ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS

When the Reviewers brought against my various statements such high-sounding expressions as these: "The authenticated texts"', "The major MSS", "The best of all Greek MSS", "The best attested MSS", etc. it must have almost overwhelmed you with the thought that my book was being demolished by these outstanding authoritative MSS.

In their reply to many of the scripture texts which were handled, they largely attempted to vindicate their opposition to what I said by appealing to manuscripts under the titles just given. However, this method involves six serious difficulties:

(1) They did not tell us what manuscripts they are: (2) they did not tell us how many there are; (3) they did not exhibit what right they had to apply these approving titles to the manuscripts; (4) they did not tell how many manuscripts were on the opposite side; (5) neither did they tell us what manuscripts were on the other side; and (6) finally, they have offered us no justifying reason why they grouped all the thousands of manuscripts on the opposite side under the name of Textus Receptus and counted them as one witness. Evarts in the Bibliotheca Sacra of January 1921 quotes a textual critic to say that John 8:1-11 on the woman taken in adultery is witnessed to in 1650 codices. Since less that 1/10 of these are unicials, this authority must reckon the remaining 1490 cursives as each an independent witness. What right then, have my Reviewers to take a handful of manuscripts on their side, whose voice discounts from thousands of manuscripts on the other side of the question and count each one of this small handful of theirs a separate witness; while they counted the thousands of manuscripts on the other side as simply one witness. When their repeated appeals to those high-sounding but meaningless terms to justify their defense of the following texts are shown to mean nothing, when each one must stand or, the poverty of the other reasons they offer. An examination of this poverty makes very interesting reading.

But what are the facts? Which are those wonderful manuscripts to which they refer- "the authenticated, "the major", "the noted", "the most valuable", "the best," the best attested?" Would you be surprised to find that generally, they are just two principal manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus?

What right have they to describe them by all these high-sounding adjectives when they know and told you (on page 12, Section II of their Document) that authorities were divided in their estimate of their value---one side regarding the Vaticanus, the better of the two, as the most vicious manuscript in existence.

What right had they to try to overwhelm your thinking with the idea that the great authorities were against me? This is some new logic. They prove the AV wrong and prove me in error, mainly two witnesses, the better of the two even being held as the most vicious MS in the world. Do you prove that the Prohibitionists are wrong by bringing in anti-prohibition witnesses, by calling the witnesses most noted, major, best, best attested, best authenticated?

Does anyone think that the AV and my position relative to it can be set aside by such witnesses, witnesses without ancestry, without history, by witnesses which are rejected as corrupt and unreliable?

They are condemned by their own internal evidence and by 99 witnesses out of every 100, condemned by the overwhelming testimony of the patristic writings, the MSS, and he Versions. My Reviewers' wise assertions that they are the best, major, best attested, etc. will not convince those who think fairly.

Their nine (9) indictments of my methods (Section III, chapter 11, pp. 2, 3) were built upon their unjustifiable use of these high-sounding but meaningless terms about MSS; (2) their endorsement of doctrine-changing mistranslations; (3) their acceptance of the ruin of the established usages of words; (4) their unjustifiable claim upon parallel passages, on the ground that because God had said a thing once, there was no harm to cut out where he said it in another place; (5) upon their own self-made theological arguments . When all these questionable procedures are duly shown to be valueless these nine (9) indictments of my methods mean just nothing at all. They will stand or fall upon my examination of the individual texts.

In order that his document may not be too long, I propose not to notice, at length, a number of the scripture texts which are argued by my Reviewers. In fact, I am under no obligation to notice their arguments about doctrine with reference texts used in 'Chapter 6 of my book. Chapter 6 was not given to show how the Revisers changed doctrine. It was given to show the similarity, if not identity, of many passages in the ARV with the same passages in the Jesuit Bible of 1582, and how these two versions are leagued together on one side of the gulf between and the AV on the other side.

The accumulative argument produced by the totality of these comparisons is tremendous. This accumulative argument my Reviewers ignored. It was easier for them to notice the compared passages, one by one, on the basis that they were arguing a change of doctrine; thus the main effect of Chapter 6 they missed, Nevertheless, I wish to discuss in reply a number of these compared passages which they reviewed.

Let us first notice my Reviewers' defense of the Revised Version in 2 Sam. 21:19, which declares that Elhanan killed Goliath. My Reviewers indict the translators of the AV because they supplied certain words in italics and so made the Bible consistent with itself. They approved the ARV which translated the Hebrew text without italics and so made the Bible contradict itself.

By this argument the ARV is convicted, because in 2 Thess. 2:3 it supplied the four words, "it will not be"; for supplying which, they had no justification, except that internal evidence demanded these words to be supplied. The AV, therefore, stands justified because it supplied the proper words which a powerful internal evidence supported, in the case of the killing of Goliath, while the Revisers here side-stepped. This deplorable act of the Revisers has rocked two continents with needless and doubt scattering debate.

