ANSWERS TO OBJECTIONS

You will recall that in Section I, example 4, on the mistakes of citations by the Reviewers, I proved anew that Bishop Westcott confesses that-by repetitive changes, by changing here a little and there a little, the Revisers effected changes in articles of faith. To refresh your mind about this matter I will quote again from Bishop Westcott's book:

"But the value of the Revision is most clearly seen when the student considers together a considerable group of passages, which bear upon some article of the Faith. The accumulation of small details then produces its full effect. Points on which it might have seemed pedantic to insist in a single passage become impressive by repetition, the close rendering of the original Greek in the Revised Version appears to suggest ideas of creation and life and providence, of the course and end of finite being, and of the Person of the Lord, who is the source of all truth and hope, which are of deepest interest at the present time." "Some lessons", pp. 184,185.

And further I will give a quotation from Bishop Ellicott, who for ten years was Chairman of the English Revision Committee. This is what he said in his book entitled, "Consideration on the Revision," which he wrote two years after the Revision Committee began its work. He said:

"Passages involving doctrinal error. Here our duty is obvious. Faithfulness, and loyalty to God's truth, require that the correction should be made unhesitatingly. This class of cases, will, however, embrace many different instances; some of real and primary importance, some in which the sense will be little affected, when the error, grammatically great as it may be, is removed, and the true rendering substituted. For instance, we shall have in the class we are now considering, passages in which the error is one of a doctrinal nature, or, to use the most guarded language, involves some degree of liability to doctrinal misconception." Considerations", p.88.

This proves the Revisers were not only translating but considering doctrines. Surely it is not the business of translators to consider the theology of the text to be translated. My Reviewers are again shown to be wrong.

My Reviewers say, "Though this rendering by the Revisers is much to be regretted, it does not state an untruth, but only part of the truth, fully explained elsewhere in the same Version."

I agree with my Reviewers that the Revised Version gives only a part of the truth. I prefer the Authorized which gives the whole truth.

This Scripture, as in the Revised Version, is quoted once in the writing of Sister White, not in the book itself, but in the introductions and it is not listed in the Index. In the immediate connection with it, however, she speaks of the Bible as the "infallible" Word of God. In Vol, 5, p.747, she affirms when quoting this text as in the AV, thus indicating a very decided preference for the AV.

John 5:39 On searching the Scriptures.

This text, now under consideration, is not so glaring an example as some. There is not as square a contradiction between the two renderings as there is in some others. The preponderating balance of evidence as we find it, both in the ranks of commentators and the Spirit of Prophecy indicates that the fundamental idea of what Jesus says was a direction, a command. The famous Dr. Frederick Field, who spent all his life in researches, reconstructing the Greek Old Testament, and became famous therein, tells us that the mistake of the Revisers in adopting the affirmatory view instead of the command or direction, was because they placed too much stress upon the parenthetical clause, "for in them ye think ye have eternal life." ("Notes on Translation" p. 90) Leaving out the parenthetical clause, what then do you think is the more clear rendering, the AV, which says, "Search the scriptures for they are they which testify of me", or the Revised rendering "Ye search the scriptures for they are they which testify of me." We do not think that the Jews actually searched the scriptures when Jesus was, speaking because the scriptures testified of him. In other words, the underlying idea of the passage is a command, or direction, or, as Sister White says: (Vol. 2, p. 633);

"The followers of Jesus are not meeting the mind and will of God, if they are content to remain in ignorance of his word. All should become Bible students. Christ commanded his followers, 'Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.'" (Emphasis mine)

And also Volume 5, p. 388, "Repeat to all the Saviour's command, 'Search the scripture.'"

Twice this text is quoted by Sister White as in the RV. In Vol. 5, I find these words, "Repeat to all the Saviour's Command- Search the Scriptures." Several times it is directly stated that it is a "command" and a "duty". This is consistent with the AV not the RV. Twenty-three times it is quoted in the Spirit of Prophecy as in the AV, thus it must be evident that Sister White very much preferred the AV on this text to the RV.

My Reviewers see nothing wrong in the fact that the Revisers have struck out from the N.T. the word miracle in 23 of the 32 instances where it is used, or that in the case of the other nine, if they use the term in the text they robbed it of its authority by a weakening substitute in the margin; or that in the Old Testament they drove it out entirely in the five instances where it occurred in the AV.

*There are two different words rendering miracle in the New Testament. One is semeion, meaning sign, which is the base of signify, signification, and significance, The other is dynamis, which means power."

Do my Reviewers mean to say that it is simply by their grace or the grace of the translators that they allow the idea of miracle or miraculous to enter into these words? If so, there is this against them; (1) the word of God (2) the history of the words; (3) common sense. Hebrews 2:4. "God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with diverse miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?" Here the word semeion is placed right along side of "wonders" and "miracles" and "gifts" of the Holy spirit; inspiration declaring that God used all these four things by which to "bear witness". This text speccificalty shows that semeion is not just an ordinary sign, but is equivalent to wonders, miracles and the works of the Holy Ghost; therefore, inspiration itself has put the supernatural into the word semeion .

With regard to the history of the word, it may be said that the word "miracle" comes from the Latin word mirabilia from which, in English, we get the words "marvel", marvelous," "miracle", and "miraculous", etc.; also in the French, merveille; and lastly common sense would tell us that the authority of the fitness of things would show that this word has in it the miraculous and the supernatural when it is used in circumstances that in themselves betoken the supernatural and miraculous, and when used in connection with the manifestation of God's power. The word "sign," alone, would be utterly insufficient for the proper translation from the Greek. So here both the Revisers and the Reviewers fail to discern the fitness of things regarding the meaning of the word.

My Reviewers attempt grouping of instances; and right here I may say, let none be misled by grouping of the uses of a Greek word. It is a striking fact that, the word "miracle" singular or plural is found 37 times in the AV and only, 9 times in the RV. The Greek word semeion, the one in the text under consideration, is used 75 times and out of that is translated 22 times as "miracle" in the AV. Only three times in the ARV is this same word translated "miracle"; and then because they were compelled to do it; for it would have made utter nonsense to translate it any other way. I will now give these 3 times and let you judge for yourself. This is proof positive that the Greek word semeion has an intrinsic meaning in itself of a "miracle."

(1) Luke 23:8 "And when Herod saw Jesus, he was exceeding glad; for he was desirous to see him of a long season, because he had heard many things of him; and he hoped to have seen some miracles done by him."

See how ridiculous it would be to translate the word semeion by "sign," as: "he hoped to have some sign done by him." This is why the ARV was compelled to put miracle here.

(2) Acts 4:16. "Saying what shall we do to these men? For what indeed a notable miracle bath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem and we cannot deny it."

(3) To further get the force of this we will now read the 22nd verse. "For the man was above forty years old on whom this miracle of healing was shewed." Please substitute the word "sign" here and see how ridiculous it would be. This is the last of the three instances in which the Revisers translated the word semeion as "miracle" and in each of the three they were obliged to do so because of the utter nonsense, otherwise.

