake! ye that sleep in the dust, and arise. Then there was a mighty earthquake. The graves opened, and the dead came up clothed with immortality. The 144,000 shouted, Hallelujah! as they recognized their friends who had been torn from them by death, and in the same moment we were changed and caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air. (u) We all entered the cloud together, and were seven days ascending to the sea of glass, when Jesus brought along the crowns and with his own right hand placed them on our heads."

Note: the letters in parentheses are for the Bible references that James White inserted.

This is from Desire of Ages p.829:

"From this mountain He was to ascend to heaven. Upon its summit His feet will rest when He shall come again. Not as a man of sorrows, but as a glorious and triumphant king He will stand upon Olivet, while Hebrew hallelujahs mingle with Gentile hosannas, and the voices of the redeemed as a mighty host shall swell the acclamation, "Crown Him Lord of all!"

Are Jesus' feet going to touch Mt. Olivet on his 2nd coming or on his 3rd coming? This could have a very big impact on whether or not you will be fooled by Satan when he tries to imitate Christ's 2nd Advent. It's interesting that every non-Adventist who reads the above DA quote automatically sees it is referring to the 2nd Advent. Only SDAs say it must be talking about the 3rd coming, because they know how Jesus will come the 2nd time. Thus they are willingly ignoring the obvious sense of the passage.

These are 3 points that seem major to me, and that have been altered from their original meaning. The meaning can be altered just by the way the sentences have been lifted out of one thing Ellen White wrote, and compiled into some other thing without the surrounding sentences that would show the true sense of the original.

When the originals are still available, which they are for the SOP, isn't it best to just return to them?

Daniel Winters

Querido Danny,

Perhaps you were not aware that the Mc______ are the webmasters for Vance Ferrell's websites...

It might be interesting if we posted the three examples that you provided Vance. After all $100 is a $100!! and a man's honor should be worth more than a measly $100.

Bob

Dear Bob,

Please pass on my thoughts to Bro Daniel. I don't have his e-mail to do it directly

1. 'God gives his prophets/messengers just thoughts and not actual words.'

I was not expressing a personal opinion. I simply quoted Ellen White's own description of inspiration and asked for your comment. Your comment amounts to the suggestion that this statement contradicts another statement in a Review & Herald article and therefore the statement I quoted must be wrong. Is this the best and wisest response? I read the quotation that you cited and then the whole article. The article, entitled 'Bible Biographies,' is talking about the matter of Bible writers including discreditable facts about the people whose lives they were recounting. If I read correctly, Ellen White was saying that their testimony is reliable because the Holy Spirit gave them the information and they were not at liberty to omit discreditable facts, no matter how damaging they might be to the reputation of the person whose biography was being written. She contrasts that with non-inpsired biographies written to glorify the memory of some person by omitting anything that might undermine his reputation. The issue she is addressing throughout this article is the accusation of bias or partiality on the part of Bible writers.

I can see no sign throughout the article that she was addressing the idea of verbal inspiration. So it's not quite honest to extract a single sentence to support a matter that she was not addressing in that article. This is a classic example of quoting in violation of context. In the quotation I mentioned, you will see that she is directly addressing the question of inspiration and the form it takes. In it, she directly rejects the concept of verbal inspiration. I'm happy to accept her word about how inspiration works because she was an inspired writer and surely knew how it worked. I don't offer my own opinion about inspiration. I simply share what an inspired writer said, from her own experience, about the way it worked.

2. 'To prove the 'tampering' charge, you are asking me to show where Ellen White said there was tampering.'

Yes, that's right. I assume we can agree about what the word 'tampering means. You didn't express any disagreement about my suggestion as to its meaning. You said: 'tampering means either she didn't know about or agree to it? How in the world can you protest something you don't know about?!?!?!? This type of reasoning seems very circular and self-contradictory to me. Am i missing something here?' Yes, I think you're missing something very simple but important. While the tampering, if it took place, must by definition, have taken place without her knowledge or consent, the point I made was that she had both time and opportunity to detect it after it had taken place. The tampering, if it took place, must have been without her knowledge but remember that you suggested that tampering started 30 years before her death. That's a long time, plenty of time for a smart woman like Ellen White to notice that something 'fishy' was going on with her writings. Plenty of time for her readers to spot that something was happening and to write to her. You are suggesting that she remained in ignorance of what was going on with her published writings for thirty years. You're suggesting that she noticed nothing for thirty years, that no one pointed out anything suspicious to her for thirty years, that the Spirit of God revealed nothing to her of what was going on for thirty years. All of these things are possible but are they all likely? If you could produce one piece of documentary evidence to show that she, or people close to her, became aware that tampering was going on, it would lend credibilitynto your suggestion that the changes were illicit, and not approved by Ellen White. In the Bible, Paul took pains to authenticate his letters. This shows that he was aware of possible forgery going on. Anything similar in Ellen White's writing, perhaps in a letter?

3. 'God is dependent on a live prophet/messenger to keep his sacred writing pure.'