The King James translators made the Hebrew agree with itself, while the ARV made it contradict itself. Then the Revisers emphasized the contradiction, by reading into the margin the AV reading. Modernists, at once, seize the contradiction and claim to prove that David did not kill Goliath. Then, and we have proof for this in the "Literary Digest" of March 9,1929, modernists take the contradiction as the most historical. They actually claim that Elhanan did kill Goliath. Where now is your acid text? Where now are your primal laws of evidence? Do sincerity and fairness mean that we should make the Bible contradict itself? If the Revisers were justified in supplying the four words in 2 Thess. 2:3 by internal evidence which made common sense , how can they escape the charge of deliberately playing into the hands of skeptics, critics, and atheists by failing again to take advantage of what was the strongest kind of internal evidence. The famous Dr. Frederick Field, who spent his life on the Old Testament in Greek, brings as one of his strongest indictments against the Revisers that they ignored the great law of internal evidence, under the pretense of being obliged to be exactly literal.

We now come to the famous omission of the Last part of the standard account of the Lord's Prayer. My Reviewers, in line with the Revisers and the Jesuits or 1582, defend this omission. Against it, the great Reformers indignantly protested. Have you ever noticed that the King James, or Authorized Version, make the Lord's Prayer begin with the Lord and end with the Lord? But the ARV makes the Lord's Prayer begin with the Lord and end with the evil one. Sister White did net agree with the ARV, for she said;

"The last like the first sentence of the Lord's Prayer, points to Our Father." "Mount of Blessing", p. 174.

This puts the AV and Sister White on one side; and on the other side it puts my Reviewers, the Revisers, and the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS.

In defense, it is claimed that "the omitted part is not found in the oldest Greek MSS". The truth is it is lacking only in the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and three unicials and five cursives; while on the other hand the other remaining uncials and the thousands of cursives are for it. Dr. Cook says: "in support of the rejected clause I have noticed the immense perponderance of authorities." "Revised Version", p. 57. This is proof enough that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are corrupted. The probable reason why they are the oldest MSS is because they were so corrupted, they were not used or worn out in the hands of the people who studied or copied them. My bible is worn out. To quote as my Reviewers did, that the Expositor's Greek Testament" says it was a liturigical ending, and no part of the Lord's Prayer, means nothing. How comes the Expositor's NT to be authority, especially greater than Sister White?

The "Expositor's Greek N.T." work does not purport to enter the field of textual criticism; it is no authority therein, and simply repeats parrot like what the critics furnished. My Reviewers give also, as additional evidence, a quotation from Dr. Scrivener which says "yes" and "no" on the question, therefore nothing.

"Prophets and Kings" page 69, and "Mount of Blessing" pages 174-176 quote this portion of the Lord's Prayer which the ARV omitted, and therefore it should be in the text, the place of honor. It has been dishonored, it was placed in the margin. Now where is your acid test? Who says that the changes of the Revisers did not affect doctrine? What is doctrine? Why didnt my Reviewers , recognize sister White?

Here again my Reviewers fail in catching the argument in my book. The claim that because the ARV omits, "bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you," and also "which despitefully use you," that I declare on the strength of this omission that the Revised Version is not a revision in any sense whatever, but a new Bible based on different MSS from the King James, on Catholic MSS in fact."

This is not true. I quoted Canon Cook, that well-known scholar who had been invited to sit on the Revision Committee but who refused. My Reviewers ignored his quotation. He said:

"Yet this enormous omission rests on the sole Authority of Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus)." And since my Reviewers admit on this same passage that these two oldest MSS came to us directly from Catholic sources, I had a right to claim that the Revised Version was based on Catholic MSS, unless they could present some mitigating circumstances. What mitigating circumstances did they present? They brought up again Erasmus, that he was Catholic, that his new Greek Testament was dedicated to the Pope and received the written endorsement of the Pope; and that further, Erasmus printed in parallel columns the official Roman Catholic Testament in Latin with Greek Text. Thus they sought to parry the indictment of the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as Catholic MSS by trying to make us believe, that the Textus Receptus of Erasmus' was just as Catholic.

Now notice the facts in the case. Was Erasmus a Catholic in reality? Was he in submission to the Pope as all really and truly Catholics virtually are? No. His work shook the Roman Catholic Church, and his books were put on the Index. Luther and Erasmus were at first Catholic in name, but Protestants at heart. Erasmus was protesting. The Reviser, on the other hand, were Protestants in name, but ceased protesting; Were Catholics at heart, and headed toward ritualism and Romanism.

Erasmus was driving the world toward Protestantism, it was toward Catholicism that the Revisers were driving the world.