So I still maintain, as in my book, that to change the sentence, "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee", shows a radical change of doctrine. Added to it is the fact that the word "miracle" used 32 times in the N.T., 5 times in the O.T. or 37 times in the AV, has been reduced down to nine times in the ARV, only three of which are translated from semeion. Is not this a great step in the direction of modernism and away from the supernatural? Is not this tantamount to a change of doctrine? Can we not say that the doctrine of the Authorized is the supernatural; while the doctrine of the RV is the natural?

But I am not through with this case yet:

1. The Greek word angelos strictly means a messenger. Then why, on this theory of literalism, advanced by the Revisers, and followed by my Reviewers, should we not translate,-

Hebrews 1:7 (RV) "Who maketh his angels winds", by, "Who maketh his messengers winds".

There is a closing note in my Reviewers' comment on this question of miracles which says that they are giving the opinion of a member of the 1611 Revision Committee, namely, Dr. Trench. (Sec. 111-11-4). What do my Reviewers mean? Dr. Trench died about 1886. How then could he have been a member of the 1611 Revision Committee. And since Dr. Trench, according to the quotation, would prefer always to translate semeion by sign, this would be a natural procedure for him for he also was a member of the 1881 Revision Committee. Then why in the name of all that is right, make him a member of the 1611 Committee?

2. In Greek the word hypocrites strictly means "actor". In strict literalism why not translate, -

Matt. 23:23 "Woe unto you, scribes, and Pharisees, hypocrites" by "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, actors"?

3. And further graphe literally means "writing". Then why not translate,

2 Tim. 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" by "All writing is given by inspiration of God"? What do you think of this, brethren, would this be correct? And so I might go on and on with other Greek N.T. words which have established use different from the Greek use., Greek words have gathered up established English equivalents. Shall we now, after 300 years say "messenger," "actor", writing", when the established use is "angel", "Hypocrite", and " scripture"? In other words, has not the ARV begun a campaign to tear down established truth by uprooting established usage of words? Also is there not a further disastrous result to our beautiful English language? Let me exhort you in the words of Jude, "Beloved... it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3. What can be the purpose of the Reviewers' defense of the Revisers in uprooting the established usage in the New Testament language?

The arguments of my Reviewers in their objection to what I have said on the matter of "Conversion" in my book is just another specimen of wrong grouping and re-grouping of the different instances in which a Greek word is used.

THEY SAY, "But the author overlooks the fact that these same men (two writers) could have found in the AV at least 9 times as many passages rendered with turn in the sense of conversion, and could have used these to bolster up their false doctrine that a man can convert himself."

I REPLY: This is not the case. And I will proceed to show you from their own arguments on the two words (1) Strepho and (2) epistrepho that their groupings are wrong and that their conclusions are wrong. Here we will see the beautiful sense of the fitness of things which resides in the Authorized translation as well as in its more skillful handling of the Greek than in the Revised Version.

MY REVIEWERS SAY on strepho "Here are the facts in the case; Matt. 18,2,3, is the one N.T. passage using the simple form of the word strepho meaning turn in the sense of conversion. In the AV this same simple verb form is rendered 14 times in the passive, 11 times in the active, and 3 times in the reflexive."

I REPLY: This is not the truth. It is contrary to fact. (1) Strepho is not used 28 times in the Greek. "The Englishman's Greek Concordance" gives it only 18 times. It is barely possible that my Reviewers, when they said "is rendered 14 times in the passive, 11 times in the active, and 3 times in the reflexive" meant to say. 14 times in the passive of which 11 times was in the active; but of course that would be nonsense. It is barely possible they meant 4 times in the passive instead of 14 times, which would make it 17 times and would check nearly with the Greek Concordance of 18 times. In either case there is inaccuracy or bad reasoning in these figures; one or the other.-Then (2) in the other 17 times it is used "turned and said" and "turned and saw"; none of which could, of course, have been conversion; and only twice:

Acts 7:39 "And in their hearts turned back to Egypt," no conversion and Acts 7:42 "Then God turned, and gave them up" no conversion there. Which examination shows that in all the instances in which strepho is used, only once could it possibly used of conversion, which is Matt. 18:2,3, and on which the Revised Version fell down.

You will probably here raise this question of strepho; Since the substantial meaning of the word is turn, how then can you get out of it "conversion"? Here now is where the wonderful mastery of the subject by the King James Translation springs at once to view, which I will bring out when I finish epistrepho.

In further defense of the Revised Version's elimination of "be converted" my Reviewers say of the verb epistrepho that it is used 41 times in the N.T. 17 times of which are in the sense of conversion; and further, that both the AV and the ARV render nine of these by turn. This is not the fact. These 9 times do not need to handle the word "convert" or "be converted", because the verb turn is used with an objective, such as, "turn to the Lard,'" or "turn from your idols unto the living God"; so that the word "convert" or "be converted" is not necessary. But there are 7 times in the N.T. clearly outstanding where the other application by "be converted" would answer the situation, and on these the Revised Version fell down. Take as an example:

"And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat:... And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."

"Simon, Simon, behold Satan asked to have you... When once thou hast turned again, establish thy brethren."

I ask this audience if this is not a clear case where the ARV makes conversion possible through the human agency and not dependent upon God.

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out..."

"Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out."

I submit it to you brethren, is not this a clear case where the ARV makes conversion possible through the human agency and not dependent on God? And so on through the 7 texts. Now here is where the King James translators discerned the fact that conversion is an event dependent upon God alone. This they saw because 4 of the times, in which "be converted" is used in the A.V. N.T. in the sense of conversion, came over from Isa. 6:10, so that in the divine providence of God, at the time when Jesus announced the new birth from above to Nicodemus, epistrepho used passively without any qualifying clause, being a verb for turn in the Greek must have had the meaning of "be converted". The Revisers confess that they made this change for a purpose and were glad they did. I read from Westcott, "Some Lessons," page 172;

"The change of a single word brings out the responsibility of man from the first. Thus, when we read in Acts 3:19, 'Repent ye and be converted,' the passive form of the second clause puts out of sight the thought of man's willing action, which lies in the original 'Repent ye, and turn again'. "

And again on pages 191 and 192:

"And the time of the fulfilment of the counsel of God depends on human effort: 'Repent and turn again', is St. Peter's plea to the Jews."

Also from Dr. Milligan:

"Thus in Matt. 18:3, the opening verb, though passive in form, is properly rendered actively, and the popular error of man being mere passive instruments in the hands of God thereby exploded." "Expository Value of the R.V." p. 130.

Again I repeat that those changes in these 7 texts, made where they should not be, were consciously and intentionally made to throw conversion back upon man's human effort.

My Reviewers write one and one-half pages about the use of the word aion, and how the word aion in Greek is translated. They show how the AV and the ARV handle it in Hebrews, in Ephesians, in Revelation, etc. But what does it all amount to? Her is a significant fact: The word aion occurs, according to my Reviewers, 122 times in the N.T.; according to my "Englishman's Concordance", 125 times. Would it surprise you to learn that the ARV translates it "age" or "ages" 61 times out of 122 in the text or margin while the AV translates it as such only 3 times, text and margin.

