Horizontal Menu Bar

The SOP Proof Is In The Bible

The Proof of SOP Statements Is In The Bible (Acts 17:11)

            A most valuable contribution that the prophetic ministry of Ellen White has provided is in her inspired comments that shed great light upon episodes of the Bible (see e.g., the 5 Conflict of Ages series books). As many have referred to these, they are indeed an inspired commentary on the Bible. However for those who do not believe that Ellen White was, -through the “Testimony (=Isa 8:16, 20) from Jesus” (Greek Ablative case functioning as a “Genitive of Source/Origin” =Rev 1:2, 12:17) ‘which is the “Spirit of Prophecy”’ (Rev 19:10), inspired and received such true-to-life visions and dreams on Biblical stories from God, it can surfacely seem futile to try to make them see these views to be what actually did occur in the historical, Biblical past. Nonetheless, even in these complimentary “extra-Biblical” views, it becomes evident, upon study of them, that God, fully knowing that such doubts would exist, has still fully provided for these additional views to be adequately corroborated by the Bible. Indeed in most, if not all, of such extra-biblical revelations, one can find convincing Biblical support to show that they are indeed perfectly in-line with what the Bible states.[1]
            In this light, the following Biblical episode is an excellent example of this.
It is from the account of the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan by John. (Matt 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21:22; John 1:29-34; DA 109-113). First of all, what is accepted commonly as true today is often times more influenced by popular media, which liberally uses “dramatic-license” and thus many times misconstrues and misrepresents what the Bible actually says. The Baptism of Christ is an example of this, as it will be seen here. [By the way, the writings of EGW can be variously accessed online: e.g., here here here here here and/or here].
            To get right to the pertinent points here, it is often believed, as depicted in all movies on Jesus Christ, that the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove while He was still in the water, having just been baptized (depicted by immersion or sprinkling) by John. However contrary to all of this, Ellen White, writing the Desire of Ages in 1898, and evidently using the (English) Revised Version 1885 (R.V.) as her Bible, writes that ‘Jesus came up out of the water, and bowed in prayer on the river bank.’ (DA 111). She then adds that Jesus then proceeded to pray a most passionate prayer, as she says:

“The Saviour’s glance seems to penetrate heaven as He pours out His soul in prayer. Well He knows how sin has hardened the hearts of men, and how difficult it will be for them to discern His mission, and accept the gift of salvation. He pleads with the Father for power to overcome their unbelief, to break the fetters with which Satan has enthralled them, and in their behalf to conquer the destroyer. He asks for the witness that God accepts humanity in the person of His Son.” (DA 111-112)

            Then she adds that as a response to this most moving prayer, one that the angels wanted to answer themselves at once, God the Father Himself provided the confirming answer of this “petition.” Thus: “direct from the throne issue the beams of His glory. The heavens are opened, and upon the Saviour’s head descends a dovelike form of purest light,--fit emblem of Him, the meek and lowly One.” (DA 112).     

            A person who does not accept the such statements of Ellen White to be of a Divine Source may, after reading the Bible, say: ‘That’s nice, but it is not what the Bible says.’ ...But does it?
            First of all, the Bible itself, (albeit) as rendered in e.g., most English versions, is adequately clear, contrary to “Hollywood”, in stating that Jesus did come ‘out of the water’ before the Dove descended upon Him. Yet the original Greek is even more deliberate and specific than these translation here. In the Greek there are two distinct prepositions for the what is rendered in English as “out of”. There is the expression ek = “out of”; and the expression apo = “away from”. In Greek grammars the distinct difference between these two is illustrated by: an arrow pointing ‘out of’ the middle of a circle for ek; and one pointing ‘away from’ the edge of the circle for apo. Now despite the fact that what is rendered in English in this passage is “out of the water”, the underlying Greek is actually apo “away from”. So this actually perfectly harmonizes with Ellen White’s elaborating statement that Jesus was kneeling on the river bank, i.e., He was completely out of, and away from, the water when He was praying.
            Secondly, Ellen White adds that ‘the descending of the Dove,’ and ‘the statement of God from Heaven’ were expressedly sent because of this “petition” of Christ. That petition-response notion is not rendered in available translations, however it is deliberately indicated in the original Greek. There are three relatively odd verbal expression that are used here to say: that “the Heavens were opened” and “ a dove descended” and  “a voice came out of Heaven”. They are non-normative because they are all in the Infinitive form. They are therefore not merely, temporally, relating an action. In Greek Syntax such a verbal expression could either be an Infinitive of Purpose or an Infinitive of Result and used to indicate either “purpose” =‘in order to’ or “result” =‘as a result of’. Upon contextual analysis, it can be readily be seen here that the notion of “Result” is applicable here. This all therefore shows that it was “as a result of Christ’s petition that (a) the Heavens were opened (b) the Dove descended, and (c) the voice of God came out of the Heavens.
            All of these details brought out by the Greek text therefore all corroborate Ellen White’s “extra-biblical” account here and thus confirm it as indeed being inspired!
            As mentioned above, such a scholarly confirmation can be done for other such statements found in the writings of Ellen White. They thus pass the explicit test of Isa 8:20. Indeed if God was going to provide further, enlightening details into past Biblical episodes, he would not merely be repeating what He has already inspired to be written; much like what the Gospels accounts have done, even if/when using a common original source as supposed with Matthew, Mark and Luke.  Notwithstanding this valid additive aspect here, as it can be seen in this sample passage, what Ellen White had said in the late 1890's only brought to light what was already incorporated in the Biblical text, something that Greek readers of the past probably readily saw and understood, but is not so readily seen in the 1890's, by even learned scholars, and still today. However, there is no longer any excuse today for such deficiencies and ignorance.            


Some Other SOP-Bible Examples
            As it was related in this sermon [6:15ff], in the book Patriarchs and Prophets, Ellen White makes the seemingly, purely extra-biblical statement on the Rock that provided water for the Israelites in the Wilderness that:

“From the smitten rock in Horeb first flowed the living stream that refreshed Israel in the desert. During all their wanderings, wherever the need existed, they were supplied with water by a miracle of God’s mercy. The water did not, however, continue to flow from Horeb. Wherever in their journeyings they wanted water, there from the clefts of the rock it gushed out beside their encampment.” (p.411)

            It may be assumed that the Bible does not say that such a multiple repetition of that miracle occurred as described here, but the Bible does (1) say that Moses indeed had to repeat this miracle when a need for water again occurred (Num 20:1-11)[2], which resulted in the “capital sin” of him striking the Rock instead of speaking to it as told (vs. Num 20:8, 12, 13), for as Paul also says that Rock was a symbol of Christ (1 Cor 10:4; cf. Exod 3:1-2ff; 17:6); and, (2) also as Paul says, ‘that rock “followed” (Greek akoloutheo) Israel in their wilderness wanderings.’ As any additional/subsequent revelation from God does, it does not merely repeat what has been said before, but shed complimentary light on it. Indeed with this revelation to E.G. White it is concretely seen how this Rock actually “followed” Israel. To say here that EGW actually contradicts Paul by saying that ‘it was different rocks in different places’ and not, supposedly, the same initial rock, would actually be implying that Paul literally meant that Mount Horeb physically moved about the wilderness behind Israel. With God’s power, this is quite possible (cf. Matt 17:20), however it is more than likely that such a “mountain moving” miracle would have been so explicitly stated many times in the Biblical record. EGW’s inspired contribution actually comes to keep Paul’s comment from being so wrongly understood. Also Paul does say that this was a “spiritual Rock” with a concrete manifestation of the miracle from a real rock. So this spiritual symbolism could indeed easily move from Rock to Rock as it “followed” Israel.


For the sake of time and space some snippets of SOP validated extra-biblical (i.e., extra-textual) statements are here given:

Resurrected Christ’s Prohibition to Mary (DA 790 = John 20:17)
SOP Statement: DA 790 - In the following extra-biblical statement, Christ is said to have gestured and said to Mary at the tomb when: “turning she saw before her the living Christ. In her joy she forgot that He had been crucified. (1) Springing toward Him, as if to embrace His feet, she said, "Rabboni." But Christ (2) raised His hand, saying, (3) Detain Me not; "for I am not yet ascended to My Father:..."” [The words “Detain Me not” are deliberately left out of quotes by EGW vs. the rest of her quoting of the KJV for that statement.]