Why tell the world again that all Erasmus printed in parallel columns was the Greek Testament and the Catholic Vulgate? Why not tell the whole truth? Why not tell the world and our dear people that he printed in a third column his revised Vulgate which brought down upon him the storm of Catholic Europe. Why not tell everybody, everywhere, that later the Pope put all his books on the Index Expurgatorius? Will somebody please tell me when the Pope put all his books on the Index Expurgatorius? Will somebody please tell me when the Pope put the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus on the Index Expurqatorius? Thus Putnam speaks of it:

"In the Index of 1559, the name of Erasmus is placed under the class of Auctores quorum libri et scripta omnia prohibentur. After the entry of the name however, comes the following specification: cum universis Commantariis, Annotationibus, Schollis, Dialogis, Epistolis, Censuris, Persionibus, Libris et Scriptis suis, etian si nil ponitus contra Religionem, vei di Reliqione contineant. "' "The Censorship of the Church of Rome," Vol. I p.335.

But there is another angle to this proposition. How many Protestant Versions have been influenced by these two MSS? None but the Revised over which the discussion now is. You might include the individual versions, but they are not recognized, either by the Reviewers or by the authorities they quoted. My Reviewers say in so many words, speaking of the ARV, "Because its translators are guided by the oldest and most complete MSS". If my Reviewers mean by these words that the ARV translators were guided by the two oldest and most complete MSS which is virtually the truth then the ARV is built on Catholic MSS.

My Reviewers next claim that, "There is no historical proof that any Greek text was more directly influenced by Catholic hands, a Catholic version, and Catholic approval than was that of Erasmus, yet the text of Erasmus was the basis of what has since been called the Textus Receptus, which the author lauds so highly as a pure, uncorrupted text."

What are my Reviewers trying to do? Are they trying to make out the AV, the Protestant Bible, as taken from the Textus Receptus to be in fact: a Catholic Bible? My astonishment knows no bounds. The Pope put the Textus Receptus on the Index, condemned it, and condemned (as well) the AV. Faber, one of the perverts from Protestantism to Catholicism in (the Oxford Movement called the Authorized Version "one of the greatest strongholds of heresy". Eedie, "English Bible," p. 158). And the Catholic Bishop of Eric calls it "their own vile version." Probably the Bishop learned it from Dr. Hort, who at the age of 23 called the Textus Receptus "vile" and "villainous". Cardinal Wiseman attempts to show that the rush of certain Protestants to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, proves that the Vulgate was taken from the best MSS. (Wiseman's Essays, Vol. I p. 104). Do my Reviewers then arrange themselves alongside of Faber, Cardinal Wiseman, and the Catholic Bishop of Eric? Do they also try to make out that our great Protestant Bible is, in fact, a Catholic one? I protest, in the name of Protestantism and Seventh-day Adventism, and in the name of truth. Might as well brand Luther, and the Reformation also Catholic. See to what lengths the defenders of the Revised Version are driven.

My Reviewers next defend this "enormous omission" from Matt. 5:44 by declaring that the ARV, with great fidelity, has retained in Luke 6:27,28, the words omitted in Matt. 5:44. This is the old story. On that principle you could leave out all the gospels but one making a composite gospel and thus improve on what the Lord has done. My Reviewers talk about an "imposition on the laity". What would the people in the field think if you went out and gave them such principle as this namely: Because the Revisers did not corrupt every text therefore they are at liberty to corrupt this one? Will my Reviewers claim because the Revisers did not knock the whole wall down, therefore they did not make any breaches in the wall? Do they mean to imply that it is not necessary for the Lord to say a thing twice because He said it once? Did He not repeat the story of taking of Israel out of the land of Egypt many, many, times? Will my Reviewers say that once was enough? Would not taking this position make the Bible out as being full, of redundancies and superfluities and repetitions? Why have four gospels; why not be satisfied with one? Why have parallel readings? Why tell the story of the Cross so often? Is not once enough? Why not have an abbreviated Bible? Do they really mean to defend the Revisers in omitting a passage of Scripture, because it is found elsewhere in the Bible? Are they defending the Word of God or the Work of the Revisers?

Did not Sister White plainly say in "Great Controversy", page 245, speaking of Erasmus and his Greek and Latin Versions of the New Testament:

"In this work many errors of former version: wire corrected, and the same more clearly rendered."

She also said:

"He (Tyndale) had received the gospel from the Greek Testament of Erasmus. He fearlessly preached his convictions, urging that all doctrines be tested by the Scriptures. To the papist claim that the church had given the Bible, and the Church alone could explain: it, Tyndale responded... far from having given us the Scriptures, it is you who have hidden them from us; it is you who burn those who teach them, and if you could, you would burn the Scriptures themselves.'" Great Controversy", pp. 245,246.

In the face of this ringing testimony from the Spirit of Prophecy, how can my Reviewers claim that the Greek New Testament of Erasmus was Catholic?