I'm not quite sure where this one came from. I've re-read the e-mail I sent and I don't think I said or implied this. I certainly don't believe it! I'm not sure what else to say about this because it is a non-issue. I think you misunderstood a point I made. I wrote that, if changes are made after the death of a writer, they must be tampering since it is impossible to make such changes with the knowledge or consent of the original writer. (He's dead!) I thought I was stating the obvious here, that if you find changes in Ellen White's writings which were definitely made after her death, there can be no dispute that these changes are trampering. To show that I am aware that such tampering has taken place, I cited an example. Surely we can agree on this! We don't need to argue about everything!

I do not deny that tampering can take place during the lifetime of an inspired writer. But evidence is needed. I stated that changes are not necessarily tampering. I proposed three possible explanations for changes, one of which was tampering . I assume that you agree that any of the three could explain the reason for changes. You didn't dispute any of the three, so can I assume that you agree?.

What you have to do is to prove that the other two explanations are incorrect and that tampering is the reason for the changes. The burden of proof is upon you to prove that the changes are tampering and not the result of either of the other two explanations. You have suggested that what you perceive as contradictions in her writings is evidence of tampering. That's one approach, but it is a highly subjective one. I suggested that objective evidence was needed to set the matter beyond dispute. I suggested the kind of evidence that ought to be available if what you say is true. In the case of the Bible, documentary evidence exists form the actual time that tampering took place. Is there no documentray evidence of this kind in the case of Ellen White's writings? Didn't anyone notice that it was going in during the thirty years of her life when you say it took place?

To say a change is tampering without providing supportive evidence leaves you open to the the response: How do you know that Ellen White didn't approve that changes? If you can't prove it, then it comes down to a matter of personal opinion, which is no basis for such a serious charge. You'll simply be left voicing opinions.

Taking the example you mentioned in the 1911 Great Controversy, can you be absolutely certain that the words you quote were not written by Ellen White exactly as they were printed ? I don't know whether you have access to M.L.Andreason's 'A Faith To Live By.' It's a tremendous little book and worth reading. In it, he describes the time he spent in Ellen White's home, observing her modus operandi. On page 300, he makes this observatiuon: 'I learned to my astonishment that Mrs White wrote with her own hand all that was published under her signature. [This means that the manuscript of 'The Great Controversy' 1911 edition, ought to be available.] Having written it, she passed it on to her copyists for transcription on the typewriter. [Is the original typescript still in existence?] After this was done, the manuscript was returned to her for correction. [If it still exists, the corrections should be there also.] As I saw this process day after day, I was assured [Who assured him? Persumably he asked Ellen White this very question.] that no corrections were made except under her direction, and that what appeared in periodicals or books over her signature, was her own work practically as it had come from her pen, with such corrections as she herself had made, or such as were made under her approval. To me this was a vital matter, for I had been informed that her typists changed, altered, omitted, or added to what she had written, so that what appeared in print was very different from the original draft. My experience convinced me that this statement was pure fabrication.' This is an eyewitess statement by a contemporary of Ellen White. It would be admissible as evidence.

Bro Winters, have you visited the Ellen White vault to compare the passages you dispute with Ellen White's hand-written manuscripts or with her corrected typescripts? Do you think this might be a worthwhile exercise before you publish lists of tamperings? If you are right about tampering, you are doing an important work. If you are wrong, you are doing a terrible work that will seriously damage the cause of God. It's worth being 100% sure before going public. If it were possible to be 200% sure, you ought to do it!

May God bless and guide you.

Gordon

Konnichiwa Brother Gordon,

Thank you for your email regarding the charges of tampering with the Spirit of Prophecy writings. Nothing will be lost by an honest study of what we
believe.

It seems that you have 3 main points in your email. If i am mistaken, please correct me.
1. God gives his prophets/messengers just thots and not actual words.

2. To prove the 'tampering' charge, you are asking me to show where Ellen
White said there was tampering.

3. God is dependent on a live prophet/messenger to keep his sacred writing
pure.

#1. I have read the quote you give. It is directly contrary to the one i showed in my 'Word Inspiration' article: 01/22/80 Review: "The scribes of God wrote as they were dictated by the Holy Spirit, having no control of the work themselves." Let's not kid ourselves and try to show how both of these
must be right because they both have the pen name 'Ellen White' on them. One is right, and one is wrong. I know Ellen White was God's messenger. God doesn't make his messengers lie. Which one is consistent with the Bible? I believe the 'dictated' one. Many, many times it says something
like Jeremiah 1:9 "Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth.And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth." I don't see a hint there of diffusing of the divine mind. How did Jesus meet the tempter at his fiercest? "...by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Again, i don't see any indications of - by every thot diffused thru human expressions.

#2. You wrote: "If tampering had taken place in that period, there should be some documentary evidence of protest, by Ellen White herself or by others of her contemporaries." Then just below that you define 'tampering' to mean: "Someone had been changing Ellen White's writings without her knowledge or consent. This is what I understand by 'tampering.'" If there was tampering Ellen White would've protested, but tampering means either she didn't know about or agree to it? How in the world can you protest something you don't know about?!?!?!? This type of reasoning seems very circular and self-contradictory to me. Am i missing something here?