My Reviewers claim that the literal use of this Greek word is age or ages: then why were not the Revisers always literal in the case of this word, seeing that my Reviewers claim literalness as a great tribute to them? Suppose they had been literal in the case of:

Luke 16:8 AV "The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." Suppose we had there substituted "age" as in the margin of the ARV; it would then read, "The children of this age are in their generation wiser than the children of light."

This virtually would have said that all the children of the present evil age are wiser that the children of the redeemed world to come. Or that all the people that have ever lived since this age began are wiser then the redeemed members of the human race in Heaven.

My Reviewers complained because I said that Westcott and Hort injected evolution into the ARV. First; I will show that they intended to do it; and secondly, I will show that they did it, and you can see it with your own eyes. To show that they intended to do it, I quote from Westcott:

"In this connection we see the full meaning of the words used of creation in Hebrews 11:3: 'By faith we understand that the worlds (the ages i.e., the universe under the aspect of time) have been formed by the Word of God.... The whole sequence of life in time, which we call the world' has been 'fitted together' by God. His one creative word includes the harmonious unfolding on one plan of the last issues of all that was made. That which is in relation to Him 'one act at once' is in relation to us an evolution apprehended in orderly succession." "Some Lessons", p. 187. (Emphasis mine)

When Westcott said of creation that "the ages, i.e. the universe under the aspect of time have been formed by the word of God," and "His one creative word included the harmonious unfolding on one plan of the last issues of all that was made," or what was to Him "one act at once" is in relation to us an Evolution apprehended in orderly succession," he virtually said that Jesus Christ made not the physical world but he made the ages. Now you cannot make an age in a moment of time. It takes an age to make an age. And several ages cannot dwell together at the same time; they must succeed one another in single file. Therefore Bishop Westcott claims that the Revisers by the use of this word intended to present creation under the aspect of evolution.

We will now notice how we can see evolution by the repeated translation of "age" for aion instead of "worlds". The common people do not know much about evolution and would not see evolution in the translation if it were there in terms of evolution. But the intelligent people and these are the ones who concern us here, who have studied evolution more or less, or even if they have not, would be confirmed, by the prodical use of this word 'ages' in this error; for a world can be made at once and age can not. Moreover if the Son of God made the ages, which would be the meaning if we substituted the margin for the text in Hebrews 1:2, what would we have when he got through making it? nothing visible, simply the past and gone forever. Let us read one of these texts from Ferrar Fenton:

Hebrews 1:2 Fenton "Whom He appointed Inheritor of all; and through whom he made the ages;" also

Hebrews 11:3 Fenton "By faith we comprehend that the periods were arranged by the continuous intention of God, so that from the unseen the visible appeared."

In other words, the only way the visible could appear from the unseen, here was because the periods were arranged by the continuous intention of God. According the AV the "worlds' were framed by the word of God" and from them we could understand how the visible appeared. But if it is no longer worlds but periods, or ages, which were framed by the word of God, then how from those which are invisible, can you understand that the visible appeared; for there was not anything visible there. What is there to look at? This is evolution. This is something developing out of nothing; through long periods. This is evolution.. Even a wayfarer can see this. While of course, we use Ferrar Fenton here, nevertheless, the ARV by inserting "ages" systematically in the margin opens the way logically for this arrangement as given by Ferrar Fenton.

Goodspeed, 20th Century, and Ferrar Fenton all translate the last part of Matt. 24:3 as "the close of the age". The ARV here in the margin gives "the consummation of the age".

The King James translators studiously avoided this word; the Revisers used it copiously, (61 out of 122 times), getting; it into the margin when not possible to get it into the text. Here is where repetition is impressive as Westcott said; it emphasizes the unfolding ages. But with what are you impressed? Acts of creation? No, unfolding of evolving ages, which is Evolution. I am not talking theory and fancy, our ministers are meeting this difficulty in the field.

I regret very much to say that my Reviewers assailed my claim that the Revisers in this text change the doctrine, and concealed from their hearers in their first sentence an essential fact which I gave in my book. THEY SAY: "By quoting from a Unitarian minister the author seeks to make it appear.." Why do they hide the fact that this Unitarian minister was a Reviser, a member of the English N.T. Revision Committee? Why make believe he is a Unitarian minister at random without connection with this situation? He sat on the Committee, he knew what was intended by this charge. The Reviewers talk of unfairness, is this fairness for them to represent one of the Revision Committee as a Unitarian Minister taken up at random.

My Reviewers cannot see that it makes any difference whether all things were created in Him or by Him. They admit that the "all things" referred to include the visible and material. But notice the little word "by" implies that the agent is external to the thing acted upon; while "in" might identify the actor with the thing acted upon; and so without any great strain would really mean pantheism. If not pantheism, it would then be vague, indefinite, and mystic.

My Reviewers, by admitting that the "all things" created in Him include the visible and material, identify the totality of creation with the creator. What is this if not pantheism? In the AV we are protected in the little word "by"; but is you use "in" then when we look at all things do we see Him. Or when we look at Him do we see them? The sun and the moon were not made "in Him"; they were made "by Him". Were all the heavenly worlds made "in" Him? If when we look at the visible creation, we see Him, and if when we look at Him we see the visible creation, the Reviewers are but justifying the charge that the Revisers were pantheists.

My Reviewers attempt to justify this construction by quoting Ephesians 2:10, "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus". The reasoning fails because Eph. 2:10 refers to a spiritual creation. They take a material creation and make it spiritual; and then they take a spiritual creation and make it spiritual; and then they take a spiritual creation and make it material. Is such confusion justifiable?

My Reviewers, referring back again to the Unitarian Reviser, say, "Some man's interpretation of the ARV rendering of Col. 1:15, 16 has no bearing on its correct translation or true meaning,..." They say, "Some man". I say "One of the Revisers". They imply that I took some man, somewhere. He was a duly appointed Reviser, had a powerful influence in mounding the text, and in fact, the regular chairman withdrew and there was a national upheaval because this "some man" was retained on the Committee despite public indignation. (See "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" pp. 168-169).

Why did Westcott and Hort stand for his being appointed on the Committee. Why did they defend him when public indignation demanded his removal? No one can read the life of Doctor Hort without knowing how powerfully he was under influence of Maurice, who was a regular descendant from Unitarian ancestry and was dismissed from the presidency of Kings College for heresy.

You will be interested to know that this phrase is translated in the Unitarian Bible just as it is in the ARV.

"Who is an image of the invisible God, a first born of the whole creation for in Him were created all the things in the heavens and upon the earth."

The Revisers put the word "maiden" in the margin of Isa. 7:14 as synonymous with "virgin". My Reviewers defend this action and claim I have no right to criticize it. Let us see.