My Reviewers have spoken about imposing on the people. How long shall we stand to have these things told to the people the way they are here telling them? How long shall we line ourselves up with this campaign against Erasmus and his Greek Text; and consequently against Tyndale and the Authorized Version, and the Spirit of Prophecy? Do you think that our own dear people should be saved from hearing these things in the wrong way and should be given the correct information? That is why I wrote my book. I wrote my book in order that the world at large and our own dear people should have the correct information on this whole situation.

Here again the Reviewers neglected to answer a telling witness. I showed that Helvidius, the devoted scholar of Northern Italy (400 A.D.) who had the pure MSS, accused Jerome of using corrupt manuscripts on this very text. I gave my authority for this, which authority is indisputable. By looking at the Vulgate, we know that in Luke 2:33, Jerome did exactly what the American Revised and Jesuit Bibles did, that is, they gave Jesus a human father. How could Helvidius accuse Jerome of using corrupt Greek Manuscripts if Helvidius did not have the true manuscripts? Moreover, Dean Burgon says that his rendering is a "depravation of the text". (Revision Revised", p. 161.) All the answer my Reviewers give is a theological argument. They bring forth Luke 2:48 where Mary says to the child Jesus, "Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Well, these are the words of Mary, they are not the words of inspiration. Nevertheless, the record of what Mary said is inspired, but we are not told that what Mary said was inspired.

My Reviewers make a further appeal to verses 27 and 41 where the word "parents" is used. My Reviewers ought to know that the word "parents" is an omnibus term; it includes the father and the mother. It is so used that it might refer to a mother and a foster-father. Therefore no argument can be grounded upon any of the three texts which my Reviewers offer in opposition to the testimony of Helvidius and of Burgon. Why did not my Reviewers call attention to Luke 2:43 which also was changed from Joseph and his mother" in the AV to "his parents" in the RV, a change in the direction of the text under discussion?

My Reviewers commit three errors in discussing the omission in the Revised of the words, "Get thee behind me, satan". First, they claim that the testimony of the MSS is so positively against including this omitted clause. On the contrary, Burgon and Miller say:

"It is plain, from the consent of (so to speak) all the copies, that our Saviour rejected the Temptation which stands second in St. Luke' s Gospel with the words, 'Get thee behind me Satan."' "The traditional Text", p. 169.

The second error of my Reviewers is in leading us to believe that the omission of the clause in Luke 4:8 is fully compensated for in Matthew 4:10. This is not the fact. The clause in Matthew reads, "Get thee hence, Satan". Quite a difference as I will now proceed to explain.

The third error of my Reviewers is in their attempt to say that doctrine is not affected. It is evident that they are not acquainted with the testimony either of Origen or Jerome on this text. Origen distinctly says that the reason why Jesus said to Peter "Get thee behind Me, Satan; "' while to the devil he said "Get thee hence" without the addition, "behind me"', was, that to be behind Jesus is a good thing." Jerome follows Origen in his reasonings. This omission was made evidently to point out that to put Peter directly behind the Lord was to put him in a good place in line, following Jesus, to receive apostolic succession, The argument of my Reviewers seems to be in harmony with this doctrine of Peter receiving apostolic succession because they support the change. In fact my Reviewers appear to me to be more anxious to support the Revisers than they are to support the text. My reason for saying this is that the Spirit of Prophecy quotes Luke 4:8 just as it reads in the AV. Thus the AV and Sister White again are on the same side of the question. Volume V, page 409 reads:

"They will meet the adversary with the simple weapon that Christ used, 'It is written,' or will repulse him with, 'Get thee behind me, Satan."'

This shocking mutilation of the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11:2-4 is accepted and justified by my Reviewers on the ground that it agrees with "the best attested manuscripts". What are the facts? Besides one phrase being omitted in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, it is omitted in only one other uncial and two cursives. What about all the other unicials and all the thousands of cursives? (See Dr. Cook, p. 85). The other phrase is omitted in the five uncials only, Aleph ABCD. The perponderance of authorities in favor "is immense'. p. 86. On this depravation Dean Burgon says:

"An instructive specimen of depravation follows, which can be traced to Marcion's mutilated recension of St. Luke's Gospel."

Then, after noticing the blundering mutilations, he says:

"So then these five 'first class authorities' are found to throw themselves into six different combinations in their departures from S. Luke's way of exhibiting the Lord's Prayer, which, among them, they contrive to falsify in respect of no less than 45 words; and yet they are never able to agree among themselves as to any single various reading;... What need to declare that it is certainly false in every instance? Such however is the infatuation of the Critics, that the vagaries of B are all taken for gospel." "The Revision Revised", pp. 34,35.

The testimonies of many other eminent critics could be given here, who are shocked beyond measure at this mutilation of the Lord's Prayer.

Again the Reviewers attempt to parry the thrust of this mutilation by calling attention to the Authorized readings in the margin. Here again my Reviewers flee to the margin for refuge. They make a good deal of the fact that I use the margin as evidence in certain things. But they have no right to relegate constituent parts of the Lord's Prayer to the margin.