#3. If the God we serve is dependent on his prophet/messenger to be alive to protect his sacred Word, then we are all in big trouble, because there was no prophet who was given words to write anyway, for over 1700 years!!! In chapter 12 of the 1858 GC, it says: "I saw that the angels of God were commissioned to have a special care, and guard the sacred, important truths which were to serve as an anchor to hold the disciples of Christ through every generation." And in chapter 18 it says: "But I saw that God had a special care for his word. He protected it. At different periods there
were but a very few copies of the Bible in existence, yet God would not suffer his word to be lost." (Again, please notice whose 'word' it is). So do i think that somehow God has lost his touch now by allowing his word to be altered? No! He has preserved the originals so all who are diligent seekers after truth can find it. Sad to say, probably less than 1% of all SDAs have ever read the original Great Controversy or Little Flock or the 30 volumes of the Testimonies to the Church. The Bible was hidden from the people physically for centuries, and the SOP has been so compiled-up, as to be hidden for decades.

You yourself admit that there has been tampering in a recent book. Is God unable to stop that since his messenger is asleep now?

Personally i know Ellen White was directly called by God, and was God's chosen messenger. Reading the early works like Present Truth articles, Little Flock, R&H vol.1, and of course the original 1858 The Great Controversy Between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and His Angels is what settled me into the truth. I just want everybody to experience the joy of being firm on the platform of truth (^-^).

I've given direct quotes from various books with Ellen White's name on the cover showing things that directly contradict each other. We need to study to see what to do about this, because they cannot all be true. To believe opposite things are both true will make us (has made us) the laughingstock of the world.

You yourself admit that showing an original 'Ministry of Healing' book hadn't been changed helped some lady's faith. What should we do when this lady finds out for herself that the same cannot be said for the book next inimportance to the Bible - The Great Controversy?

Lastly, i'll show a change that affects in a big way our idea of what kind of God we serve. Here is the entire 3rd Paragraph in the original 1858 GC: "After Satan was shut out of heaven, with those who fell with him, he realized that he had lost all the purity and glory of heaven forever. Then he repented and wished to be reinstated again in heaven. He was willing to take his proper place, or any place that might be assigned him. But no, heaven must not be placed in jeopardy. All heaven might be marred should he be taken back; for sin originated with him, and the seeds of rebellion were within him. Satan had obtained followers, those who sympathized with him in his rebellion. He and his followers repented, wept and implored to be taken back into the favor of God. But no, their sin, their hate, their envy and jealousy, had been so great that God could not blot it out. It must remain to receive its final punishment."

This is from p.495 of the 1911 GC: "Though he had forsaken his position as covering cherub, yet if he had been willing to return to God, acknowledging the Creator's wisdom, and satisfied to fill the place appointed him in God's great plan, he would have been reinstated in his office. But pride forbade him to submit. He persistently defended his own course, maintained that he had no need of repentance, and fully committed himself, in the great controversy, against his Maker."

It is very possible that the one in the 1911 GC is talking about before Satan was shut out of heaven, and as such would be entirely true. But by leaving out the part that Satan DID later repent leaves a view of God that says he accepts anybody anytime who wants to repent. That is not true.

I'm afraid the 4 winds are starting to blow.... but God won't let them until his servants are sealed:)

Daniel Winters

Bob,

Here's what I wrote about this subject to an SDA forum found in www.seventh-dayadventism.com.

With all these Jesuit infiltration of our beloved SDA church, which I believe by the way, I've often wondered, could they have laid their hands on the crown jewel of our denomination, i.e., the Spirit of Prophecy manuscripts inside the EGW Estate vault at some point after EGW's death?

After all, if you're a Jesuit, wouldn't that be one of your master plans? She said the beast power did it in the early centuries:

"Ancient writings were forged by monks. Decrees of councils before unheard of were discovered, establishing the universal supremacy of the pope from the earliest times. And a church that had rejected the truth greedily accepted these deceptions." {4SP 59.2}

This is why it's not hard to believe that bibles based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are corrupted. My question seems ludicrous, and maybe it is. But you have to ask yourself, How far have they infiltrated the church? Would or could they spare EGW manuscripts?

I don't have any evidence myself. But there could be a scenario where, let's just suppose, that one of their agents was able to corrupt the manuscripts by inserting some spurious passage that would blatantly contradict another passage from another place. For instance (I'm not saying this is true), one passage says that we are to distribute 3AMs like leaves of autumn. But another says that we should not make hard thrusts at Catholics by offending their sensibilities. I'm just paraphrasing. Could the latter have been inserted long ago by a supposed EGW trustee at the Estate?

Some of you would argue and say, No, God would not allow that to happen. One would think that just before the fiend lays his hand on the manuscripts he suffers a heart attack. But if the structure is nothing more than a whited sepulchre full of dead mens' bones, would God still care to protect the crown jewels? Did God protect the sacred vessels from being desecrated by Belshazzar?

Right now, I'm hanging on to my EGW CD-ROM Legacy of Light version. Who knows, future releases could have Jesuit-planted quotes they can quote against you when you're brought into councils to answer for your faith.