Bible Proof: John 20:17 - (3) The proper lexical meaning of the Greek term “hapto” (Strong’s #681 (vs. #2345 “touch”) is to ‘affectionately, in a longing way, handle/embrace’, hence the “detaining” aspect. (See distinction in Col 2:21). (And the use of a “middle” voice with this verb, indicating that the subject here was ‘of herself’ engaging in this act, seems to be implying here that this “worshipful embrace” was then not known/thought by Christ to actually (still) be merited as ‘He had not yet ascended to His Father in Heaven’ to get the sought for present understandings in relation to the manifest/felt deeper degree of His Sacrifice). (1) This worshipful reaction of Mary was also done by other women who later encountered the resurrected Christ (see Matt 28:9) and may have been customary for these disciple women prior to Christ’s crucifixion who did indeed regard Him as more than an ordinary man. (2) The related prohibitive sign of ‘Christ raising His hand’ is expressed in the Greek syntax which used a present imperative with a preceding me particle and thus turns this command into a prohibition and thus indicates a ‘prohibition to even begin to do something’ and not merely: ‘stop doing something that which is already in course.’ Also a present imperative speaks of an action that here would be an ongoing process, thus also indicating this expected “detaining” aspect mentioned above in (3). (See Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basic, (GGBTB), 485-487).[3]


Adam not Being at Eve’s Side During Temptation (PP 53-58 = Gen 3:6)
SOP Statement: PP 53-58 - “...Thus in the garden of peace lurked the destroyer, watching for his prey. The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden; with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving that she was alone, she felt an apprehension of danger, but dismissed her fears, deciding that she had sufficient wisdom and strength to discern evil and to withstand it. Unmindful of the angels' caution, she soon found herself gazing with mingled curiosity and admiration upon the forbidden tree. ... And now, having herself transgressed, she became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband. In a state of strange, unnatural excitement, with her hands filled with the forbidden fruit, she sought his presence, and related all that had occurred... ”           

Bible Proof: Gen 3:6 - The key term in Gen 3:6 is the Hebrew particle “imah” (“with”) which does not solely literally mean physical accompanying presence but also can describe a figurative fellowship or mentally agreeing accompaniment (i.e., “(going) along with her”). Indeed along these lines, it is in this sense that the popular and quite exegetical Word Biblical Commentary (certainly not a SDA resource) has said that the phrase “...with her” ‘emphasizes the man’s association with the woman in the eating’ (Genesis Vol 1:75) - thus not actually focusing on a literalistic physical presence, which indeed is not conveyed by this particle. Gen 6:18; 7:7; 13:1 are further cited as other examples of such “mentally inward” accompaniments.


Adam ‘not being deceived’ while Eve was (Ev 598 = 1 Tim 2:14)
SOP Statement: Ev 597, 598: 

            “Christ warns His followers, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's    clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." He exhorts us not to be deceived when    false shepherds present their doctrines. These men tell us that the commandments of God             were done away at the death of Christ. Shall we believe them, these men who claim to be    sanctified, while they refuse to obey God? They say the Lord has told them that they    need not keep the Ten Commandments; but has the Lord told them this? No, God does          not lie. Satan, who is the father of lies, deceived Adam in a similar way, telling him that    he need not obey God, that he would not die if he transgressed the law.”

Bible Proof: 1 Tim 2:14 - There are two Greek terms used in 1 Tim 2:14 to speak of Adam vs. Eve’s “deception” showing that there is a quite tangible distinction between the “deception” spoken of in regards to Adam, with it being a ‘deception by a convincing lie’ (Strong’s #538) and the one spoken of in regards to Eve with it being ‘a crafty delusion.’ (Strong’s #1818). So this verse can be understood as simply saying that ‘Adam was not “deluded” (i.e., deceived with mere “empty words cf. Eph 5:6) ... yet Eve was “deluded” (through craftiness - 2 Cor 11:3))’ indeed with the same technical distinction that is understood by the uses of “delusion” and “deception”. So EGW saying that ‘Adam was ‘lied to by the Serpent’’, even if this was done through Eve’s subsequent rationalization, is not necessarily a contradiction of 1 Tim 2:14 or even EGW’s prior account.

            In a sense it can be seen that Eve was much more “deluded” than Adam was because she was deceived by the solely guileful words of the serpent (cf. 2 Cor 11:3); while Adam was straightly, “convincingly”, deceived by the fact that Eve had indeed not dropped dead as he thought they would if they ate of the forbidden fruit. (cf. PP 56, 57). So Adam’s third-hand deception was more tangibly effectuated and thus was he “not deluded”, yet still deceived, though he was not as responsible for this as Eve was. So also in this way, as the text seems to be pointedly indicating, it was through ‘Eve being deceived’ that sin inceptively entered the world, and not technically through Adam later being more “understandably” deceived, and not “deluded”. The distinction here seems slight but it is indeed significant just like today, someone can be acquitted of a first degree murder charge if they committed the homicidal act under a mental delusion.


The Mountain Top Vision of Moses (PP 472.3 = Ezek 36:33-35; Isa 51:3)
SOP Statement: In PP 472.3, the SOP here expounds on Deut 34:1-3ff by describing in inspired/revealed details of how Moses was able to “panoramically” and zoomingly see the Promised Land. What is particularly interesting here is that the SOP says that the land looked so perfect, fruitful and beautiful that it was as if Moses was looking at a “Second Eden”. Is that view that God would eventually remake the Promise Land as perfect as the Garden of Eden Biblically supported??

Bible Proof: Indeed. In Ezek 36:33-35 & Isa 51:3 God clearly stated that it was His intention to fully restore the Promise Land to that Edenic state. Evidently this is where the initially purely temporal promises/prophecies of ‘a new Heavens and a new Earth/Land’ of Isa 65:17ff (cf. Isa 11:6-9) were to apply (cf. Isa 66:22-24) at least first with Israel, and then the rest of the world. (cf. Ezek 36:36; Isa 11:10; 66:18-19). Indeed just like the Garden of Eden was able to remain in its original perfect state amidst the gradually decaying Earth for ca. 1700 years up until the Flood (PP 62.2), God would here create a perfect land and atmosphere for, at least initially, Israel.
            But this of course is not what happened with literal/ethnic Israel as they failed to fulfill their side of their covenant, and so God did not accomplish these promises (Jer 18:9-10ff) and the land remained, much/relatively more than less, the even greater ‘desolation’ it had become. (see in Ezek 36:33-35).

            And this is where a significant detail about the SOP and Prophecy in general is seen. As discussed in this post on God and the Future, when Biblically/Exegetically studied out, it is seen that prophecy is not actually God looking into the future and seeing what will happen, but actually God displaying in most vivid, lifelike and realistic details (as it can now easily be done through computer graphic generation in Movie productions), what the future could, and/or, most likely, be like. I.e., the “fashioned plans” of God (Isa 46:9-11). So since the “Second Eden” promises were not fulfilled with literal Israel, and that in the geographic land where it was said to occur, as delineated in Deut 34:1-3, then it is seen that God had actually shown Moses a ‘cinematographic production-like’ visual/graphical representation of what could be. Interestingly enough, the prophet Joel later seem to play on that promised Second Eden them by saying to a failing and faltering Zion that: ‘though they (potentially) have Eden before them (as in, this is what they could achieve, as promised (Isa ), it is actually a desolate wilderness that is coming up behind them to overflow them and sweep away that ‘wished for grand future’ (Joel 2:3). So Moses was merely being shown representations and not actual future events/developments in that mountain top revelation. As EGW states in 4aSG 57.1 “[Moses there in the mount fully realized the rich blessings Israel would enjoy if they would faithfully obey the commandments of God.” So if/since, they were not faithful, then what He had been shown was not their actual future.
            And this also goes for the subsequent revelations which EGW goes on to detail in PP 475.1-477.1 where she says that Moses was shown a view of the history of Israel after the settlement of the Promised Land, through the Advent of Christ, through Christian Church History and right to the very end of this age, in the conclusion of the Great Controversy. Again, given the actual substantive “plans” nature of/for Bible prophecy, these were not visualization of actual events. In fact, I personally lean more to a view that EGW may have merely been assuming what Moses was most likely shown about Israel’s actual future and beyond, and inserted those historical segments here a somewhat “filler” detailing material for her Patriarchs and Prophets writing. But given how God detailed the Chronology of the 70 Week prophecy to Daniel, which was also a (precise, i.e., chronologically timed) “planning” of what God would orchestrate, as/for a prophetic sign, if Israel was also rebellious to the Messiah/Prophet that God would naturally raise among them (cf. Deut 18:15-18; Matt 23:29-38ff), then I see that he could have similarly given to Moses a visual, albeit still generated representation, of such adverse future developments, and also of the wider repercussion that this would have in the New Israel Movement that He would then have to raise up with then mostly Gentiles.
            Interestingly enough, in the jewish apocryphal book/account called The Assumption of Moses (cf. Jude 1:9), there seems to also be an understanding amongst Jewish people that upon that mountain top, Moses was also shown the future historical development of Israel, as in that work, a quasi-allegory of historical events which occurred in Israel before the first Century A.D. are sketchily recounted, but most manifestly in a retrospective attempt to make it seem as a foretelling prophecy, -right down to a reforming Levite name Taxo (Section 9) which evidently is drawing from the Biblical prophecy of Malachi 3 (attemptedly fulfilled by Jesus Christ). So the Biblical understanding may have generally been that Moses had also been shown the (possible and/or likely) future development of Israel in that mountain top viewing of the Promise Land, but the details of that revelation were probably not specified, and that neither to EGW, and so, as the writer (or revisionist expounder) of the Assumption of Moses had also attempted to do, most likely, already transpired and known major development in the history of God’s Israel, which in a New Covenant context extends to the Christian Church, were supplied for detailing, and with both EGW and that Jewish writer also adding on at the very end, how they spiritually understood this all would ultimately conclude, with EGW basing her view here on other GC revelations and the Jewish author on the prophecies of Malachi.