The deity of Christ is proven by his Virgin birth; and the weight of the proof hangs on Isa. 7:14. There was a Unitarian on the English Revision Committee (as there also was on the American) and there were those of Unitarian leanings on the Old Testament Committee. Unitarians do not believe in deity, or Virgin Birth of Christ; therefore a strong probability was created beforehand that something would be done to weaken the force of Isa. 7:14.

That the Deity of Christ is proven by his virgin birth, I quote, from William Jennings Bryan:

"If the Virgin Birth be rejected how shall the deity of Christ be proven. It is quite common for modernists to affirm that the deity of Christ is entirely independent of the manner of his birth... If Christ's deity was not demonstrated by His birth, and was not proved by the manner of His birth the modernist will experience great embarrassment in convincing a questioner that there was any other time or way in which the deity of Christ became manifest." "Seven Questions in Dispute," pp. 57,59.

The weight of proof for the Virgin Birth of Christ hangs on the great prophecy of it in Isa. 7:14, just as the greatest evidence for all outstanding plans of God usually is grounded upon the prophecy therof. On the point in question, Dr. Howard Kelly, M.D., L.L.D., of Baltimore, says:

"Matthew is most explicit in his first chapter, and quotes Isaiah and tells us that the word Almah (Virgin) in the Hebrew of Isaiah (7:14) in his day meant a virgin, and that Jesus was conceived by the Virgin Mary of the Holy Spirit Every time I call him 'Lord' I mean by that 'God' the Son of God, and proclaim his Virgin Birth." Idem, 56,57.

By the alternative reading in the Revised Version, we can now talk not only of the Virgin Birth, but also of the Maiden Birth.

To show how the Unitarian views of the Unitarian scholar on the Revision Committee as well as the strong Unitarian leanings of Dr. Hort and other Revisers on both the Old and New Testament Committees, would reject a clear cut convincing doctrine of the Virgin birth, I quote from a recent advertisement in a Unitarian Book-room in one of our large cities as given in this book by Williams Jennings Bryan:

"During the life of Jesus he was understood by all to be the son of Joseph and Mary born in holy wedlock. This is clear from a study of the Gospels in their early and most authentic form. But long after the death of Jesus unknown hands added to the copies of the Gospels, they were making those introductory chapters in Matthew and Luke, which relate the legends of a miraculous birth. These legends... are as manifestly the product of an irrational point of view as are other tales of miracles. Miracles do not happen." Idem, pp. 50,51.

Why did they play into the hands of those who belittle the Virgin birth by using this word "maiden" in the margin? What was the necessity of adding this word "maiden" which lacks the strict thought of absolute chastity or virginity as in the word "virgin", while it contains additional shades of meaning not proper to the word "virgin"?

To show how the Bible constantly couples the thought of purity with virginity and with the birth of Christ, we refer to Paul's thought of the church, "I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Cor. 11:2); and Isaiah's contrast between the purity of God's people and the heathen, "The Virgin, the daughter of Zion, hath despised thee." (Isa. 37:22); and in Revelation, chapter XII, the picture of the pure woman, the Church, travailing with the birth of Christ, as she is about to bring forth the man child. It is certainly adding an unnecessary complication to put in the margin a variant word, which lends itself to questions on so great a doctrine as the Virgin birth of Christ.

My Reviewers justify the fact that the ARV presents Job rejoicing that if this present body is destroyed he shall, without his flesh see God. My Reviewers in defending the ARV have ceased, in so doing, to represent the Adventist doctrine. They are obliged to take this position because they follow and justify the ARV which in this instance has changed the doctrine of the resurrection. Then in this surrender of grand old Adventist doctrine to the, in their mind, overpowering authority of the ARV, my Reviewers have entangled themselves in three inexplicable and fatal positions.

1. They flee for refuge to Dr. Philip Schaff, president of both American Committees of Revision. Did they expect that Dr. Schaff would abandon his own child, the ARV, by failing to testify in his own and my Reviewers behalf? Moreover, Dr. Schaff was not a Hebrew authority. His remarks about the AV in this passage abandoning the Hebrew text to translate from the Septuagint of Vulgate are neither clear nor of any weight. Over against Dr. Schaff I will put Dr. Kinnicott, and greater authority in Hebrew it is not possible to find. He is recognised as one of the two outstanding Hebrew authorities on Hebrew manuscripts and their variations. Dr. Kennicott, as you will find in the commentaries of Dr. Adam Clark -on this verse, translates it as in the AV.

2. The second count against my Reviewers, and the most serious to Seventh day Adventists, is that they say, "It is not difficult to understand from the ARV translation that Job's sustaining hope was that though his body of flesh might be destroyed in the grave, yet in spite of that fact he was sure to see God. Moreover, Paul says 'Thou sowest not that body which shall be." (Sec. 111-11-9). It is a matter of profound regret to me that my Reviewers allowed these words either to be said or to be printed, conveying to the hearers or readers the idea that Job meant according to the ARV to say that without his worm-destroyed body he would see God and nothing more. Why did not my Reviewers make it clear that in both the AV and the ARV Job states that his mortal body, obtained in birth, will be worm-destroyed before he states he shall see God? Why did not my Reviewers make it clear that in the AV Job presents his mortal body as worm-destroyed, but yet in another flesh shall he see God; while the ARV also presents his mortal-body-worm destroyed, but yet without the immortal flesh of which the AV speaks, he shall see God? I feel very disappointed that my Reviewers would permit themselves to stand in any way connected with such an exposition as this.

3.1 notice now their third species of reasoning. If argument Number 2 is fatal to an outstanding Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, their argument Number 3 is seriously depressing to belief in the inspiration of the Scriptures. They say, "if this were the only passage we had on the resurrection of the body, we might be in a more difficult situation." In other words, relying upon Job 19:26 ARV we are in a ship that is sinking us in the bottom of the sea, but be of good cheer, there are four squadrons of vessels which will hasten to our rescue:

Paul's great discourse on the resurrection.

The bodily state of Adam and Eve in Eden.

The future state of the righteous.

4. Other scriptural teachings.

In other words, these four groups of scriptures plainly contradict Job 19:26 in the ARV. These four sets of texts, therefore, destroy the bad influence of Job 19:26 ARV. Blessed be the fact there are plenty of contradictions to this text. This text will not hurt us because there are plenty of others to contradict it: Not so. If all the rest of the Bible teaches the resurrection of the body, all the more reason why the Revisers should have squared this passage with the generality of the Bible teaching. They have no business to impose its teaching on the rest of the Bible on the ground of textual difficulty. If 1 Cor. 15 teaches one thing and Job 19:25 another, which are we to believe? The translators of (?) happily were not under the influence of the modern rules of textual criticism which fact prevents them from exalting these above the harmony of the Bible. Certain of the members of the Revision Committee were spiritualists, Unitarians, and believers in purgatory. Therefore, our Protestant Bible received wounds in the house of friends. Job in the AV is clear, definite, conclusive. The only interpretation is that body and intelligence will again function together at the last day, and it definitely compels a resurrection. Job in the ARV is equally clear, definite conclusive. The only interpretation is that his intelligence will function apart from his body, which was destroyed by worms, and necessitates no resurrection before seeing God at the last day. This reading makes possible purgatory, prayers for the dead, disembodied spirits and spiritualism.