--- Dante

Bob,

THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS MATTER. We might have been shortchanged all these years without realizing it. I suggested to Danny whether or not his findings were borne by redlining--i.e., comparing a newer document from its older or original version through word processing function called redlining. That should be easy to do--for the computer, instead of eye-balling as done by humans which could take forever. The process would only take a few seconds and you'll have the redlines (striken out material) and/or additions.

I'll do this myself and see what I come up with.

--- Dante

Bro. Paul,

Bro. Winters and I do not agree on the points that you have brought up. In fact our disagreement goes back over a year as he will tell you if you ask him. I try to not censor people that disagree with me or for that matter, you. It gives people like you among others a chance to show someone that they may be wrong in their thinking process. Several others have written him about this and I invite you to do the same at tenkoku1@hotmail.com ...you'ld be doing me a favor. But on the tampering issue, in which he was directly addressing, I see no comment from you. Why is that? You came out blaiming me for his faulty conclusions and as I have seen him try to explain, he has his own reasoning and proof texts that he relies on. I have applied my own counsel to this issue, long before you did, but you were obviously not aware of this.

One other small point Paul, I wish I had the luxery of having 20/20 vision as you may have so that I may scrutinize and research every thing that I receive. I would be overjoyed if I even had 20/200 vision, but I see that you spent painstaking time in writing your email in BOLD, RED, BLUE, ITALICS, UNDERLINE... Some of it helped but since most of it was in RED and BLUE, my YELLOW computer glasses filters out those colors making your email almost more work than it was worth to read.

It would have been easier for you, I believe if you would have just asked me, but since you have included all your friends, I have also Replied to All.

Bob

Bro Bob:

The article entitled "Thots Regarding Word Inspiration" by Danny Winters was very saddening to read. Sadder yet, you have not followed your own counsel to "check and see" if he was correct. His ideas and conclusions were faulty to say the least. I will not dwell in depth upon it, but simply ask for an explaination of the following passage from the SOP:

"The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is NOT God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is NOT represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has NOT put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, NOT His pen. Look at the different writers.

"It is NOT the WORDS of the Bible that are INSPIRED, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts NOT on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the WORDS receive the impress of the INDIVIDUAL MIND. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God."-- Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886). 1SM 21

I would suggest that you go back and read the 1SM 15-23. Also, please explain the following passage found in EGW's introduction to her book Great Controversy...

"The Bible points to God as its author; YET it was written by human hands; and in the varied style of its different books it presents the characteristics of the several writers. The truths revealed are all 'given by inspiration of God' (2 Tim. 3:16); YET they are expressed in the words of men. The Infinite One by his Holy Spirit has shed light into the minds and hearts of his servants. He has given dreams and visions, symbols and figures; and those to whom the truth was thus revealed, have themselves embodied the thought in human language.

"The ten commandments were spoken by God himself, and were written by his own hand. They are of divine, and not human composition. BUT the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human. Such a union existed in the nature of Christ, who was the Son of God and the Son of man. Thus it is true of the Bible, as it was of Christ, that 'the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.' John 1:14.

" Written in different ages, by men who differed widely in rank and occupation, and in mental and spiritual endowments, the books of the Bible present a wide contrast in style, as well as a diversity in the nature of the subjects unfolded. Different forms of expression are employed by different writers; often the same truth is more strikingly presented by one than by another. And as several writers present a subject under varied aspects and relations, there may appear, to the superficial, careless, or prejudiced reader, to be discrepancy or contradiction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, with clearer insight, discerns the underlying harmony.

"As presented through different individuals, the truth is brought out in its varied aspects. One writer is more strongly impressed with one phase of a subject; he grasps those points that harmonize with his experience or with his power of perception and appreciation; another seizes upon a different phase; and each, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, presents what is most forcibly impressed upon his own mind; a different aspect of the truth in each, but a perfect harmony through all. And the truths thus revealed unite to form a perfect whole, adapted to meet the wants of men in all the circumstances and experiences of life.

"God has been pleased to communicate his truth to the world by human agencies, and he himself, by his Holy Spirit, qualified men and enabled them to do this work. He guided the mind in the selection of what to speak and what to write. The treasure was intrusted to earthen vessels, yet it is, none the less, from Heaven. The testimony is conveyed through the imperfect expression of human language; yet it is the testimony of God; and the obedient, believing child of God beholds in it the glory of a divine power, full of grace and truth." [Authors introduction]. (1888) GC c4-d3.

Brother Bob, how long?
Paul.

Bob wrote: [Previous general email]

Also in the last general email, the subject of SOP tamperings was mentioned. Call it what you want, but this is an emotional issue for some, so in the hope of bringing some sanity back I am attaching an article that I received today in regards to this. If you have an opposing view, you are welcome to email it to me so that we can present it as well. My suggestion would be that before anyone looses steam and is on the verge of blowing their top, that they at least check and see if things are as stated or is someone scamming you.