Forcedly Ignorant, Brute Slaves Will Not Be Redeemed
            In EW 276.1, EGW relates something from a direct revelation which has been deemed unbiblical by some. She says:

“I saw that the slave master will have to answer for the soul of his slave whom he has kept in ignorance; and the sins of the slave will be visited upon the master. God cannot take to heaven the slave who has been kept in ignorance and degradation, knowing nothing of God or the Bible, fearing nothing but his master's lash, and holding a lower position than the brutes. [1828 Webster: [“Lower than”] “A brutal person; a savage in heart or manners; a low bred, unfeeling man.”] But He does the best thing for him that a compassionate God can do. He permits him to be as if he had not been, while the master must endure the seven last plagues and then come up in the second resurrection and suffer the second, most awful death. Then the justice of God will be satisfied.”

            Various people (e.g., here), including the EGW Estate (here, cf. their appended statement in EW 304.3), have tried to defend and explain this statement, but in a recent discussion here, where I had expressed the “no possible excuse” Theology of Paul in Rom 1:18-32 during which I had cited here, the statement of an Angel to EGW which indeed echoes Bible passages such as John 9:41; Acts 17:30-31; Rom 5:13, 20; 7:7-12; cf. John 1:4-5; 3:19-20):

“If light comes, and that light is set aside, or rejected, then comes condemnation and the frown of God; but before the light comes there is no sin, for there is no light for them to reject.” (4bSG 3.3)

            it would seem that such a slave/person who had been kept in ignorance of God’s will should be saved, and thus EGW’s revelation would be unbiblical....but a simple comparison with the “parameters” in Paul’s revelation in Rom 1:18-32, readily show the applicability in EGW’s revelation. The pivotal issue here is the committing of “contra-natural” Capital/Abominable sins. For the pagan similarly to that slave living his whole life without the knowledge of God’s will, Paul has said that there is still a “law”, -nature’s law, where most basic things are inherently seen and understood to be wrong. So that perverted slave master, and there were some, may have forced that slave, albeit “merely” at the threats of beatings/whippings and most likely not/never death as that would be ‘too costly’ for them, to engage, even for sport, in abominable-on-their-face actions and activity such as torture, rape, incest, homosexual acts, bestiality, and so on which the slave innate knew were not right (i.e., people in his home country most likely did not “naturally” behave this way)...but still did them, and that merely out of a fear of being whipped. I would have added the capital/abominable sin of “fights to the death”, but as argued in this article, and likewise in several others, in the light of a recent Hollywood movie depiction of so-called, and historically rumored, “Mandingo Fights” (quite a revolting “how-can-people-be-that-degenerate” scene indeed), as stated above, slave masters/owners would most likely not “waste” and “destroy” their valuable “property”, even if wagering was involved as it would still cost one slave owner extra money for a slave. So it is most likely that any violent dealings with slaves stopped short of causing their death.
            So, as Paul has said, God: ‘cannot, and will not, save any person, whether a “slave of sin” or a “slave of others”, who has done anything against naturally understandable laws of right vs. wrong, and pointedly here, in regards to the modern era slave, because they chose to do these things merely to save their own skin. Ironically enough, were one of these sins “Mandingo Fights (to the Death)”, a valid claim of self-defense could be made.
            EGW then related, evidently from what she was shown, that God would however be most merciful in judging those who had been forced to engage in those capital, natural sins by preventing them from suffering the 7 Last Plagues and manifestly the Second Death punishment. So they would imperceptibly, “naturally” die only the First Death and not be raised to face the full guilt and judgement of their sins in the Second Death “tormenting” process. Some may deem this view to be unbiblical, and the EGW Estate (see refs above) has done a satisfactory job in showing that “all” in the Bible is at times merely generic and not specific, but it is a statement of Jesus in Luke 12:47-48, which is in a context of Hell Fire’s judgement (Luke 12:49) which validates this revelation. Interestingly enough, the degenerate “Christian” slave master in history is one of the slaves in that parable which his Master, Jesus Christ, had put in charge of other slaves (cf. Luke 12:42), and had decided to ‘mistreat other male and female slaves’ (Luke 12:45). That “unfaithful steward” is indeed himself “a slave” “of sin” (John 8:34). Now when the Master, Christ, returns and finds that the mistreated slaves had been kept in ignorance of His will and had also “committed deeds worthy of a flogging/blows” (=Greek: plege (Strongs #4127) -the same Greek word for the “Plagues” of Revelation), “he will receive but few” while the slave in charge who had known the master’s will (I.e., the Christian message) will receive many lashes.
            So, again in keeping with the Biblical understanding that the SOP is given not to merely “repeat” verbatim what has already been given but to give some “new, complimentary or improving light” on situations, it is not at all neither an impossibility nor a great leap that God then, in the light of (=Jer 18:7-10) what Christians in America had come to do during their most unbiblical, and greed controlled, slave-owning days, injunctively decided that He would be most merciful on these slaves who had done those nonetheless guilt-inculcating, contra-natural acts, which they could have avoided were it not for their “fear of their master’s whip”, and not subject them to (1) any flogging/blows/plagues and (2) neither Hell’s Fire judgement and torment [Luke 12:49].
            So this SOP revelation is an indication that God will indeed bring every deed done in the body into judgement (=2 Cor 5:9-10 -See the exegetical explanation of 2 Cor 5:1-10 here.), and highlights the great forgiveness that is provided by Jesus Christ, even for those who may have committed such contra-natural acts, if they have truly placed their faith for forgiveness and salvation in Him.

            Relatedly, in an also implicated issue of whether or not there will (still) be slavery in the end, a notion that is actually also involved in the Bible (Rev 6:15-16; 13:16; 19:18),as it was presented here, as all slavery is economically-based, and as Capitalism has perpetuated a form of slavery, there will indeed be slavery till the end. And thus the derived lesson that can be drawn from the SOP revelation here is that this also applies to modern socio-economic slavery, pointedly as people today, even (actually particularly many) Christians wholeheartedly believe that they must obey the dictates of Capitalism, however ungodly and unrighteous they are and lead to most contra-natural actions, pointedly in letting people in need suffer and die from preventable, curable and/or intentional causes, chief of which is abortion. As these contra-Gospel and anti-Sabbatical socio-economic aspects are all part of the “Fuller Mark of the Beast” issue, many, including SDA’s, will have chosen to take this Mark rather than suffer in any way. So they thus will applicably be like those more fuller “slaves” of old who were “forced” to engage in such ungodly and contra-natural things, and for many of them, it will have been without a knowledge of God’s will here as the leaders they trusted and depended on did not inform them of such things, but as the SOP says somewhere, blindness and ignorance when there is ample opportunity for someone to find out the Truth for themselves will not be an acceptable excuse in the final judgement. And so, unlike that “ignorant, brute slave”, these neo-slaves of Capitalism and its unrighteousness will suffer both the 7 Last Plagues as well as Hell’s Torment. By the way, God’s is looking for willful “slaves/bond-servants of righteousness” (Rom 6:15-23) in the end (e.g., Rev 7:3; 19:2, 5; 22:3) as “most logically/rationally”, being more informed/aware/knowledgeable are God’s prophets (Rev 10:7; 11:18; 15:3).


The Ten Commandments Tablets -Written on only its two, inner, sides
            This internet video post claims that EGW had an erroneous, (thus “imaginative”) “vision” of the Ten Commandments, as related in EW 32.3a, because she implying says that she only saw the written Ten Commandments when the two tablets were opened up like a book, thus meaning that they were only written on those two inner sides, and not, as (translations of) Exod 32:15 seems to instead say: ‘written on both of theirs side, front and back’.
            However, as posted in a replying comment there: Contrary to those Bible translations, (and without going into all the linguistic details here), a possible/proper translation from the Hebrew instead says::

‘tablets [i.e. more  than one] were written by reason of two sides; -because of this {side} and because of this {side} these were written {on two tablets}’

            In other words: ‘more than one table were written because [=Hebrew preposition: “min”] the commandments were written across both; i.e., ‘because [Heb.: min] some commandments were written on one tablet [=1st four], and because [Heb.: min] the others were on the other tablet [=last 6]; thus ‘some on each side’.’

            Which thus (a) explains why more than one tablet was needed; (b) corroborates the 4|6 separation shown to EGW; and (c) shows how they can indeed be closed up like a book with the writing only on the inside.
            Likewise, quoting Prof. Bush, a Hebrew Scholar of his day (see below), Uriah Smith presents a similar rebuttal to this objection to EGW’s vision in his book dedicated to this ‘visions defence’ purpose. (1868 UrS, VEGW 107.1):

“The two tables were probably designed to close together like the lids of a book and by their being written on both sides is meant that their right and left hand leaf or side, were each of them to be occupied with letters.” - Note on Exodus 32:15.”

            So the SOP is not contradicting the actual Biblical (Hebrew) text here; -in fact, as usual/typical from such direct revelations from God, it is helping to concretize its proper rendering from the (at times ambiguous (to people today)) Biblical Hebrew.


EGW on Paul's Conversion Experience
            See the resolutions on the surface/seeming discrepancies between EGW’s account of Paul’s Damascus Road experience and the Biblical accounts in this forum discussion post.