We are asked to notice verses 14,15 and 43 to solve the difficulty here. They fail to solve the difficulty. The authorized Version in verse 42 has *the Jews leaving; the Gentiles are then left in the synagogue with Paul; and request that these words be spoken again to them the next Sabbath. In the AV the Gentiles and the Sabbath are put together, not so in the ARV. The only excuse the Reviewers have again, is to fall back upon the manuscripts. They confess, however, that this text is found in the Textus Receptus MSS. If so, I want to tell you it is found in 950 out of every 1,000 MSS. Right here I desire to take special notice of the last sentence of the comment of my Reviewers, which seemed to say that the AV creates more embarrassment with regard to the Sabbath than the ARV. *(the Jews leaving the synagogue)

If so , why did the American Revised make such an astounding change in Col. 2:16. Notice the difference:

King James: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days:"

ARV: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or of a sabbath day:"

Why did the Revisers in Col. 2:16 translate a plural noun in the Greek meaning "sabbath days" by a single noun, "a sabbath day"? Do you not see how Seventh-day Adventists, by this translation are reduced to embarrassment when they put this verse to comparison with the other damaging way that the ARV translates the Sabbath command:

Exodus 20:8-10 ARV: Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is a sabbath unto Jehovah thy God"...

The AV makes the Sabbath commanded in Exodus, singular and definite,... "the Sabbath day"; but in Col. 2:16, the AV makes the sabbaths abolished, plural and indefinite. On the other hand, the Revised Version makes both the Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20:8 singular and indefinite; and that which is abolished in Col. 2:16 also singular and indefinite. That is, according to the Revised Version the identical thing which is commanded in the law of God, "a sabbath" is abolished in Col. 2:16, "a sabbath day". And this, in spite of the fact that the Greek noun of Col. 2:16 is in the plural.

Where now is the boasted accuracy of the ARV, and that on a vital point of doctrine? How many can the claim of being literal be sustained? In this rendering we have neither the literal, nor the accurate, nor yet a translation. Where now is the acid test? The document talks about our being a laughing stock. By this fatal combination in translation between Exodus 20:10 and Col. 2:16, Seventh-day Adventists are now where they cannot protect themselves on the doctrine of the abolition of the Sabbath. I say that this is systematic depravation. As proof of my contention, I have ample evidence that our enemies have not been slow to use against us this very systematic depravation. In the newspaper debate between MacLennan (Seventh-day Adventist) and Brewer (Christian Disciple) as issued from the General Conference Press Bureau, we read these words from our antagonist the Disciple minister.

"There is no authority at all for Christians to keep the Sabbath. Rather we are strictly admonished to allow no man to judge us with reference to the Sabbath. (Col. 2:16.7" (ARV).

Again he says:

"There is no excuse for saying 'sabbath DAYS' in this passage. A 'sabbath day', the Revised Version says, and that gets all of them."

Brethren, I would not know how, in view of this, to defend the Sabbath if I were totally dependent upon the ARV. I thank the Lord for the King James Version as an anchor to our faith in such difficult situations as this. In fact our ministers in the field have been greatly troubled to know how to meet an opponent on the Sabbath question who faced them with the Revised Version. This demonstrates the close affinity between the King James Bible and the fundamentals of our message.

For over 80 years it has been possible ably to defend the third angel's message with the AV. The AV is a complete whole, its teachings are clear. On doctrinal points we find in it no contradictions. All its parts form a complete harmony and it leads us to the truth by the authority of the fitness of things. The united appeal to its consistent testimony is irresistible. It is not a Greek N.T. put together by scissors and paste. It is the Textus Receptus witnessed to by thousands of MSS, having the highest antiquity, harmoniously witnessed to by various nations and various centuries, and has been since the beginning, the generally accepted Bible of God's people. It is an eternal bulwark of the church and the truth of the Living God.

Again I must protest against my Reviewers' ignoring the evidence of the change in Acts 15:23, by leaving out the two Greek words which stand for "and the"; ignoring, I say, that this opened the way for Romanizers to claim that the clergy ruled the church without the presence of the laity. I gave sufficient evidence in my book that battles on this text raged in the Reformation period. I will give additional evidence from later writers. Dr. Meyers' "Commentary on the New Testament"(Acts p. 282) says:

"The omission of kai of is on hierarchical grounds."

This is just what I said in my book. The only manuscripts he quotes in favor of this, are the usual five unicials which are found together, the greatest ones of which are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Another quotation on this point from Dr. G.T. Stokes , whose work on "The Acts of The Apostles" is one of to latest and most up-to-date. His words are very directly to the point:

"A great battle indeed has raged round the words of the Authorized Version of the twenty-third verse. 'The apostles ties and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles,' which are otherwise rendered in the Revised Version. The presence or the absence of the 'and' between elders and brethren has formed the battle ground between two parties, the one upholding, the other opposing the right of the laity to take part in Church synods and councils." "The Acts of the Apostles", p. 236.