Paul

Dear Bob,

I read your attached file on alleged tampering with the Spirit of Prophecy writings. Obviously it's a highly emotive subject and we'd better be very clear about what is being said and its implications for the people of God. If Bro Wnters is not exceedingly careful, he will simply undemine all confidence in the Spirit of Prophecy among faithful Adventists. He is making serious charges and needs to provide cogent evidence. He also needs to be aware of the potential effects of his chosen course of action. (I once read a story of an inventor who was executed because he didn't think of the possible uses of his invention, which were deemed by the emperor to be potentially destructive to the kingdom.)

In this connection, I recall an incident in my own ministry. A lady who had been brought to the truth after studying our correspondence Bible course, got into discussion with some of her friends who had formerly worshipped with her in a Pentecostal church. She shared with them some statements from 'Ministry of Healing' which had given her great confidence in the divine guidance that produced Ellen White's writings. The edition she was using was, however, a very recent paperback edition. They challenged her to prove that the book had not been edited to incorporate later scientific discoveries. By the providence of God, I had just been given some old editions of Ellen White's writings and among them was a first edition of 'Ministry of Healing.' I was able to check the reference and assure her that the text of the book had not changed in ninety years or more. The lady was delighted that the seed of doubt sowed by her Pentecostal friend had been so providentially removed and her confidence in the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Advent people was once again firmly established. What would be gained by undermining this lady's confidence in the integrity of the Spirit of Prophecy writings?

First, regarding verbal inspiration, which seems to be the position put forward by Bro. Winters, I would be very interested to read his thoughts about the following:
"The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers.
"It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God." [Emphasis mine] Ellen G. White, Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886). (See 1SM 19-21.)

Secondly, Bro Winters should be clear that lists of changes cannot, in themselves, be evidence of tampering. The changes he lists start from the 1880s, thirty-five years before the death of Sister White. If tampering had taken place in that period, there should be some documentary evidence of protest, by Ellen White herself or by others of her contemporaries. All he has established is that changes were made from early Ellen White writings to later versions. Except in blatant examples, it is not easy to prove by internal evidence that these changes involved deliberate corruption. Yet Bro. Winters is attempting to prove his point about tampering, as opposed to changes, purely on internal evidence, which is a highly subjective approach. These changes could arise in a number of ways:

1. Someone had been changing Ellen White's writings without her knowledge or consent. This is what I understand by 'tampering.'

2. Someone had been changing Ellen White's writings with her knowlege and consent. This is what I understand as editing.

3. Ellen White herself may have initiated or sanctioned changes herself, either to make thems suitable for a different readership or application, to make the meaning clearer, to improve the grammar or wording, or for a variety of other reasons, known to herself.
(I assume we're not going to argue about correction of typographical errors, in the way that some rather mean-minded opponents of Adventism have done in the past.)

Now in the daily devotional, 'Christ Triumphant' R & H, 1999, there is obvious and admitted tampering. See pages 5- 6. For this reason, the book should be read with great caution. But if Bro. Winters wants to sustain his charge of tampering, as opposed to sanctioned changes, he will need to produce documentary evidence that the changes he lists were not sanctioned and approved by Ellen White. Cogent evidence would include expressions of protest by Ellen White at the way her writings have been tampered with by the publishing house(s). Bro Winters claims that tampering had been going on during the last thirty-five years of Ellen White's life. I would expect to see letters written by Ellen White, or on her behalf protesting against such practices. Even contemporary letters written by others evidencing worry about the changes would be better than a mere list of alterations.

It would be powerful circumstantial evidence if it could be shown that the changes crucially affect one or some of our central teachings.

In the case of the Bible, there is documentary evidence from a very early time (the 2nd century) that tampering was going on. It was tampering because the changes were made after the death of the Bible writers and therefore without their approval. Those who noted this tampering were in no doubt as to its motive; the tampering was in order to provide Scriptural support for erroneous teachings. So far as internal evidence is concerned, the serious student of the Bible today can detect how tampering has affected central Bible doctrines. For example, the tampering with Revelation 22:14 or 1 Timothy 3:16. Some changes were, of course, simply the result of careless scribes, and the serious Bible scholar will discount manuscripts showing clear evidence of carelessness, e.g. Codex Sinaiaticus.

What is needed is for Bro Winters to apply the same standards of evidence to sustain his charges.

I hope this is helpful in clarifying matters. May God bless you and all those who love and obey the truth.

Gordon

To Jeannie Mc_____,

Your article is titled "Secret Writers". Is it coincidence that Vance Ferrell has written an article about this issue and named it "Secret Writers" also? The more i read your article, the more it looks like this is just a copy of the HP [Home Page] that Brother Ferrell has up on the net. I personally gave Vance the EGWhite writings on Lazer-disc in 1989, and have been enlightened by many of his newsletters giving the trumpet a certain sound. But altho i have contacted him twice by email, and once by snail mail on this issue, i have yet to receive any reply (over 1 year ago).

First of all, the Spirit of Prophecy was inspired the same way as the Bible. The writers were given the actual words to use, and they wrote as directed. If this is not true, then we can all despair of ever knowing this side of heaven what God really said. If just the ideas are inspired, then each
generation will be free to interpret the way to suit their ideas and culture. Why do we call it the "Word" anyway? This is the whole crux of the issue.