Cited Examples During the 2015 Gift of Prophecy Symposium
-See the five examples given by Richard Davidson [see my 70 Weeks book-writing ministry-launching interaction with him back in 1998 here] in his presentation during that symposium [at 01:24:16-01:26:42-01:49:07]. These namely were in regards to:

1. ‘Distinct meaning of Adam & Eve’s “Image and Likeness”’
PP 45.2 = Gen 1:26  [at 01:26:42-01:30:07]

2. ‘Adam & Eve’s Covered in a Robe of Light’
PP 45:3; 57.1 = Gen 2:25  [at 01:30:07-01:36:24]

3. ‘Eve Believing Her Firstborn Cain was the Promised Messiah’
DA 31.2 = Gen 4:1  [at 01:36:24-01:40:27]

4. The Ten Commandment Have/Are No/Not Negatives, But all Promises
1BC 1105.1-2 = Exod 20:1-17  [at 01:40:27-01:44:43]

5. Moses Was Shown a Miniature Model of the (Real) Heavenly Sanctuary
4aSG 5.1 = Exod 25:9  [at 01:44:43-01:49:07]


Other Examples
-See 4-5 other SOP Bible-clarifying contributions made during this online (SDA) forum discussion. (See specifically my (i.e., “NJK Project”) comment postings with username: “birdman”).

-See in here about the proof of the SOP’s 3T 273.3|PK 121.1 Elijah’s ‘oathmaking’ posturing statement to Ahab revelation.

See some other (albeit, as patent from Stephen Bohr: ‘lesser exegetical’) Bible proofing examples in his presentation.


My Own Correctings
-Five years later (i.e. 10-06-2016), I myself have (finally) come across my sought for “Bible proof” asked for about PP 387.1 in my 2011 forum commenting here&here {cf. the none-the-wiser response}, by simply reading the commentary and cross-referencing for Num 13:1, provided in my MacArthur Study Bible): Deut 1:21-23 states that it was indeed the faithless and fearful Israelites who had approached Moses to request that spies be sent out...The suggestion ‘pleased Moses’ and he asked for God’s ‘permission” and God granted it to him/them.



The Proof Can Also ‘Be Found in the Apocrypha
            In a vision in 1850, EGW was shown that ‘the Apocrypha should be studied by the wise of these last days should understand it.’ (16MR 34.3; cf. 15MR 65.1-67.1). I have personally benefited from such studying and understanding of histories, accounts, revelations and claims in the Apocrypha, indeed using the Bible as the final arbitrator of acceptability, (see e.g., in this post), and below is an example of the account about the action of Jesus recorded in the Canonical Gospels (Matt 21:12-17) and that from an NT Apocryphal Gospel account from the Jewish-Christian sect known as the Nazarenes (possibly from one of the root sects which Paul rightly opposed as: ‘having a false theological understanding of the Gospel message’ (cf. Gal 2:11-3:5ff)), where the same descriptions made by EGW in DA 590.4 of Christ`s supernatural appearance while chasing the temple merchants out is there similarly stated:

Gospel of the Nazarenes (GN) 17: At Matthew 21:12, Jerome records, "For a certain fiery and starry light shone from His eyes, and the majesty of the Godhead gleamed in His face." Also, there is quoted in a marginal note of a thirteenth century manuscript of the Aurora by Peter of Riga the following: "Rays issued forth from His eyes which terrified them and put them to flight."

Desire of Ages 590.4: Again the piercing look of Jesus swept over the desecrated court of the temple. All eyes were turned toward Him. Priest and ruler, Pharisee and Gentile, looked with astonishment and awe upon Him who stood before them with the majesty of heaven's King. Divinity flashed through humanity, investing Christ with a dignity and glory He had never manifested before. Those standing nearest Him drew as far away as the crowd would permit. Except for a few of His disciples, the Saviour stood alone. Every sound was hushed. The deep silence seemed unbearable. Christ spoke with a power that swayed the people like a mighty tempest: "It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves." His voice sounded like a trumpet through the temple. The displeasure of His countenance seemed like consuming fire. With authority He commanded, "Take these things hence." John 2:16.*

* (As these words of John 2:16 are from Christ’s first temple cleansing, which EGW was fully aware of its distinct occurrence, it is likely Jesus probably did repeat those same words again during his, here, late-ministry second cleansing (Matt 21:12-13), as if to say: ‘I (had) saaiiiddd...Take these things hence!!”’ He didn’t expect that they would restart doing this Temple merchandising again after His prior cleansing actions.)


More to be added....                   


Weblinks That Provide Answers to SOP Questions, Issues and Criticisms
The (new) ca. 1500-page EGW Encyclopedia on her life, writings & ministry [video promo] - Online PDF

Mark Howard, of the Emmanuel Institute, {see his “Why Do I Believe in EGW (Part 1)” conversion testimony in here[05-03-2014] [mp3]}, has done several excellent, comprehensive seminars/sermon series on the “issue” of the SOP, (which involves both, certain unbiblical SDA/“SDA-ish” views, as well as objections/oppositions by Non-SDA’s):

-20??: Emmanuel Institute (Outreach Series) - By A Prophet [videos] (8-Parts) link
-2007: A.R.I.S.E. Seminars - By A Prophet (15-Parts) link
-200?: A.R.I.S.E. Seminars - By A Prophet (16-Parts) (link cf. here)
-May 2008: Coldwater, MI SDA Church - [Sermon Series] (5-Parts) link
-200?: Remnant Publications(?) - By A Prophet (5-Parts) (link cf. here)
-December 2008: GYC 2008 -  White Out? Whatever Happened to the Gift of Prophecy? (6-Parts) link
-Dec ‘09-Jan ‘10: GYC 2009 - White Out Revisited (6-Parts) link
-???? [Pilgrim Keys Sermons] (11-Parts) link
-2016 Michigan Campmeeting Seminar: The Testimony of Jesus: The Gift of Prophecy in the Last Day Church (5-Parts) link

-See especially their factual, point by point debunking of popular Online Attack Video [in 5 parts (YouTube)] [single video (Google Video)]
Ellen White Truth (Amazing Facts)
Ellen White Info (AdventWeb Ministry)      
The Life of EGW


Other Notable SOP Sermons/Series/Seminars

George R. Knight
See Knight’s books:


See Knight’s books:

Walter J. Veith - (Amazing Discoveries) Total Onslaught - God’s Guiding Gift

Stephen Bohr - This seminar presentation (pdf) on how, with: the ‘(OT) Scriptures', John the Baptist vs. Jesus Christ, God had effectuated the same ‘Bible, Lesser Light vs. Greater Light (=Jesus Christ)' scenario, in which the prophetic gift through EGW, and its purpose, was contextualized. See also this (6-parted) presentation.
-See also his March 2015 22-part series on the SOP (Do ignore his variously therein interweaved, already soundly disproven, false/spurious claims about Women Ordination)


SDA Theological Seminary - 2015 Gift of Prophecy Symposium (schedule)

Don Mackintosh - How to Study Ellen White (Weimar College)

Eugene Prewitt - The Last Adventist Deception (2SM 78.2) - Responds to some objections agaisnt the SOP.

Dwight Nelson -
GYC 2011 - The Gift
2011 Gladstone Campmeeting (BetterLife TV)- The Gift: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5

Jud Lake - FP812/821/831 -Understanding Ellen White Pt 1 & 2-The Ellen White Research Project - Interesting documenting of EGW statements/revelations & predictions.
-Some other Presentations by Lake: here; here; here and here

-The Ellen White Research Project - Interesting documenting of EGW statements/revelations & predictions.

Chantal Klingbeil - Informative and Interactive (6-Part) Meeting theProphet Series at GYC 2016.

Derrick Gillepsie - In a well-researched/prepared, and also solidly presented rebuttal on a Jamaican Television and (internet simulcast) on the “Religious Hardtalk” show on Sept 4 & Sept 17, 2013, -and even the non-SDA host, Ian Boyne, was repeatedly, increasingly impressed by all of this, Derrick Gillepsie, an SDA teacher/layman (manisfestedly assigned for this task by the Communications Department of an SDA Jamaican Conference), presents a sound response to the many, surfacely-seeming solid claims against the prophetic gift and claim of EGW priorly made on Apr 16 & Apr 23, 2013 by (psychologist) Andrae Hill, -who, even though he has said that he has long rejected EGW as a prophet (contra. FB #18), still (“somehow”, -cf. here & here), thinks/considers himself to be a (‘card-carrying’) SDA member, (i.e., ‘a member in good standing’).* As typical with, as seen in this blog post, many objections to EGW, they are usually borne from some degree of deficient comprehension and knee-jerk misunderstandings.

* Actually, just as the SDA Church indifferently allows for...[Then it wonders how come there is so much “tareful” waywardness in the Church...or does it??!]