When I proved in my book that some of the Revisers were higher critics, others favorable to Rome, modernists and Unitarians, my Reviewers charged me with using the illogical argument ad hominem; but the issue can not be so easily brushed aside. I showed that they held these theological views. Consequently that they were thus personally biased. Then I showed by their correspondence that they proposed to consider doctrinal questions in their revision. Next I showed that their revised readings lent themselves to these doctrines and that they commented upon their own translations accordingly. And finally, I showed that other prominent men used their readings to defend these doctrines. What more evidence do you want? It is not sufficient that my Reviewers give us critical technicalities upon which the authorities disagree.

How much better it would have been if my Reviewers, after reviewing my book, had openly acknowledged that the ARV was wrong on this passage and had here changed doctrine. Why did they not hold in this instance to the Spirit of Prophecy? From "Prophets and Kings," pp. 163 and 164, I read:

"From the depths of discouragement and despondency Job rose to the heights of implicit trust in the mercy and saving power of God. Triumphant he declared:... I know that my Redeemer liveth, And that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; And though after my skin worms destroy this body, Yet in my flesh shall I see God:"'

In five other places besides this, the Spirit of Prophecy refers to this same text, always in the sense of the AV. Does this mean anything to us as Seventh-day Adventists?

The only answer my Reviewers can give to the indictment of the ARV in omitting the phrase "of the dead", is, "textual reasons". The fact is, the omission has only 8 manuscripts in favor of it and 2,000 or more against it. If you call these "textual reasons" I do not. It is clear that they have chosen the reading of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus MSS and a few others to the exclusion of overwhelming testimony on the other side, to settle what is the true word of God and what is not. By reading 2 Tim. 2:16-18 we see that if there was one heresy more prominent than another in the early days of the mystery of iniquity it was spiritualizing away the resurrection.

My Reviewers claim that there are 13 other instances in the ARV of the phrase "of the dead". I say this is all the more reason why it should be here. What do you think of such an argument? The phrase "of the dead" is found in 13 other scriptures, hence leave it out here. It is found in the passage in thousands of MSS but omitted in a few MSS! On what ground of reason would you leave it out here, in the face of its being found in 13 other scriptures and in 2000 or more manuscripts. This, then is good evidence that the text under consideration in the AV is good doctrine. How can we say that when God has said a thing 13 times, it is enough; that he does not need to say it the 14^th time. Evidently my Reviewers do not hold to Isaiah, "Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little." Are they heading toward the shorter Bible?

My Reviewers here defend the marginal reading of the ARV by flatly contradicting me. I said in my book that "the consummation of the age" in no sense means the same thing as the "end of the world". They reply that I criticize the ARV reading although it gives in the margin the literal meaning of the original of the phrase "end of the world". I submit it to my hearers to judge whether "end of the world" means the same thing as "the consummation of the age".

If they do not mean the same thing then the margin and the text contradict one another. If they do mean the same thing then the Russellites and Unitarians have been right all along in claiming that Christians look forward to such a consummation of the age, which supports the Russellites' idea; namely, change from one human dispensation to another, as the closing of the Roman age; or the Age of Revolutions; or the stone Age; of the Ice Age; or the Electric Age. I quote here from two modern Bibles:

"What will be the sign of thy coming and the end of the age?"

"What will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

"What will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?"

If "what the original means" is consummation of the age," then why did the Revisers not put it into the text as the preferred reading? The only excuse for sometimes putting the literal meaning of the Greek into the margin is in order to give an explanation of what is not very well grasped by the English rendering, but that is not needed in this case. The "Consummation of the age" naturally indicates the finishing of a period as the running out of the sands of an hourglass, without fore-shadowing great physical convulsions of nature. These convulsions were in the disciples minds according to the prophecy of Isaiah and other prophets, as accompanying the end of the world and so they meant to ask that of the Saviour, namely, when would the convulsed end of the world come? The Russellites rejoice in, this ARV marginal translation so they put 1874 as the consummation of the age. There was no need to confuse good, plain, simple doctrine by putting in the margin the "consummation of the age."

I must again insist that when the ARV put "presence" in the margin of Matt. 24:3, for "coming" it is indicative of a change of doctrine. My reviewers say, no; they say that without knowing the literal meaning of parous we would miss the vividness in describing the return of Christ and the restoration of that marvelous presence. All this then is missed in the AV. But by putting "presence" in the margin of the ARV it is restored.

You ask a child about the return of its father. The child may reply, "His coming will be tomorrow", or "His presence will be tomorrow". There is an entirely different thought, the last has no sense. "Presence" -makes us think of a spiritualistic seance; all of a sudden a "presence" is there. Can't you feel his presence? But "coming" has a start, a sweep, and an arrival. "Presence" in place of "coming" fits in with "consummation"- for "end". Jesus said "I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am..." My Reviewers underline "where I am" they should have underlined I will come again. The coming is necessary in order to produce the presence. The coming is first. His presence does not appear until after His coming. If "coming" means presence" then why expect the future advent of Jesus if we have His presence now. "Presence" is a continuous relationship; "coming" means an event. The question, "What is the sign of thy presence", would mean, what is the sign of thy fellowship with us, as now; the "sign of thy coming" would demand forerunning events which show he is not here now, but will come.

Jesus went on to tell of the darkening of the sun and falling of the stars; they were signs; they were not to be signs of His presence, they were precursors of His coming. We hold that "presence" is not the same as "coming". The "presence" of Jesus will be true 10,000 years after his coming, but his "coming" will be one event, once in the end of the world, also not a continuous process. I cannot admit that the words "presence" and "coming" are synonymous. If "presence" and "coming" do not mean the same thing, then the margin and the text of the ARV contradict each other, which is a change of doctrine.

King James Version: "Who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body."

Revised: "Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of His glory."

My Reviewers defend the change in translation from "His glorious body" in the AV to "the body of His glory" in the ARV, by again claiming that the Revisers gave the literal meaning. As I pointed out in my book, this is a Hebraism or an idiomatic structure in the Hebrew language, which often used two nouns in place of a noun modified by an adjective. This Hebriac construction of Phil. 3:20,21 is found in the Vulgate. Therefore, Wycliffe in 1380 and the Jesuits in 1582 followed this construction. Beginning in 1534, however, it was rejected by the outstanding English Versions, Tyndale, Crammer and Geneva, as well as the AV; so that it is not because this translation was so wonderful and so new or that is was unknown to the Revisers that they adopted it. They rather took their stand with the Vulgate and the Rheims of 1582. If the excuse for so translating this was that they should be literal then why (in Luke 18:6) did they not translate the "judge of unrighteousness" instead of the "unrighteous judge" or "wonders of falsehood" instead of "lying wonders" (2 Thes. 2:9). Why this inconsistency? Could they not see that changing "His glorious body" into "the body of His glory" was weakening the second coming of Christ? Why did the Revisers choose a second coming of Christ passage to emphasize transliterating, not translating a Hebraism?