So you see my position on Acts 15:23 is correct. My Reviewers have certainly not studied and informed themselves as to the real meaning underlying the Revised reading.

I will simply call attention to the fact that the Revisers broke the higher critics' rule by taking the larger reading for the shorter. This is one of the places where the Revisers added to the Textus Receptus. There is more involved, however than this. Kindly read my book, page. 192.

My Reviewers endeavor to make out quite a case on the way I handle the marginal reading from Romans 5:1. Wherein does the difference between my Reviewers and me lie? The difference is this; they say that what I treated of was a mere marginal note and not an alternative reading. The truth of the matter is that I used the English Revised Version which plainly in the text (not in the margin), says, "let us have peace"; whereas the margin of the ARV says, "many ancient authorities read "let us have"'. Why were not my Reviewers frank enough to tell you that the expression "let us have peace" is in the text of the English Revised. And in chapters 11 and 12 of my book where I compared texts from the standpoint of doctrine I usually used the English Revised, especially noting whenever I used the ARV. But in chapter 6 now under consideration I was not primarily comparing texts from the standpoint of doctrine; I was showing the similarity if not identity of the American Revised with the Jesuit Bible of 1582 in the passages under consideration.

Nevertheless, considering the strength of what is said in the margin of the ARV the Reviewers were not entitled to say that this was not an alternative marginal reading but a mere marginal note. Why should not the charge which they brought against me of perversion really lie against them?

Moreover... I deny that, in any way, whatever, I misrepresented Dr. G.L. Robinson. They say (Section I, p. 30) "This is perhaps as striking a perversion of authority as is found in this book." I was not reviewing Dr. Robinson. I was not endeavoring to show he was anti-Revised Version, nor was I under any obligation to say that he endorsed the ARV. I simply used him as a witness when he said that the reading "let us have peace" is a serious error of doctrine.

And so it is. If we start out as Paul does in Romans 5:1 to say "Being justified by faith", and then add, "let us have peace" this is plainly a Catholic doctrine, that is justification by works. Dr. Robinson is right; moreover, the constant belittling of Protestant Versions on the ground that they are based on faulty and recent manuscripts turns the hearts of the people to ancient manuscripts. The margin of the Revised Version is full of references to the ancient manuscripts. In the AV you cannot find ten marginal references to other MSS; while in Matthew alone in the Revised there are over fifty. The Revised Version choked its margin with alternative readings from other MSS. Here is one in the margin of the ARV of Romans 5:1. Of course the most ancient and most eminent manuscript used by all the higher critics for the last one hundred years is the Vatican Manuscript, then which there is none other in the world more Catholic.

I noticed that my Reviewers are glad to get the help of the margin in other cases where they were ashamed of the text, the shorter account of the Lord's Prayer in Luke 11, for instance. My Reviewers say that in the expression "let us have" the difference is just between the long "a" and the short "o" of the Greek word. It is a vast difference; it is exactly the same difference between the two versions in translating Col. 2:16 where a blow against the Sabbath is felt by Seventh-day Adventists. I am surprised that the Reviewers would indicate to you that the difference between omicron and omega is so slight, whereas in this very text it is the difference between the indicative and imperative modes.

My Reviewers defend the omission of the words, "for us" from the passage "for Christ our passover was sacrificed for us" by saying that six other manuscripts besides the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit it. Well, what about the thousands that contain it?

Is not this a pivotal text? Is not this one of the most important for the Protestant doctrine of atonement? Suppose the next time they revise the Bible they change another one. Very soon the changed ones, affecting a great doctrine get in a majority and the unchanged ones are in a minority. Is not this a sinister change? If they changed all these texts at once, everybody would rise up and protest. I do not think we can brush aside the protest which I have quoted in my book, from a Protestant minister on this text.

My Reviewers offer other Scriptures such as Romans 5:8, I Peter 1:17,21, as if we could find the same expression there. Not so. The first one does not say that Christ was sacrificed for us; while the second one does not even use the expression "for us". "Precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little." (Isa. 28:10). So does God teach us. It is the reverse of God's teaching when we begin to weaken one of these precepts or lines. Who is to say that it is not dangerous to mutilate one of these verses because there is another verse left somewhere which contains a truth like it?

Catholics teach that any one act of Christ's life would have atoned for us. We do not agree with this. We point to the act of eternal consequence, his death on the cross. We say "Behold the Lamb of God". It is most unfortunate that this outstanding text of I Cor. 5:7 has been so changed in the Revised that it is adaptable to the Catholic doctrine of atonement. In a few moments we will see that another text has been changed so as to leave out this expression, "through his blood".