            Well Gillepsie has indeed done a masterful job in debunking the objections brought forth by Hill, and the following is a succinct outlining of Gillepsie’s responses to those several readily discernable common/typical objections. When I deemed applicable, I have added my own furthering points/references/comments:

-Explanation of Complimentary ‘Angel|Unseen Hand closing Ark's Door’ statement in 3SG 68.2 (1864). vs. PP 98.2 (1890) (cf. EGW Estate)

-[17:18ff] EGW's Biblical ‘Imminent/Own Lifetime Second Coming’ Statements
            (My own best explaining understanding is that from the time of Christ on, the Kingdom of God/Second Coming could indeed imminently occur if and when its announcing, preparation and harvesting work would have been fully accomplished, i.e., by those in Christ’s day, by the Apostolic Church and then, after the prolonged age of Church History was allowed to unravel, by the Remnant Church.)

-Bible's ‘Imminent/Own Lifetime Second Coming’ Statements (cont'd)

-[07:24ff] Medical Science validates EGW's, (and other doctors of her time) warnings about "self-abuse" (i.e., in regards to bodily strategic Zinc deficiency)

-‘Amalgamation of man and beasts’ (contextual) meaning (cf. EGW Estate)
            Looking through the uses of (contemporary) SDA Pioneers of the term “amalgamation” easily and clearly shows that it did not at all pointedly have sexual connotation, but simply referred to ‘an alloying mixing’
            In regards to EGW’s (actually closing) words in 1SP 78.2b, after her pre-flood amalgamation statements (1SP 69.1}, which says: “Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.” With it being rightly understood, as Gillepsie well explains, that EGW most likely meant a distinct “amalgamation” of ‘one species of animals with another species of animals’ and ‘righteous people/race with unrighteous/pagan peoples/races’, I am actually not seeing that EGW here still meant that since the flood the amalgamating now was still being done on an unnatural (animal) and sinful (see 2 Cor 6:14-18). In other words, (1) “confused species” (i.e., dinosaurs-type, e.g., an eagle with an elephant)) were not now also being produced by the “inter-species crossbreeding”  that man now commonly does, and (2) many races of men are indeed mixing together to produce new, “amalgamated”, races, but the spiritual mixing of the righteous with the lawless (as e.g. would be an Israelite with a Amalekite) is not (always) an also involved factor. So EGW manifestly was not still involving the same level and intent of unnaturalness and sinfulness which was, respectively, the deliberate and inherent case when this was occurring just before the flood. So the post-flood amalgamations amongst races and with animals were not actually still “defacing the image of God”, -an expression which merely was meant by EGW as: ‘deviating from God’s original, perfect/righteous design/purpose.’
            And then, most relatedly, is Uriah Smith’s private, and racially quite controversial, attempt to himself explain/exemplify this statement of EGW in his book defending her vision (see 1868 UrS, VEGW 102.1-104.1), I see several quite logical possibilities which relatively “resolve” this issue.(1) His comment may have gone completely unnoticed by both James and Ellen White. (2) While, as proposed above, EGW herself may not have meant the racially unfounded claims of Smith, she then may just not have, at least initially, opposed in anyway what Smith was, really off-the-cuff, claiming as substantiation, particularly if this was a common (religious-based) assumption of their day. And then later, in writing Patriarchs and Prophets in 1890, EGW herself began to personally have different understandings on this claim and then chose to wholly not include this controversial, and easily misconstrued statement in her writing then. The fact that she rather did not make an explicit explanation and clarification of her view can simply be because she did not receive any other/additional light on the topic then what she had priorly been shown. In other words, in writing the above quoted 1SP 78.2b statement itself, it may have been according to her own arrived at understanding of the direct revelation which she had had...
            Or, even more likely, what she said in 1SP 78.2b could have been according to her then confused/conflating understanding that ‘all animal or racial amalgamation’, (distinctly of course), was wrong, yet in 1SP 78.2b she actually did refrain, as noted above, from also stating that the post-flood and still observable amalgamating was also unnatural and sinful. So when Uriah Smith made his more specific, “supporting” claim/substantiation, she, -though she may not have meant, nor seen this also about her statement, however did not see, nor personally know of, a reason to object to his claim. But later, as she would have had added doubt as to such views, pointedly in regards to this being still seen in certain “wild” races, and then, for some reason, still not having any direct, correcting/clarifying light on that issue, just chose to not mention it again.
            That all said as possible explanations, pointedly at Uriah Smith “unchallenged” claim, derived from the points made by Stephen Bohr [at 01:15:33-01:23:09ff] in this sermon explanation, the post flood amalgamations ‘amongst beasts, and also amongst humans’ may, Spiritually speaking, neither have, non-benignly, all been according to the original (cf. Matt 19:8), ideal (cf. Gen 9:3-5) and/or express will of God. E.g. God did not intend for certain breeds of animals, even within close species, and probably not more remote species breeding, such as what produces ligers (lions+tigers) and zonkeys (zebras+donkeys). And in regards to humans, it would actually be ‘humans behaving like animals instead of Godfearing men’, as indeed see in certain “wild” races (e.g. unreached African or South American tribes), including indeed ‘the Digger Indians still right in late 19th century America’. And a common human-degrading practice amongst these “wild” peoples, is rampant sexual promiscuity, along with (biologically non-warranted) polygamous marriages, which was indeed a chief way in which the image/plan/character of God of namely: ‘a (single) male and (single) female marriage union’ (Gen 1:26-28, 2:24; Matt 19:5) was indeed also thus being corrupted. And such polygamous practices was also seen to some extent amongst professed believers (e.g. the Patriarchs Abraham and Jacob) in God as they (faithlessly) opted to adaptingly adopt the practices of non-believers/pagan around/amongst them, instead of trusting in God, who, if He wanted to, could cause a barren woman to be able to conceive. And, interestingly enough, such “image of God” paganistic practices are still, but of course, more “civilizedly”, practiced today as seen in all sorts of non-marital, or even marital, sexual perversions and (“consensual”) promiscuity. Really the only difference today, and with earlier “wild” days is that people back then did not have the know-how of how to avoid STDs while engaging in such ‘God-effacing, “animalistic”, corrupt’ acts and practices.
            Seeing how many people have violated the instruction in 1 Thess 5:21 by opting to wholly reject the prophetic gifting of EGW based solely on this somewhat ambiguous issue, it just is not at all out of the patent modus operandi of God to have, and that most candidly, left this issue “unresolved”, in order to here place a necessary testing “stumbling block” to weed out those who would, indeed unBiblically, choose to reject EGW’s SOP gift of 2000+ direct revelations and many more Biblical counsels, simply for one confusing statement. Likewise many people reject God, the Bible and/or Jesus Christ, merely for, as amply documented but debunked in this post, some small/single issue which they cannot, according to their “natural logic”, comprehend.

Book of Jasher Corroboration: With God having revealed to EGW that the “Hidden Books”/Apocrypha does contain valid/valuable Biblical information and revelation, which the wise of the last days (i.e. those most knowledgeable, experienced and discerning in Spiritual, Biblical and Prophetic matters) should understand it (16 MR 34.3), it is very to see in the Book of Jasher (which is twice said to have existed in the Bible:  Josh 10:13 & 2 Sam 1:18), an indeed valid statement on the specific ‘most abominable’ activity of the antediluvians which almost verbatim states what EGW herself said on this issue. In Jasher 4:18 it says:

“And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.”

            Of course some ‘“unwise” critics today’ (see e.g. this dedicated site & its (PDF) treatise) have used such, and other, quasi-verbatim parallelisms in the writings of EGW to make the, factually applicable: “moronic”, charge of plagiarism discussed in more detail in the next section. But here, it will be succinctly said that is such great similarities, perhaps EGW did paraphrasingly/restatingly copy what someone else had already said on the matter, and to me that would show that the Spirit of God had led her to see and understand that those prior statements and expression were valid, and even in certain cases, inspired, as in: God having inspired that prior person to think, ponder and then write such a Theologically valid statement.
            The same today repeatedly occurs with preachers throughout the Christian world where not everything they may say is Biblically true/valid, but, given their sincerity and faithfulness to the Truth that they know, God nonetheless can still inspire them with Theologically valid expression, illustrations and statements, and which many other preachers, including SDAs either quote or restate, but of course, in our litigious and proprietary day and age, (yet not always), with proper source identification, especially for published/produced material.


-Professionally, Legally Invalidated Charge of Plagiarism
            The fact that EGW did not legally “plagiarize” is indeed judicially, objectively demonstrated. The host Ian Boyne therefore, and validly, honed in on whether or not this was still morally acceptable for EGW to do. (Indeed, as an example, committing adultery is not a legal crime, however it still is a moral sin to the Believer). My own simple understanding, on top of how Gillepsie states, is that EGW indeed did not see something morally wrong in, moreover, following God’s own directives for her to, when necessary consult and draw from the writings of others to best couch her own added revelations. If nothing else, it just showed how she valued the God-assisted insight and Biblicalness of other Christian writers. Her not giving specific credits of these sources is frankly an issue that we today probably cannot rightly, “retrospectively” judge from our much more legalized and monetized society, which pertinently enough, reminds me of how only in recent years has e.g. Youtube begun to systematically address issues of posting copyrighted materials on their website service, an action which has come to impeach many people/posters who actually did not at all intend to actually violate someone else’s copyright. (E.g. people making music video out of an artist’s song.) So if this legal misunderstanding can exist still today, then surely it would exist back in EGW’s day, when copyrighting was just beginning to become widely implemented, comprehended and enforced. (See also exposition comments here [01:12:50-01:17:06ff]). In this presentation [09:56-28:30], Mark Howard goes into a detailed overview of these SDA actions in the early 1980's to objectively and resolvingly address/answer the plagiarism accusations against EGW. At 25:27 he quotes the post-case concluding remarks of the copyright attorney, moreover who was a Roman Catholic, who most honestly and genuinely, gushingly, states in an interview:

            “Too many of the critics have missed the boat altogether. And it’s too bad, too!”
“I, personally, have been moved, deeply moved, by those writings. I have been changed by them. I think I am a better man today because of them. And I wish that the critics could discover that!”