What does "the body of His glory" mean? Sister White says that "it is the glory of God to pardon the chiefest of sinners." A body of glory might mean the sum of total virtues. The change in the King James Version is physical: the ARV may be a spiritual change. It may be like this, "Who shall fashion our sinful body that it may conform to His perfect life or to the sun total of His virtues." If it is a spiritual change, it is possible for this spiritual change to take place now, Then so far as this version is concerned, the physical coming of Christ is not necessary to execute the glorious physical change. This is another proof that the Revisers have dimmed and blurred the second coming of Christ. If this translation is literal, why not put the two other places I just mentioned; and I could cite many more, into the text?

What does Sister White say on this passage:

"As the antitype of the wave-sheaf, our Lord was raised from the dead on the third day, ' the first-fruits of them that slept,' A sample of all the resurrected just, whose 'vile body' shall be changed, and 'fashioned like unto His glorious body.'" "Great Controversy," p. 399

"Who shall change our vile body, that it may be like unto His glorious body." "Early Writings," p. 31

I am willing to accept Sister White and the AV on this text.

King James; "That ye be not soon shaken in mind... as that day of Christ is at hand."

Revised: "That ye be not quickly shaken from your mind... as that the day of the Lord is now present."

My Reviewers refer us to Heb. 9:9; also Romans 8:36:1 Cor. 3:22; and Gal. 1:4 where a form of the same Greek verb is rendered with the meaning, "present". They omitted to tell us that in the places referred to we have a participle used as an adjective, whereas in the text under discussion we have a verb. Also they did not refer us to the well known 2 Tim. 3:1 where the same verb is used with future meaning in the expression, "grievous times shall come". The verb used in the text under discussion is in the perfect tense and can mean, "to stand in sight"; "to impend,"' and "to threaten," and "to be close at hand". My authority is Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament". Thayer was an American Reviser.

The Century Dictionary is quoted by my Reviewers to define the phrase "at hand" as meaning "within reach, nearby, present." We would simply Which of these three meanings would you use if you were talking of the day of the Lord? You certainly would not use the meaning "present". You might use "they were all present in the room with you"; but you would not use it of the day of the Lord, unless you believe as the Russellites do that the day of Christ is now present. Therefore the citation from the Century Dictionary does not apply

King James: "Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."

The change from "the glorious appearing of the great God" in the AV to the "appearing of the glory of the great God", I contend does not give a picture of Christ's personal, visible, bodily return. As usual, my Reviewers plead the fact that the original gives two nouns. I have already criticized this literal bringing over of a Hebraism found in the Greek, into the English.

If my Reviewers are textual critics, they know I am right on this point. Suppose we translated into English the idioms of other languages on this same plea of following the original literally; where would we come out? Mark Twain said that if he had invented the German language he would have put the verb where you could find it at the end of at least two or three pages. I do not need to give here many German expressions familiar to you, to show you that that what is a splendid language to the German, if turned literally word for word into the English would make nonsense. Here is an example "Do you see that barn? Will you go that barn around?' Or as the father said to his son, "Fritzie, run the stairs up, and look the window out." Any one who has studied language to any extent whatever, ought to know that it is absurd to translate the idiom of a language literally.

Just a remark here from the grammar by Dr. Blass which says something about the Hebrew idioms found in New Testament Greek:

"The national Hebrew or Aramaic element influenced Greek-writing Jews in a threefold manner. In the first place it is probable that the speaker or writer quite involuntarily and unconsciously rendered a phrase from his mother tongue by an accurately corresponding phrase; again, that the reading and hearing of the Old Testament in the Greek version coloured the writer's style, especially if he desired to write in a solemn and dignified manner. Third and last, a great part of the N.T. writings (the three first Gospels and the first half of the Acts) is in all probability a direct working over of Hebrew or Aramaic materials. This was not a translation like that executed by the LXX rendered word for word with the utmost fidelity, and almost without any regard to intelligibility; but it was convenient to adhere to the originals even in expression instead of looking for a form of expression which was good Greek." "Grammar of New Testament Greek." p. 4.

The foregoing quotation points out the fact that both by the influence of LXX and by translations not influenced by the LXX, but nevertheless as literal as the LXX, a good many Hebraisms were put into the New Testament Greek.

But the question which astonishes us most of all is, why did the Revisers avoid this fault in other places but used it with a serious effect in the two N.T. passages I have handled in the last few pages, touching the coming of Jesus Christ; therefore, I must quote again the citation I gave on this point in my book, from one of the Revisers. G. Vance Smith, a Reviser, says:

"This idea of the Second Coming ought now to be passed by as a merely temporary incident of early Christian belief. Like many another error, it has answered its transitory purpose in the providential plan, and may well, at length, be left to rest in peace." "Bible and Theology", p. 281.

Dr. Hort held practically the same view; so did Westcott. How could a body of Revisers among whom haziness and confusion marked their idea of the second coming of Christ do differently than to change strong passages on that subject into their own way of thinking. As a matter of fact they did, and I for one, decline to accept the false theology of their unwarranted translation.

King James; "He cometh with clouds.... and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him."

Revised: "He cometh with the clouds..., and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over Him."

Since Bishop Westcott, dominant Reviser, stated, as I quoted him in my book to state, that the change from "shall wail because of him" in the AV to "shall mourn over Him" in the Revised, was intended to express penitential sorrow, I think he knew more than my Reviewers do what this change was intended for.

My Reviewers talk much over the different uses of the preposition in the Greek in order to explain away the damaging force of Bishop Westcott's testimony.

Moreover, as I have already pointed out, the majority of the members of this N. T. Revision Committee believed in the Larger Hope or Universal Salvation. The arguments by my Reviewers are no protection against the damaging meaning which can be secured at once by the common people from Revised rendings.

Again the plea is here produced that if this text opens the way to fall into false doctrine, the true doctrine is safe-guarded by other scriptures. Such a plea has been made so often in this document in defense of the very questionable translations of the Revisers, we wonder how many passages the Revisers can transfer over on to the side of false doctrine and still leave us a Bible capable of defending the Third Angel's message. The Reviewers argue that if the whole wall has not been thrown down you must not be alarmed because there are many breaches in the wall. The very fact that many other scriptures do teach a certain thing makes it the more evident that any other single scripture should agree with the many, especially when numerous MSS and versions so testify. I am glad that my Reviewers wish that the King James rendering had been retained. Nevertheless they think there is no danger, because, other scriptures take care of the doctrine by giving the opposite view. Are you ready to accept such reasoning?

King James: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you."

Revised: "Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord; and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you, even Jesus."

We now take up that famous passage, Acts 3:19, concerning the blotting out of sins, the times of refreshing, the sending of Jesus, and the restitution of all things. On this my Reviewers say, "This passage is an outstanding example of the help to the Bible student in a more accurate rendering of the original language." It is neither necessarily an accurate rendering of the Greek, nor is it a common sense adjustment to the internal evidence both is this passage and in the Bible as a whole; nor is it in harmony with the Spirit of Prophecy. We will first pay attention to the grammar which is the battlehorse of my Reviewers, and to the quotation they take from the Greek grammar of Dr. A.T. Robertson, a devoted follower of Westcott and Hort, and a member of the present Revision Committee which is now sitting to revise the ARV.