Sister White referring to this text says;

"The slaying of the Passover lamb was a shadow of the death of Christ. Says Paul, 'Christ our passover is sacrificed for us.'' "Great Controversy" p. 399, (See also P.P. p. 277)

All we will do, is only emphasize once again that this Chapter 6 was given principally to show the similarity if not the identity of these passages in the Revised and Jesuit Bible of 1582, both agreeing between themselves and disagreeing with the King James. I will say here, however, that considerable use is made of this text as it now stands in the ARV to advance the new Person of Christ theory. Notice this, as a little further on I discuss the change in I Tim. 3:16.

My Reviewers endeavor to defend the omission of the phrase "by Jesus Christ" on the grounds that the truth that Jesus is creator, can be found in three other Texts in the ARV; namely, John 1:1-3, Col, 1:16 and Heb. 1:2. My Reviewers claim that the inclusion of the thought in these three other texts exonerates the Revisers from displaying ulterior purposes in this omission. Quite the contrary. My Reviewers failed to call attention to the fact that I have these three very same texts under indictment elsewhere for revealing these same ulterior purposes. In fact my Reviewers forget that they confessed that I had just grounds for criticism against the first of these texts (John 1:1-3) as handled by the Revisers.

My Reviewers attempt to evade the force of the parallelism between the ARV and the Jesuit Bible of 1582 on the omission of the phrase "his blood". It is beside the point for them to say that if I am seeking for parallelisms of this nature I would have to reject the most of the New Testament. Because we are not arguing about where the Jesuit and the Revised agree; but where the Jesuit and the Revised agree in opposition to the AV. What kind of reasoning do you call this? Nobody ever doubted that the great bulk of the verses of all Versions are practically alike. It is where the Jesuit and Revised agree with each. other, but differ from the AV that we must determine our estimation of the Version. My Reviewers again fall back on I Peter 1:17-19. So this verse must do double duty. It must bolster us up for the omission of the words "through his blood" in Col. 1:14. Perhaps we shall have to use it again to bolster us up for other omissions from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. If we remove, one by one, the strands from which the suspension bridge is hung, very soon we shall have the whole super-structure supported by only one strand. And what is the need of all this? The Authorized Version is sufficient for all needs. It has been with us in the Protestant world for three hundred years, and for eighty years in the third angel's message. What then is the need of all these omissions defended by such explaining and arguing?

Before bringing the evidence from the Spirit of Prophecy forward on this question, let me say that this text has been the battle-ground for the ages. As it now stands, in the AV it is both a cause and a bulwark of Protestantism. As it now stands in the Revised it becomes one of the great texts for propaganda by Romanizing Protestants and Catholics. To illustrate: on the change of "he who" for "God" Bishop Westcott says:

'The reader may easily miss the real character of this deeply instructive change. The passage now becomes a description of the essential character of the gospel, end not simply a series of historical statements. The gospel is personal. The gospel 'the revelation of godliness' is, in a word, Christ Himself, and not any propositions about Christ". Westcott, "Some lessons", l.. 198.

The Revisers made this change which confounds Christ with the movement He instituted, the gospel, and leads our minds away from Christ the person on His heavenly throne, to Christ, the bread of the Lord's Supper, (mass), on the ritualistic altar-throne. What is this, if not a change of doctrine? Bishop Westcott was conscious of the change the Revisers were making in this reading. On this the "Princeton Review" says;

"Making Christianity a life) the divine human life of Christ has far reaching consequences. It confounds and contradicts the Scriptures and church doctrine as to the Person of Christ." "Princeton Review", Jan. 1854

In the great tremendous stirs made the last 100 years by trials of Protestant clergymen for heresy, none was more widely followed than the trial of Dr. Briggs of Union Theological Seminary, New York. He believed this new doctrine of the person of Christ, as did Dr. Schaff here in America, like Dr. Westcott in England, and like the majority of those who were, and are, active in promoting the revision of the bible. By some it is called Christology; by others The Development Theory. Its dangerous possibility can be shown by the following quotation concerning Dr. Briggs:

"Dr. Briggs, now a member of the Episcopal Church, has from time to time brought into expression certain ideals in regard to the development of the Church Universal. If one understands him aright, he looks forward to the reconstruction under the new conditions of the twentieth century, of a world's Church or Church Universal, which was so nearly realized under the very different conditions of the fifteenth century. He is, therefore, sympathetically interested in the policy of the Church of Rome and he is in close personal relations with not a few of the scholarly leaders of the church." "The Censorship of the Church of Rome", Vol. II, pp. 470,471.