-[11:18ff] Not unethically, nor fraudulent "Copied Visions"
            In regards to EGW copying the visions of others, and also (alledgedly) trying to pass them as her own, I personally also this falling under the loose and nebulous copyright issue of her time, when she then probably thought that it was perfectly acceptable to do this with such also borrowed insight/revelation from others. Using my above mentioned “Youtube fan music videos” issue above, and even “fan/amateur artist cover performances” are also becoming a hot copyright dispute on Youtube. In fact, postings which involve someone doing a public rendition of a song which was create and copyrighted by another artist, (E.g., Someone singing a Steve Green song in Church) is now defaulty seen/flagged as a copyright violation by Youtube. Well, like such a singer who actually would normatively not “creditingly” say before or after singing their special song, that it was actually the composition of someone else, EGW’s similar incorporating of another person’s work or vision was originally seen to be a copyright violation, nor an unethical or fraudulent act.
            So this issue does not begin to either legally, nor Spiritually be a valid reason for rejecting EGW as a prophet of God.

-[13:54ff] The Biblical, wider (i.e. also "Little Horn") Judgement context of the Investigative Judgement (=1 Pet 4:17)
            This is quite an interesting take on Dan 8:14 and the Investigative Judgement, but as explained by Gillepsie, the cleansing/setting aright of God’s Sanctuary, which as discussed here (as, manifestly originally, advanced by Doug Batchelor), does indeed simultaneously involve the NT/Christian Church as a whole, on Earth, as well as what God has been trying to do for them, through Jesus, in the Heavenly Sanctuary, -which are works which were indeed dually eclipsed by the actions of the Little Horn, and thus resulted in the temporal and Spiritual “polluting” of both of these joint-entities, is indeed the parallel focus of Dan 7 and Dan 8, which both chapters rightly intermingly the dual affectation on the Earthly and Heavenly Temple/Sanctuaries of God. Christians in general, who do not rightly understand the Antichrist issue here may not recognize any “polluting/corruption” being done in either entities, with most Christian ignoring the clear and unequivocal Heavenly Sanctuary teaching in the book of Hebrews, but it indeed is a most pivotal Spiritual and Prophetic development in the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan, where Satan is now fully engaged in a sabotaging work where he seeks to do whatever can prevent Christians from reaching their full Godly and righteous potential, all in an effort to keep them unready to face the final test. 
            And as per 1 Pet 4:17 =Ezek 9, the fullest/closing aspect of that Investigative Judgement process are indeed to first be effectuated upon those who have been given the greatest light about it, namely that post-1844, later SDA group.

            So, as the defaultly impartial host Ian Boyne himself candidly, and in many instances startledly expressed, and even enthusiastically adoptingly endorsed, the various claims made by Andrae Hill against EGW and certain SDA teachings were not at all what they surfacely/glibly appeared to be in the light of Derrick Gillepsie’s amply satisfactory.


A Proper/Balanced/Truthful Understanding and view of EGW and the SOP
            There are some (SDAs) who wrongly have the, at least implicit belief that ‘EGW never/could never make a mistake in anything that she wrote. (See e.g., in the discussion starting here). Succinctly said here, the Biblical fact of the matter is that the gift of prophecy does not make the recipient suddenly all-knowing, infallible and inerrant. And as Paul himself understood (see 1 Cor 7:6, 25, 40; 2 Cor 8:10), not everything he said/wrote was a direct statement from God. Therefore, as EGW herself counselled, her writings should be subject to the inerrant canon of the Bible, pointedly here in regards to understandings and teachings, and as the gift of prophecy did not make EGW an all-educated scholar, there are instances in her writings, when/as she is saying things from her own (human) understanding knowledge and/or comprehension at that point, that do contain factual or explicative errors. And it would be to the benefit of a person to properly understand this reality and not effectively act as a delusional fanatic who refuses to acknowledge a clear error. (Cf. George Knight, Reading Ellen White, pp. 105-112) It must be emphasised that this is not the formally expressed position of the SDA Church, but, as typical with the SDA Church, what they say they “believe” can be quite different from what they actually practice. (See here). So while you will find SDA books which are officially published by Denominational presses which do not say the same things as EGW on certain points, mostly in terms of factual issues, or even explicitly point out certain errors in her writings, (e.g., the Review and Herald published 1995 book by Alden Thompson entitled Inspiration pp. 290-295ff, some of its discussed ‘SOP error instances’ are cited below), as typical, from many uninformed SDAs you’ll get the obliviously or indifferently, yet still vexed, defensive stance that: “EGW never made a mistake in her writings.” All this said, what I have yet to find is an SOP error, i.e., an error in a statement that EGW explicitly said  was from a direct revelation(e.g., “I saw/was shown...”; “The Lord showed me...”; “Said the angel...”. etc) or in a portion of her writings which it can be deductively understood is based on one of her 2000+ revelations (e.g., the customarily non-explicitly qualified statements in the Conflict of the Ages series).
            So merely for the sake of balance here, which is actually quite beneficial because it leads one to more carefully (i.e., exegetically) study their Bible, I here succinctly list some of the microscopically few, but still present, errors in the writings of EGW. And all in the hope that, as just stated, when confronted with a claim of EGW error, (which are typically in the shallow/knee-jerk form: “the Bible does not say that’), it will lead you to more closely search the Scriptures and/or History to find out what the concrete truth is, and as done in the first part of this post, will many, indeed most, times result in the discovery that: ‘the (SOP) proof is in the Bible’.
            A key thing to also see here is that, EGW’s writings actually underwent editorial revision and still those factual mistakes got through, while some others were corrected before final publication. (See an example of her manuscript editorial corrections in pp.18-23 of this document.).

Citings of some EGW errors
-Paul instead of Peter - In RH, Oct. 30, 1913 par. 5 she attributes the statement of Paul in 2 Cor 5:14 to Peter.

-Misindentifying Artaxerses I - In PK 572.2 she says that the Persian King known as “False Smerdis” was actually King Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7 when Persian History reveals that False Smerdis and Artaxerxes I (Longimanus) were two distinct persons/kings. (See a discussion here). As stated in this 1911 letter/statement: ‘EGW never understood, nor intended, her writings to be an authority on historical dates and events. She instead relied on other people’s research for such details.’

-(Initially) Confusing Herods - In 1SG 71.1 (1858) she confuses and conflates Herod Antipas and Herod Agrippa. Later she correctly speaks of them in 3SP 334.1 (1878).

-Eating Pork - EGW, through 1858, “saw” (i.e. in/from apparently a vision/revelation) nothing wrong with eating pork (1T 206.3), but ‘saw the Biblical light’ in 1863 based upon her Health Reform vision; but then continued to eat oysters, an unclean meat, long after (1882+) that 1863 Health Reform vision. (MR852 2.3) (As discussed here [Ch. 15 pp. 156-157] in Herbert Douglass’ excellent textbook on the SOP/EGW: Messenger of the Lord, EGW was apparently “shown” in 1858 that it was not yet time to bring up the issue of pork eating, especially as a “test”, as Haskell was then endeavoring to do. -See Mark Finley’s ASI 2014 seminar-(‘special surprise’)-ending commenting on this here|here [01:11:56-01:15:26]). 

[-‘Rebuke’ to Mary at Cana - The claim cited in Thompson, Inspiration, 291, that in 2SP 101.2 (1877) she differently said that Jesus’ statement to His mother in John 2:4 was a “rebuke” but later in DA 146.1 (1898) said that ‘it was according to oriental custom’ is actually reconciled by the fact that in 2SP 101.1 she had prefacedly, similarly said that “[Jesus’] manner was respectful, yet firm...”. So Jesus’s statement was actually a type of “gentle rebuke”.]

-EGW and Ascension of Christ - As discussed here, EGW makes a “converse omission and conflation error” in regards to the post-resurrection Ascension account of Christ. (I.e., she got it right in her earlier publication.)

-EGW and “God and the Future” - Then there is the running Theological error stemming from the fact that EGW was allowed to believe that “God knows the future”, when as discussed here, He only plans this actually non-existent future. So many statements of EGW about ‘God knowing as a fact that something was going to happen or not happen’ are theologically inaccurate. The perfect example of this is seen in the fact that in an actually direct vision given to her in EW 149-153, she was shown that the plan of salvation was worked out only after Adam and Eve had fallen, but elsewhere (e.g.,, she contrarily says, of her own understanding, that it was worked out before the fall. (See this discussion). The reconciling view here is that while God the Father no doubt knew all along, as the Creator, that His Creatures having free will could entailed that they could choose to sin, He did not yet work out any redemption/“escape” plan, (indeed manifestly quite to the contrary) until it actually occurred, and that with man.* (“Lucifer’s” and his following angels’ fall did not warrant such a merciful plan as they had been given ample and clear opportunity to repent, not to mention that they rebelled against much light as opposed to man. But just like man, the Angels had been given a test of their trust/loyalty to God all revolving around, as discussed here, the Incarnation of God the Son as a Michael the Mighty Angel in heaven. And as the Great Controversy bore out, the real issue was/is not paramountly the law of God, but the fact that Satan was jealous of Michael’s higher position than his.