The 1858 The Great Controversy Between Christ and His Angels, and Satan and His Angels says the words were 'dictated' by the Holy Ghost. This certainly requires more study especially in light of the comments written in Review and Herald, Oct. 8, 1867: "the words I employ in describing what I have seen are my own, unless they be those spoken to me by an angel, and the 01/22/80
Review: "The scribes of God wrote as they were dictated by the Holy Spirit, having no control of the work themselves."

Your first question is: "Did she say that this is true?" No. Is this supposed to prove something? I don't recall the Holy Ghost having Daniel write: "the word 'daily' will be added here, don't pay any attention to it". You see, it makes to difference to God if the vessel is alive or not. He doesn't pass away. He is just as able to preserve his Word while the vessel is alive, as after the vessel is dead. It makes no difference to him whether the writer is alive or not, and it shouldn't to us either.

There are a lot of conjectures in this email such as "If this,,,then this", and "they would have done so and so". For example: "But if there had been any secret about what they were doing, they would hardly have printed it publicly in the Review." How do you know? They state a similar thing about
just the ideas being inspired in the preface to the NIV version of the Bible. Since they are open about it, are we just supposed to blindly believe them???

"Was it possible for them to get a few details wrong? Of course it was. Can we trust the Holy Spirit to make sure the essentials are clear and accurate? Of course we can." This quote in this article is awful. Talk about throwing doubt on the word of God!! God gave Matthew some details, Luke some details, Mark etc., not to show that some of the details were wrong, but to reach different hearts down thru the ages. None of them are wrong!

I was hoping to see some quotes comparing the various books, but alas, almost everything is this article is taken from some compilation, or letter, or preface to the 1911 GC. In my article i showed actual changes to the books. I was hoping for a discussion comparing the differences, but this
article just shows one side of the story that people who want to believe without verifying the facts for themselves, will.

May we study to show ourselves approved unto God,

Daniel Winters

PS: On his HP last year, Vance Ferrell promised a 100USD reward to anyone showing him any changes to any doctrines in the books. I showed him 3, but have yet to receive anything yet. Since it's not in this email, perhaps he has withdrawn that offer?

PPS: I certainly hope i'm wrong on this issue. It's much easier to believe
everything that has the words "Bible" or "Ellen White" on it is straight
from God. That would certainly reduce a lot of need for digging for the
truth!

9-15-2001 THE HOLY SABBATH DAY
Bro. Bob:

My name is Bro. Rand H____. I am 65 and live in Auburn, Washington. I have been a member of the SDA Church since 1974.

I receive your various e-mails through another SDA sister who relays them to me. This is a somewhat long e-mail, but, nevertheless, worthwhile reading. I hope all of you do so! However, Please Pray For DIVINE ENLIGHTENMENT First!!!

I have a question to pose to you regarding Danny Winters' article on "Thots on Word Inspiration".
However, before that, I want to say that I understand your concern with the Mother SDA Church because she is "steadily retreating toward Egypt" as THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY STATES.
Each person will have to make his or her own calling and election sure, by Prayerful, Careful, Study of THE HOLY BIBLE, KJV, SPIRIT OF PROHECY AND 1888 MESSAGE. You will never get what you need from the SDA pulpit. That is too bad, but that is the way it is. A remnant of the remnant will make it, much like the people who got off on the lifeboats when the Titanic went down!
However, I do not advocate people leaving the Church, but, rather that they, with Prayer,and Study, endeavor, as THE LORD JESUS LEADS them, individually, to reach their SDA brethren and warn them while there is still time!

The SDA Church Is Not Babylon, but, it is being infiltrated by Babylonian principles more and more. It will take hard times to bring some of the leaders and members to their senses. However, the majority of SDA leaders and laity will be lost as THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY indicates! It is not that they have to be lost, it is simply that they will not commit fully TO THE LORD JESUS!
Those hard times will incorporate WW 3 which is now, as of Tues, Sept. 11, upon us, in it's beginning stages, and will grow in intensity as time progresses and, probably, quickly. It will, also, be a war of some duration, a few years, at least.

The fact of the matter is, however, that the U.S. and it's allies are going to lose this war. This war will, ultimately, be fought over the promised land of Israel. The arab nations want the promised land because their father was, also, Abraham and they believe they are entitled to it, just as the Jews believe the same. Remember, the arabs are descendents of Ishmael, "a wild man." (Gen. 16.12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren). However, the ironic thing is that the promised land is neither the Jews or the Arab's, but rather it belongs to those who make up The Apostolic Church that started with THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND HIS 12 Disciples!

The U.S. and it's allies, ( probably, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Israel, and perhaps a few others, will be up against the entire United Arab Republic and it's allies, which will, no doubt include Russia and China and others. Russia and China may or may not invest manpower, but they will undoubtedly trade arms and equiptment for money and oil! The U.S. and it's allies will go down militarily, ( for Sister White states that the U.S. will yet be humbled in the dust! ). Then, the U.S. will come back up as the world's chief ecclesiastical power and be instrumental in setting up the mark of the beast system, ( the scarlet colored beast, church state world government of Rev. 17, otherwise known as "the image to the beast" of Rev. 13, ( the leopard like beast , the last stages of which we are in right now ). We know this beast system of Rev. 17, as the scarlet colored beast, ( it's BIBLICAL name ).