Will my hearers notice in this passage that there are three "thats" in the Revised against one in the Authorized. The Authorized says "that", "where", and "and"; but the Revised says "that", "that so", and "that". The argument turns on the little word "an" in Greek which follows the word Hopos after the expression "that your sins may be blotted out." Now the question arises, are our sins blotted out in order to bring the times of refreshing, or are our sins blotted out when the times of refreshing come. It depends whether the expression Hopos an means purpose (in order that) or means time (when). The quotation from Dr. Robertson, given by my Reviewers, claims, in substance, that purpose and not time is intended here. The view of this scholar accords here with the Catholic and modernistic view that this text means that as soon as we repent our sins are blotted out. On the other hand I will bring in opposition to this rendering, four famous Greek scholars, Beza, Castalio, Erasmus Schmid, Eckermann and others mentioned by Dr. Myers in his "Commentary on the New Testament,"...on this text... who consider that the expression Hopos an is a particle of time and equals "when". Even Winer, the great idol of the Reviewers, deserts them in this place. He says, "When the final particle, Hopos is joined with an it indicates a purpose, the possibility of attainment of which is still doubtful; or the attainment of which is viewed as depending upon circumstances.", "Grammar," p. 389. (Emphasis mine)

In a foot-note Winer quotes from another authority to say,

"When the final sentence expresses an eventual conclusion, i.e. one in which an additional hypothesis is virtually contained, we may subjoin an to Hopos or Hopos; thus...' in order that you may, as by going there you will, etc., Compare Jelf 810, Green p. 169."

Winer gives (Latin phrases); examples of rendering as does Meyers to indicate the use in a rendering of this kind so that this passage we would say:

Repent and be converted thatsoever, or whensover, the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord."

Thus it will be seen that we have outstanding Greek grammarians to support the Authorized rendering "when".

The internal evidence also forbids the rendering given key the Revised Version. Peter brings before us four great events, not national nor international, but inter-stellar or inter-lanetary, if you please:

1. The blotting of our sins

2. The times of refreshing

3. The sending of Jesus

4. The restitution of all things.

Not one of these events comes repetitively to each individual at different times; they each indicate a great universal event, overtaking all concerned at one time. This is the Adventist's view; the other is the Catholic or modernistic view.

In my book I quoted from Dr. Roberts, a member of the Revision Committee who said that they changed the rendering of the Authorized for "eschatological reasons"; that is, for reasons springing from their view of the events at the end. He considered this change most important. I put this in my book but it made no impression upon my Reviewers. Now in hopes that I may make an impression, I will quote from Dr. Westcott what he says about this change:

"And the time of the fulfillment of the council of God depends on human effort: 'Repent and turn again' is St. Peter's plea to the Jews, that your sins may be blotted out, that so there may come season... of refreshing from the presence of the Lord.' (Acts 3:19). Here the horizon of Faith is immeasurably extended. The immediate forgiveness of the sins of believers is shown to have a wider influence than on their own salvation. 'Seasons of refreshing' are placed in dependence on their personal faith." "Some lessons" pp. 191,192. (Emphasis mine)

Adventists believe nothing of the sort. They believe that the prophetic times of refreshing depend upon the plan of God and not upon our personal faith.

What does the Spirit of Prophecy have to say about this? My Reviewers claim that the times of refreshing come either at the coming of Christ or following personal repentance or forgiveness, or both; at least that construction is possible to their wording and punctuation. The Spirit of Prophecy places it at neither of these times, but immediately prior to the close of probation. I quote from "Great Controversy," pp. 611,612:

"The prophecies which were fulfilled in the outpouring of the former rain at the opening of the gospel, are again to be fulfilled in the latter rain at its close. Here are 'the times of refreshing (to which the apostle Peter looked forward when he said) 'Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come form the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus."'

Notice also here that the Spirit of Prophecy used the AV. In the two pages pf Great Controversy which follow, Sister White points out that this time of refreshing brings in the final converts just before the close of probation. Apparently my Reviewers disagree with the Spirit of Prophecy on this point.

King James; "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out in the draught, purging all meats?"

Revised; "Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean."

It a strained effort to make "purging all meats" in the AV mean the same as "This he said, making all meats clean", my Reviewers tell us that by leaving out the supplied words, "this he said", the two readings have exactly the same meaning. But the supplied words are already there. What business had the Revisers to supply these words? Wither they mean something, or they mean nothing. If they mean nothing the Revisers are unworthy of having any confidence put in them, to take such liberties with the scripture. And if they mean anything, they cause the Lord Jesus to be the agent here of making all meats clean. They cause him to break down the ceremonial distinctions between meats as given in Leviticus. This interpretation was given to it by Origen anciently, and is followed by some modern commentators. When the Revised Version says, "This he said, making all meats clean", it makes a statement of fact that is no fact. No such idea can be taken from the original. It makes the Lord Jesus the author of a law which the Saviour never ordered. This is serious.

My Reviewers say that I endeavor to make it appear that the Lord was dealing here with the distinction between animal meats. Why do they misrepresent me? It is very strange that any reader of my book should get such an idea. I never said a word about the Lord Jesus doing that. I said that this is the interpretation injected into the scripture by the Revised Version. Their mistranslation where is what makes it appear that the Lord Jesus was breaking down the distinction between the clean and unclean meats.

I feel that I cannot leave this case without summoning my Reviewers to a reckoning. They say, "By strange reasoning the author endeavors to make it appear that the Lord Jesus was here dealing with the distinction between animal meats..." I challenge them to produce one scintilla of evidence that I put forth any such endeavor. How do my Reviewers expect to get away with such statements as this? Over and over again they make such random charges against me, charges without foundation, do they expect that people will believe they are so, simply because they say so? I gave a strong quotation from Dr. Milligan, who proves that the Revisers intended to do the very same thing which I pointed out that they did do. My Reviewers find only one fact, bearing on the point from Dr. Milligan, and that is that the "little Change in one Greek letter makes possible the connecting of the phrase 'making all meats-clean' directly with the Lord Jesus as speaker..." Precisely, this little point is not so little as my Reviewers make it. It is the crux of the whole matter. If the participle, "purging" is changed from a neuter construction, referring to the process of the body, to a masculine construction, referring to the Lord Jesus, by the changing of the vowel, then Christ becomes the agent of changing, by law, a thing which he never yet changed in nature. This is impossible; this is unscientific.

The examination of the above passage, in the light of my Reviewers remarks, confirms more than ever that the Revisers intended a change of doctrine.

King James: "And there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened."

Revised: "A darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, the sun's light failing."

Moffatt: "And darkness covered the whole land until three o'clock, owing to an eclipse of the sun."