* EGW’s statement in PP 63.3 (see also e.g. DA 147.2a (1898); 2SAT 229.4 (1903)) is often cited as supposed “SOP” proof that the plan of salvation was made before the fall of man, but, all pertinent exegetical and theological things considered, as cited above, it is most manifest here that EGW had tried, throughout her ministry to “correct” what her direct revelation in EW 149-153 had contrarily clearly revealed. As with many other examples (see e.g. in here about her dead husband), if her Biblical and Theological understanding up to that point did not align with something she had seen in a vision/dream, then she differed in rationalizing understanding to what she knew from her Bible studies; -yet she was still faithful to record her vision and dreams as is. So here she cites as ‘Biblical proof’ that the plan of salvation was before the fall Rev 13:8, but, as stated here from that discussion referenced above, Rev 13:8 does not actually say “before”, but ‘“away from/since” the foundation of the world’. (See the fuller discussion/understanding on Rev 13:8 here). The also often cited “Counsel of Peace” in Zech 6:13 was literally an upcoming one, but does have Theological application to the many situations in which Jesus variously managed to extend conditions of (prolonging) Peace for this Divine-Judgement (=Hell) deserving world/race (see Luke 12:49-53|Matt 10:34-36; cf. Rev 6:3-4 (discussed in here)). E.g., in Matt 16:18; Luke 23:34a; Rev 5:5. And so by inherent relation, it would have reference to what God and the Son had similarly agreed to in regards to this sin-fallen world, but only in that post-fall “counsel” {Heb. #06098, e.g., Psa 33:11; Pro 1:30; Isa 46:10, 11} (and not a “council” {Heb. #05475, e.g., Psa 89:7; Jer 23:18, 22; [contra. editor's titling in TA 59.1]}, thus a meeting where indeed Jesus was merely acting in a ‘pleading/advocating/advising’ capacity towards the Father), alternative (redeeming) plan, and accepting decision. (See more here).

-God’s Hardening of Pharaoh - As seen in this [resumed] discussion, EGW did not have the exegetically accurate understanding of the deliberate and sovereign hardening of Pharaoh’s heart by God.

-How Christ Was Resurrected - As fully discussed here, EGW was likewise misled by the inaccurate exegesis/translating (i.e., KJV/RV) of John 10:18 to “rationalizingly” claim contrary to clear Biblical and even her own direct revelatory indications that it was God the Father and the God the Holy Spirit who, through a specially outfitted Mighty Angel, exercised both the distinct Divine “Authority” and “Power” to resurrect Jesus Christ, and not, as He Himself, -as He had merely said ‘He could do’.

-Support of Her Son’s Languishing Cause - As mentioned here, (assumedly) some people (i.e. if actually others than the person I was having a discussion with there), believe/claim that when EGW spoke publicly or officially, i.e., in a Church function she, effectively, spoke “ex-cathedra” and thus could/did not make errors, (such as, as cited and referenced above, recommending feasting on oysters in a private letter). Well that belief/claim about the SOP|EGW is easily debunked by the already many cited examples in this section here of errors found in her official works, but there is actually an example of her, just like the prophets Samuel (1 Sam 16:6-7) and Nathan (2 Sam 7:1-17) in the Bible, thinking and saying something while in “public/official prophetic function” but then having God show her right after in a vision that she had given an erroneous counsel. It is in regards to a debt-ridden publishing house/work being done by her son in the neglected South of the USA. (See full story in 5BIO 187.1-197.1, which can be read in this EGW Writings website, (correcting vision also published in PH151 63.1-2ff)). Indeed the whole episode was seen to be just like that of Nathan’s error (5BIO 188.5; 194.3-4). God pointedly ““reproved”/‘rebuked’” EGW for having allowed her to be intimidated/influenced by accusations that she was overlooking the mounting debt of that work just because her son was involved in it, (5BIO 195.1-3) and all despite the fact that she had already been given revelation that this Southern Work being done by her son was of God. (cf. 5BIO 196.4) Instead, as her correcting vision revealed, she was to deal with the underlying circumstances which was causing that work to not be solvent. [A direct, correcting counsel which should still be heeded and followed by SDA who are similarly unnecessarily closing down SDA institutions, including, as is the present truth message of Ezek 8 = ‘stopping to foundationally operate according to Capitalistic (1) Tenets (=Ezek 8:5-6), (2) Policies (=Ezek 8:7-13), (3) Customs (=Ezek 8:14-15), and (4) Practices (=Ezek 8:16)].
            So actually quite unlike Samuel and Nathan EGW was actually acting against light, and thus had effectively awarely allowed her humanness to control her spiritual counsel. Indeed, as also introductorily cited by the biographer Arthur White (5BIO 187.2-3), a prophet is not free to express things which are contrary to already expressed/established direct testimony and/or Law! (Isa 8:20)

-Date/Season of Christ’s Baptism - See here for EGW’s ‘common echoing’, non-SOP error on assuming that Jesus was baptized in the Fall of 27A.D. when the objective Biblical evidence, including, contradictingly, from her in DA 144.3-145.1, points to a January 28 A.D. baptism.

-Noah and Clean vs. Unclean Food - EGW’s quite explicitly (i.e., surely fully aware) contradictory statement in 1SP 79.1|PP 107.3 on Gen 9:3 is frankly quite odd, and I would here categorize it as a defensively assuming, but incorrect, understanding of hers which is actually not at all based on a direct revelation (~the prophet Nathan in 2 Sam 7:1-5ff); and conversely akin to, as cited and discussed above (see more from here) EGW defensively dismissing her direct revelation in EW 149-153 of when the Plan of Salvation was established, -even citing (actually mistranslated) Bible passages for support.
            That said, it may be that, as with the Sabbath (Gen 2:1-3), and all of God’s other priorly non-explicitly stated Laws, with the clear distinguishing awareness by men, or perhaps merely starting with Noah, that there were clean and unclean animals (Gen 7:2, 3, 8), that it would be sequiturly, maturely/righteously self-understood that if God had made a distinction between animals that were clean vs. animals that were unclean, that God most likely also intended that from “all” of these animals, only those which He considered “clean” should be consumed in this post flood meat-eating permission. (Cf. here for the likely Gen 1:29 [vs. Gen 1:30b] qualifying, precedential allusion). And with a 7:2 ratio, it was indeed more likely, as well as survivability-wise, more logical, for them to only eat from the more abundant clean animals. It however could be that God inclusively left the option that, if any man was in a starving bind out in that completely barren Earth and a dog happened to stroll by, man would not, in that life-for-life situation, no think that he must suffer and die instead of killing and eating the dog.
            Yet also, and as seen with virtually all Law codes, they usually merely start of with just a few common sense stipulations, -if actually they are even needed to be explicitly given...and God’s various clear examples, and inclusive statements, was surely sufficient to “set laws” then. It was only as man, including/especially “righteous” ones, became increasingly weasely, -seeking for various loopholes, that God saw it necessary to pre-emptively explicit stipulate as many laws as possible. =The Covenant Law, and Law of Moses. (And even Jesus had to later do that with those given Laws (Matt 5:17-48ff).
            So, in possible defence of EGW’s claim here, if God had actually given a ‘clean-only-permission’ to Noah, if it was not actually “explicit”, it, at the very least was logically/sequiturly understood. (Interestingly enough, as discussed above in the “Eating Pork” section, EGW and other SDA ate pork for ca. 20+ years after she had received her first vision in Nov 1844 before God gave her the comprehensive Health Message vision on June 6, 1863; and ca. 2 weeks after the SDA Church was then formally organized into a denomination (May 21, 1863); which thus is quite similar to how God could, or would, have only begun to make restrictions on eating unclean meats only when Israel was being formally organized by Moses, sometime shortly after the Exodus.).


-See a listing of other EGW errors (compared to similar ones in the Bible) in this document (esp. pp. 10-13 & 14-16).

-“More Than A Prophet” Documentary - I don’t necessarily agree with every specific detail/argument made in this documentary film on EGW and the SOP (cf. EGW Estate here)[4], evidently in relation to Graeme Bradford’s book More Than a Prophet (also fully readable, and downloadable, here), but it does have much helpful information in regards to properly understanding the working of God’s Spirit of Prophecy in general and in the person/ministry of Ellen White.