However, the world is becoming familar with it under a different name, "the coming one world government"! Thus, the U.S. willl switch from it's lamb-like stage to it's dragon stage! It is already doing that now, but it has not yet made the complete switch.

A similar thing happened to Rome in 476AD. Pagan Rome went down militarily, and came back up as the world's church state ruling power!

There is much more I could say, but right now, the following is my main concern!
I find your e-mails interesting and I read them all. But, one, in particular, has bothered me. It is the one that contained the article by Danny Winters, dated 6-22-01 and titled "Thots On Word Inspiration"

I found this article in your most current e-mail Newsletter dated Sept. 14, 2001. In it, Danny Winters states that THE BIBLE WAS DICTATED WORD FOR WORD BY THE LORD, HIMSELF! THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY DOES NOT AGREE WITH THAT!

Since I am relaying this e-mail to other SDAS, I am going to include Danny Winters' article, first, and then THE STATEMENTS FROM THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY!Danny Winters article

Answer to Danny Winters'' article, above.

In all fairness, regarding the following SPIRIT OF PROPHECY STATEMENTS WHICH I have found that give contradiction to what Danny Winters is saying, we have to include the possibility
that either something is not being understood correctly or else some part of THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY has been tampered with!!!

In answer to this article, I would like to include, in the soon following SPIRIT OF PROHECY STATEMENTS, below, an article from SDA BC Vol. 7 pg. 945. It is also found in The BC Supplement Book 7A pg. 389, which, as you know, is strictly THE WRITINGS OF Sis. E.G. White, ( Unless, as I stated, above, they have been tampered with, the possibility of which, I do not rule out, as difficult as it may be to prove!

And, here I must say that I so far have not gotten very far into trying to prove which SPIRIT OF PROPHECY STATEMENTS have been tampered with and WHICH have not. I am not driven to do that, as yet, probably, because it might cause more problems than not doing it! Also, I am not an advocate of the SDA BC except as it involves statements that Sr. E.G. White wrote. Most of the SDA BC is not from Sr. White's pen, but, from the pen of SDA "Bible Scholars". Some of it may be accurate, but I do not spend time reading their "theories" and trying to verify them. I concentrate on THE HOLY BIBLE, KJV, ONLY, PLUS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY, INCLUDING THE 1888 MESSAGE.

Please read the following and let me know your answer. I always allow for the fact that I may be missing something or misinterpreting what the writer means. But, so far, to me, Danny Winters appears off base. I am sure he is sincere, however. Also, notice the fairly early date on the MS, 1888 Ref., Below, WHICH IS ALSO PART OF THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY! THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY STATEMENTS REGARDING THIS SUBJECT. We thank God that the Bible is prepared for the poor man as well as for the learned man. It is fitted for all ages and all classes (MS 16, 1888). {7BC 945.3}

The writers of the Bible had to express their ideas in human language. It was written by human men. These men were inspired of the Holy Spirit. Because of the imperfections of human understanding of language, or the perversity of the human mind, ingenious in evading truth, many read and understand the Bible to please themselves. It is not that the difficulty is in the Bible. Opposing politicians argue points of law in the statute book, and take opposite views in their application and in these laws. {7BC 945.4}

The Scriptures were given to men, not in a continuous chain of unbroken utterances, but piece by piece through successive generations, as God in His providence saw a fitting opportunity to impress man at sundry times and divers places. Men wrote as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost. There is "first the bud, then the blossom, and next the fruit," "first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." This is exactly what the Bible utterances are to us. {7BC 945.5}
There is not always perfect order or apparent unity in the Scriptures. The miracles of Christ are not given in exact order, but are given just as the circumstances occurred, which called for this divine revealing of the power of Christ. The truths of the Bible are as pearls hidden. They must be searched, dug out by painstaking effort. Those who take only a surface view of the Scriptures, will, with their superficial knowledge, which they think is very deep, talk of the contradictions of the Bible, and question the authority of the Scriptures. But those whose hearts are in harmony with truth and duty will search the Scriptures with a heart prepared to receive divine impressions. The illuminated soul sees a spiritual unity, one grand golden thread running through the whole, but it requires patience, thought, and prayer to trace out the precious golden thread. Sharp contentions over the Bible have led to investigation and revealed the precious jewels of truth. Many tears have been shed, many prayers offered, that the Lord would open the understanding to His Word. {7BC 945.6}

The Bible is not given to us in grand superhuman language. Jesus, in order to reach man where he is, took humanity. The Bible must be given in the language of men. Everything that is human is imperfect. Different meanings are expressed by the same word; there is not one word for each distinct idea. The Bible was given for practical purposes. {7BC 945.7}

The stamps of minds are different. All do not understand expressions and statements alike. Some understand the statements of the Scriptures to suit their own particular minds and cases. Prepossessions, prejudices, and passions have a strong influence to darken the understanding and confuse the mind even in reading the words of Holy Writ. . . . {7BC 945.8}
The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. {7BC 945.9}
It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the Word of God (MS 24, 1886). {7BC 945.10}