This new theory concerning the person of Christ or the Development theory; which gives Christ two bodies, one in heaven and another, his church, on earth, was aimed at the Bible. It gives a personality to the church and to the Holy Spirit in the church in such a real way, that the church is self-sufficient, of herself to develop doctrine and to meet the changing problems of the age. How does it affect the doctrine of the second coming of Christ? Let me quote from "The Mercerburg Theology" by Dr. Swander:

"The only question remaining to be touched upon is, -when shall the last physical change take place in the history of each second- Adamite? Down to this time, the weight of theological sentiment, as formulated in the confessions and taught in the divinity schools, had favored its postponement to some unknown future period, when the dethronement of death and the aggregate rising of the dead are to constitute the grand and final act in time's great theater. There is now, however, a gradual breaking away from all such interpretation of the Scripture. Many believe that the doctrine never had any fellowship with the truth. As soon as an individual becomes a member of the second Adam, there is a beginning of the process by which 'this mortal shall put on immortality."' "The Mercersburg Theology" p. 300.

Sister White says:

"The union of the divine with the human nature is one of the most precious and most mysterious truths of the plan of redemption. It is this of which Paul speaks when he says, 'Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh.'

"This truth has been to many a cause of doubt and unbelief. When Christ came into the world, the Son of God and the Son of man, he was not understood by the people of his time." "Testimonies for the Church" Vol. V, p. 746. (See also "Counsels to Teachers" p. 262).

As usual the Reviewers fall back on a little circle of unmutilated texts found elsewhere to assure us that we still can find a fundamental doctrine which has been destroyed in the mutilated text. Nevertheless, by ten references to the Spirit of Prophecy we find the Authorized Version and the "Testimonies to the Church" in agreement on this point: while the Reviewers uphold the Revisers and others on the other side.

My Reviewers (on Section III, chapter 6, page 12) say: "But nothing can be said to be essentially lost whichever reading is followed." What am I to think? Must I believe that the Reviewers are not sufficiently informed about the Mercersburg Theology and the Development Theory to see in the changed reading what is there and what others see who know this theory?

Can anybody get anything out of the incomprehensible wordiness into which 2 Tim. 4:1 has been changed in the Revised? My Reviewers claim that it does not refer to the executive judgment but that it refers to the investigative judgment. If my Reviewers had taken pains to read all the verses which follow down to verse 8 they would have seen that the Apostle Paul is talking of "THAT DAY". It is the same "that day" spoken of in Luke 21:31, the great day of rewards. My Reviewers talk about my interpreting passages out of their context. What have they done here? Of what value is their discussion between the two Greek words kai and kata? The executive judgment of Christ takes place at His coming; I quote:

"And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." Jude 14,15.

My Reviewers do not believe that 2 Tim. 4:1 refers to this executive judgment. I submit the evidence to the decision of my hearers without argument.

Here again I will desist from doctrinal argument on this point . These passages were compared to show the similarity, if not the identity, which the Revised Versions and the Jesuit Bible or 1582 exhibit, as against the Authorized version of 1611.

I must contend again for the Authorized Version reading "blessed are they that do His commandments" instead of "blessed are they that wash their robes". Why do my Reviewers claim that the testimony of the MSS is so strong against the genuineness of the clause "that do His commandments", when the "Expositor's Greek Testament" Vol. 5, page 490, in discussing the MSS and versions on this text calls it "the well supported Hoi poiountes tas entolas autou" (that do His commandments)?

It is further surprising to note that this same authority, while giving the preference to the Greek of the Revisers, informs us that the clause ("that do His commandments") was "possibly due to the feeling that some moral characteristic was needed after verse 11". This is good Adventist doctrine. My Reviewers think that the Greek will not permit the implication that the saints are washing their robes during the entrance into the city. They say that either reading is orthodox and disturbs no doctrine. We certainly would insist that we shall be keeping His commandments during the entrance into the city, but as equally strong do we insist that we will NOT be washing our robes during the entrance into the city.

For a whole year during the plagues we will NOT be washing our robes that is sinning and being forgiven because there is no blood atoning.

But for a whole year we will be keeping His commandments and for eternity ever after. In the light of the message of verses 11 and 12 even as discerned by this non-Adventist commentator, it is impossible for the construction "wash their robes" to stand the test. Hina, according to my dictionary, after the word "do", has the sense of causing or affecting. The verb here is the verb "do", poieo. Hence the sentence would then read, "Blessed are they, doing His commandments, causing them to have the right to the tree of life and to enter into the city." In other words it is not purpose. They do not do His commandments in order that they may have right, but because they are doing His commandments they do have the right.

Great Controversy", (page 466) says:

"And the Revelator, half a century after the crucifixion, pronounces a blessing upon them 'that do His commandments, they that have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."'

(See also Volume 5, p. 628, 693; Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 133,235; P.P. p. 208; A.A. p. 592; Volume 9, p. 130).

Here again the Spirit of Prophecy lines up with the AV on this not in significant passage; in this great Adventist passage, which belongs to no other people so peculiarly as to Adventist. We regret to say that the Reviewers, and the Rheims New Testament of 1582 are on the other side.

ANSWERS-TOC

NEXT