Notes          
[1] Some, upon reading through this blog of mine, may objectingly wonder why do I so openly/freely and copiously quote the writings of EGW throughout, wherever (necessarily) applicable, well the effective answer is, because in such cases, they indeed provide an either initiating indication or sealing corroboration of what had been Theologically/Biblically/Spiritually suggested or claimed. However my own underlying Spiritual “motivation” to not hesitate/fail to pertinently do so in my ministry work, stems back from an experience I had while at Andrews University.
            While in the library reading and researching various resources for my upcoming sermon on Christ’s Early Childhood posted on pp. 249ff  in this document, focusing pointedly on the statements in Luke 2:40, 52, I was then quite excited that at the many exegetical discoveries that I had made by syntactically “mining” just those two passages, particularly as they were in line with what EGW had generally written in regards to the process for Christ’s intellectual development and upbringing in DA 68ff, I then had this “great idea” that for my ministry’s writing/publication work, I would solely be using exegesis instead of citing the SOP. I.e., I had more concisely thought: “I would replace the SOP with deeper exegesis”. I reasoned that this would help solve the long standing dilemma of the SDA Church in regards to the (proper) use of the SOP. Well I had not finished that thought when I felt the immediately known and recognized, due to past experiences, (see e.g., here and in here) “silent sonic-booming” voice of God most categorically say: “DON’T... even think about...!!”* And I actually had perceived/“heard” both a pause and a tonal downshift in that voicing as it immediately occurred in response to me, having already recognized who was so opposingly speaking here, immediately abandoning that “SOP-shelfing” idea.** And so, for then on, indeed most deliberately in preparing and delivery that sermon, I have not hesitated to cite the SOP wherever applicable and Biblically-agreeing, and conscientiously only upon prior proper exegetically Bible study.
            Nonetheless I also fully understand the counsel of EGW to not make her writings take the place of the Bible and proper Bible study. (See the exposition of Jonathan Henderson in e.g., his11-24-12 sermon [05:27-08:15ff] quoting e.g., from the compilations in 3SM 29.1-33.1). However I see/understand from what EGW was stressing in those statement this to be speaking against people “lazily/slothfully” just quoting her writings as a basis or proof of something, instead of first providing the exegetically sound Biblical basis or proof. And when that proper Bible-then SOP is (still) necessary, application is done, the end Biblical discovery results are, as I have repeatedly seen, much more amazing. So while some SDAs may prefer not to mention EGW at all, I, most cautioningly/warningly, do not have that “lesser light shyness”, though I aim to use it tactfully, even tactifully, nor do I actually see EGW herself actually counselling that ‘complete disregard’ extent. God has revealed many key and substantively complimentary things to her, and it is most helpful to take them into consideration and allow them to help guide Biblical study when there is a genuine need of additional light.

* The felt “force” from that “sonic-booming” voicing was so tangible to me that it caused me to physically, though really deliberately, recoil, in order to visually also demonstrate to God: “Okay I heard/felt you”,# and unknown to me, a Religion Department classmate of mine, Matthew Gamble, was sitting in the study tables at the end of that references stack. Inquiringly looking at him to see if he had noticed that, strange-if-unexplained, reaction of mine, just judging by the fact that he seemed to only then have pull his attention away from his work to, albeit look back at me, having peripherally noticed that I was looking towards him, I assumed that he had not. However as I also thought that he had gathered that I did not want to discuss what had just happened, and therefore was not revealing that he had noticed/seen my reaction, I nonetheless intimated to him that, as especially a prospective/effective pastor himself, he too would/should have such experiences and, (if not the case already), will get it then. [If I recall properly, he has stated later on, in a (I think: God Encounters) sermon, how ‘he does, and we should all, be hearing the voice of God.’]).

# See other similar, pun intended: “soundly felt” experiences of mine as this one was, related e.g., here, here and here...[cf. Isa 30:21a; Rev 1:10b]. =(Rev 3:19|Heb 12:5-11|Pro 3:11-12) (cf. Luke 3:22|Heb 5:8|Rev 21:7)!

** (Post-Script 08-26-16): In this 2 testimony post, I had stated from recollection that ‘those two “heard”/experienced voicings of God had been the only two instances which I had perceived God (sternly, evan angrily so), shouting at me’. As, as related above, I had managed in this ‘boomed voicing’ “heard”/experienced here, to shift the initially perceived tone of God from a likewise stern/angry one to a trailing ‘matter-of-stating’ one, as the second testimony related in that post had occurred on sometime in the Fall of 1999#, while this occurrence here had occurred in the week leading up to me preaching that ‘Childhood of Jesus’ (Christmas) sermon which was on December 26, 1998, then this one here would have qualified as a second (of would-then-be: three times in total) that I had perceived the voice of God to me to actually be “stern/angry”, but given that successful tonal shift, I had not registered this occurrence as one which would “fully” qualify...(yet, concedingly, perhaps substantively at best as a "quarter-instance").
            As for a later voicing of April 11, 2011 [which had occurred after I had written up & published that “You’re The Voice” post - which was on November 16, 2010], I would categorize it more from how I “blurtingly” perceived it to be a “(defending) shouting towards me” more than a ‘stern/reprimanding shouting at me’. So, at best, I would consider it as “one-eighth of a shouting at me” voicing occurrence....{And, trust me, the less instances of “God (angrily/sternly) shouting at me” that I experience, the better}...
            I however volunteeringly add here about all of these 4 particular voicing occurrences which had involved me perceiving God as “shouting”, that my in my reaction, my underlying feeling, -as it may be detected from my relating of them, was some questioning degree of: “Why are you (even) shouting at me to begin with”??! (cf. Job 38:1-3ff; 40:1-2ff; cf. Matt 27:46)....as in: ‘Why don’t you go “shout” at someone else (then) instead’??! I.e. one of the many other, especially (formal/“long time”) Church Leaders out there who should be doing these Biblical works that I am slaving to try to do and get done but most flippantly, ditsily, ignoramusly, indifferently and/or pompously/pridefully, don’t care to...while still groping about in ‘the dark’ (=Isa 29:9-16|Matt 15:12-14). Well, evidently, either way, its Heb 12:7-8ff that’s in effect here...And clearly, as with Job, there is a much wider/greater (GC) object-lesson that is being (necessarily-candidly) acted out in this.....I guess that is all indeed how God (will always) “shoutingly” acts towards the ‘“indifferently/willfully” deaf & blind’ (Isa 42:14-18, 19-25)!!!...

# For some (discarding?) reason, contrary to the fact that, as related in here[at Note #19], I still have the receipt for virtually every single purchase transaction I have ever made in my life, however I (still) can’t relocate the Garage’s receipt for that second testimony’s occurrence. I do recall getting that receipt as I clearly recall annoyedly reading a scribbled: “Winch & Tow” on it for the reason of payment. It would have given me the exact date here, but given other book-ending circumstances surrounding it which I date, I can indeed narrow it down to the “Fall of 1999

[2] Josephus (Antiquities, 3:1.7 #33), no doubt citing passed-on Jewish oral tradition, says that Israel could meet some of their watering needs by fountains that they came across in their journeyings, but did encounter areas of total drought. 

[3] By the way, of all of the friends and followers of Jesus, which this Mary of Magdalene both was (see e.g., Luke 8:2 & Luke 10:38-42|John 11:1-2), she is the only one who, mainly out of humbleness before, and deference to, Jesus, and not actually out of full comprehension, fully took Him at His word (contrary to the, at least surfacely hearing disciples - Matt 17:22-23) that, as He had repeatedly, clearly and increasingly openly said, He was soon going to be (violently and unfairly) killed. So that is evidently why Mary Magdalene was the first to receive concrete proof that Jesus was resurrected as He had also clearly said, pointedly as she, in her fully trusting, though not completely perfect, faith, had thus become a comprehensive representative model of those who are to solely be redeemed by faith in all of what God has said. (cf. DA 560.2)

[4] Pointedly the claim that ‘the content of the prophecies of prophets also involved some subjective “couching” input from them’. (As discussed here, similar claims are commonly made about John and “his crafting” of the prophecies of Revelation). Rather, as stated in 2 Pet 1:20-21, in regards to prophecies themselves, prophets were faithful to relate exactly and only what they were told or saw. (See e.g. this honing correction in regards to the slight difference in the Acts 21:10-11 prophecy vs. its Acts 21:30-33 fulfilment.) Frankly it is only with the ca. 19th century A.D. prophetic ministry of EGW that there was any need of the prophet to “discretionarily” supply common couching/contextualizing/illustrating material for the direct revelations that they had. And while EGW increasingly did come to blur these lines of distinction between the “supplied” vs. the directly revealed, (e.g., by not always, or even at all, qualifyingly saying: “I was shown/I saw” in her later works and re-works), I still see no Spiritual need for her, nor indeed any Biblical Prophet, to “compose” a message which is supposed to be understood as a direct revelation from God. (E.g. John the Revelator merely wrote down exactly what he had seen and experienced and was not himself “subjectively composing the prophecies from imagery lifted and borrowed from various sources such as the OT and the Roman world. God Himself was directly responsible for any and all of this imagery symbolism. Same goes with EGW.)

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog aims to be factual and, at the very least, implicitly documented. Therefore if applicable, any comment which contains unsubstantiated/unsupportable ideas will not be allowed to be published on this blog. Therefore make the effort to be Biblical, truthful and factual.

-It typically takes 1-2 days for an accepted submitted comment to be posted and/or responded to.

[If you leave an "anonymous" comment and, if applicable, would like to know why it may not have been published, resend the comment via email (see profile) to receive the response.]