Finite Vehicles of Thought.--The Lord speaks to human beings in imperfect speech, in order that the degenerate senses, the dull, earthly perception, of earthly beings may comprehend His words. Thus is shown God's condescension. He meets fallen human beings where they are. The Bible, perfect as it is in its simplicity, does not answer to the great ideas of God; for infinite ideas cannot be perfectly embodied in finite vehicles of thought. Instead of the expressions of the Bible being exaggerated, as many people suppose, the strong expressions break down before the magnificence of the thought, though the penman selected the most expressive language through which to convey the truths of higher education. Sinful beings can only bear to look upon a shadow of the brightness of heaven's glory (Letter 121, 1901). {7BC 946.1}

Bro. Rand's Comments:
In essence, what I understand the above to be saying is that THE HOLY SPIRIT GIVES INSPIRED THOUGHTS to men, ( Chosen Messengers ). The Messengers write out THE INSPIRED THOUGHTS in their own words. Thus GOD and man work together in writing THE HOLY BIBLE.

This Principle, also, applies to THE LORD'S METHODS of reaching man. THE SPIRIT OF
PROPHECY STATES THAT THE LORD IS COMMITTED to reaching man through man, as much as possible. We know that Angels will probably wind up doing some of the Work that we could have done had we cooperated fully. The Principle of reaching man through man enables THE CURRENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO PASS through us, so to speak, in the process of our witnessing to others.

We know that people will be saved or lost by our work and testimony. We are responsible for souls and their blood can be upon our head if we do not cooperate with THE HOLY SPIRIT IN REACHING them!

The very act of witnessing in cooperation with THE PROMPTING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT is what developes our own Christian Character! We also, in that process, see how difficult it is for THE LORD JESUS TO WIN souls!

When it is all over, we, who by THE GRACE AND EXTENDED MERCY OF THE LORD JESUS, are, at last, Eternally United with HIM, will forever realize that IT WAS ALL HIM! No matter what part we may have done, in cooperation with HIM, it will have been done in HIS STRENGTH, not ours! We, as Luke says, are unprofitable servants! We have only done that which was our duty to do! Yet, HE WILL ACCEPT us! And we will spend eternity endeavoring to Thank HIM and to Understand HOW, WHY, AND WHAT HE DID FOR us, who were so totally unworthy of anything, but, death!

THAT, Bro. Bob, and the rest of you brothers and sisters who are reading this, IS DIVINE LOVE!
HE TOOK us, who are worth nothing, and gave us HIMSELF WHO IS WORTH EVERYTHING! HE VINDICATES us so that we, in turn, can VINDICATE HIM! THINK ABOUT THAT!!!

Our Ultimate and Only Purpose on this planet is to Seek, First, HIS KINGDOM AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS so that we can be prepared to be used by HIM TO VINDICATE HIS HOLY NAME AND GOVERNMENT, to participate with HIM IN WINNING souls to HIM, and to appear before HIM, Holy and Blameless, IN LOVE! You can read about that in the 1888 MESSAGE, "CHRIST AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS. Part of it is on pg. 46. Read the whole BOOK! After, all THAT BOOK IS PART OF THE LATTER RAIN TRUTH!.

Salvation, then, must become the result and not the cause, and thus, the final portion of selfishnes, ( I want to be saved, not lost ), will be removed, and ALL THAT WILL REMAIN, in our hearts, WILL BE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED, RESURRECTED, RISEN, AND VICTORIOUS KING OF Kings, AND LORD OF Lords! HE WILL BE Our THEME AND PURPOSE FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!

Bro. Bob, and the rest of you brothers and sisters, reading this, we cannot even begin to imagine what THAT ALL MEANS, ( because we have not seen, heard, or thought of what THE LORD HAS PLANNED FOR them that Love HIM ), but we know that IT MEANS EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you, Bro. Bob, and any of the rest of you, very much, for your response to the above
IN THE MASTER'S MOST HOLY AND GLORIOUS NAME, FOREVER

Bro. Rand H____

Hi Jeannie, [Mc______]

Is this article a submission that you would like sent to the email list? If
so, do you have a condensed version or a link to a website where it can be
found?
Most people would not want to receive something this long by email.

I have not read it yet, but it appears to be quite long.

Let me say this. The reason that I took up the battle cry on this issue is
because of the fantacism statement made by Tim Simkin in his last newsletter
and echoed by Paul Rahoi, though I know that Paul has not even read Tim's
newsletter.

Since the claims tend to be emotionally based in a large part by many, it
would be appropriate for anyone that submits proof to that claim, that any
rebuttle should deal to the statements or proofs that were submitted first
before going off in a different tangent. So my suggestion to you or the next
person that wants to rebutt is to answer Mr. Winters' claims. This would
help in keeping things on the straight and level.

God Bless
Bob

Jeannie Mc______ sent this email without any comments: Secret Writers

{Editor's note: This is a long article, and it was obvious to me that it was not written for this occasion. Please click on link to read or download)