Concerning the darkness which overspread the land at the time of the crucifixion, we will now take up the astounding change from the King James, which says, "and the sun was darkened" to the ARV which says, "the sun's light failing." I called attention to the great difference in the Greek words used. The Revised Version used eklipontos from which we get our word eclipse. The AV used an entirely different word. My Reviewers demand, "What difference can there really be between the sun's failing to shine as usual, and the sun's being darkened?" That is not the point at all. The Greek word in the ARV says that the sun underwent an eclipse. I will now quote from Field says:

"In answer to a remark of the Quarterly Reviewers (No. CCIV. p. 343): 'In like manner tou eliou ekleipontos, as our Revisionists are perfectly well aware, means, "the sun becoming eclipsed," or "suffering an eclipse,"' the Two Revisers 9p. 60) reply: 'we emphatically deny that there is anything in the Greek word ekleipein when associated with the sun which involves necessarily the notion of an eclipse.' This is a most rash assertion. There can be no doubt that the phrases ekelipen o elios... whenever they occur in the Greek historians, necessarily describe the phenomenon of an astronomical eclipse and nothing else. If, therefore, St. Luke really wrote tou eliou ekleipontos and his Greek is to be construed like that of any other Greek author, it can only be by rendering, 'the sun being eclipsed', and the version adopted by the revisers, 'the sun's light failing,' does NOT convey to the mind of an English reader what the original does to that of a Greek." "Notes on the translation of the N.T." pp. 79,80.

Now let us hear from Salmon:

"I will not lay over-much stress on such cases... as the WH make St. Mark say... that the girl who danced before Herod', was not, as Josephus and other authorities tell us, the daughter of Herodias, by a former husband, but Herod's own daughter, Herodias; that it makes St. Luke call the miraculous darkness at the crucifixion an eclipse of the sun, a thing impossible at the time of full moon." "Some Criticism of the Text of the N.T." pp. 27,28. (Emphasis mine)

Cook says:

"Luke 23:45. After this it is but a minor, though in itself a serious matter, that the Revised Version should make St. Luke relate a physical impossibility, an eclipse of the sun at the full moon.

"This, is, however, somewhat disguised in the English rendering, which gives as 'the sun's light failing', a phrase which, perplexing as it is to the English reader, might leave him unconscious of the meaning, even with the marginal comment, Gr. 'the sun failing', but which in the Greek, which is rendered thus oddly is without ambiguity, 'the sun undergoing an eclipse."This is effected by substituting tou eliop ekleipontos for eskotisthe o elios."

"Observe also that the Revised Version goes some what further then Westcott and Hort. They give the other reading in their margin. The Revised Version implies that it is the true and only Greek rendering.

"For the alteration the responsibility lies with Aleph, B, and L (C is marked by Tischendorf as doubtful), and some few cursives, against all other MSS., nine uncial, nearly all cursives, the best Italic MSS, the Vulgate, the Syraic of Cureton, and others, followed by Tregelles." "Revised Version of the First Three Gospels." pp. 110,111.

From Burgon we read:

"In the meantime, with more of ingenuity than of ingeniousness, our Revisionists attempt to conceal the foolishness of the text of their choice by translating unfairly. They present us with, 'the sun's light failing.' This is a gloss of their own. There is no mention of 'the sun's light' in the Greek. Nor perhaps, if the rationale of the original expression were accurately ascertained, would such a paraphrase of it prove correct. But, in fact, the phrase ekleipsis eliou means 'an eclipse of the sun,' and no other thing. In like manner tou eliou ekleipontos (as our Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means ' the sun becoming eclipsed,' or suffering eclipse.' It is easy for Revisionists to 'emphatically deny that there is anything in the Greek word ekleipein, when associated with the sun, which involves necessarily the notion of an eclipse. The fact referred to may not be so disposed of. It lies outside the province of 'emphatic denial.' Let them ask any Scholar in Europe what tou eliou ekleipentos means; and see if he does not tell them that it can only mean, 'the sun having become eclipsed'! They know this every bit as well as their Reviewer. And they ought either to have had the manliness to render the words faithfully, or else the good sense to let the Greek alone, which they are respectfully, or else the good sense to let the Greek alone, which they are respectfully assured was their only proper course.' "The Revised Version," pp. 64, 65.

And then from Beckett:

"The Revisers knew better than to give us an eclipse at full moon, though the MS man, like not a few modern people, Forget the impossibility, or the technical meaning of that Greek phrase; and so they ride over their own Greek with the flat and dull evasion of 'the sun's light failing! Which is the most likely, that Luke the physician, the best educated of the Evangelists, apart from inspiration, should record a solar eclipse a full moon, or a MS copier make a blunder in attempting an improvement? The revisers are pleased to say the former; and expect the world to agree with them, but I hardly think it will: or on hundreds, if not thousands, of their other bringings up of the AV 'to a-full standard of correction' both of Greek and English." "Revised N.T." p. 47.

These quotations form outstanding scholars show you how that Greek text used by the Revisers required that the Revisers translate "eclipse" and that they dodged the issue. Finally, what does the Spirit of Prophecy say on this?

I quote:

"With amazement angels witnessed the Saviour's despairing agony. The hosts of heaven veiled their faces from the fearful sight. Inanimate nature expressed sympathy with its insulted and dying Author. The sun refused to look upon the awful scene. Its full, bright rays were illuminating the earth at midday, when suddenly it seemed to be blotted out. Complete darkness, like a funeral pall, enveloped the cross. 'There was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.' There was no eclipse or other natural cause for this darkness, which was as deep as midnight without moon or stars. It was a miraculous testimony given by God that the faith of after generations might be confirmed." "Desire of Ages", p. 753. (Emphasis mine)

Here as usual in these crucial passages the Spirit of Prophecy takes its stand with the AV.

Here is a portion of Scripture where the handling is most serious. My Reviewers take me to task because I object to the Revisers setting off the last 12 verses of Mark's gospel to one side, as suspicious. My Reviewers wonder what justice can be found in my saying that this either indicts the church of past ages as a poor keeper and teacher of Holy Writ, or indicts the Revisers as exercising an extreme and unwarrantable license. They say, "from the viewpoint of the MSS." How many MSS?

How do my Reviewers answer the note in the margin of the ARV? It reads: "The two oldest Greek MSS, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the gospel." They ask if I would have the Revisers cover up the truth, or is it more fair to Biblical students to know the truth concerning this passage.

My Reviewers call the Revisers' treatment of this question, "Fair"; fair to what? Fair to God; fair to the truth; fair to the believers, or fair to what? What are the other authorities which omit verses 9 to the end according to the Revisers? Of course we know which are the two oldest Greek manuscripts meant, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Which MSS gave the other ending? What is the other ending? Who are the authorities who support the present ending? Please tell us. Which of the three endings to Mark's gospel is the one to get our vote, (1) The ending before us; (2) the other ending supported by other authorities or (3) the ending which does not exist?- What kind of verses 9-20 shall we tack on to the first eight verses of Mark 16, (1) the twelve verses that we now have here; or (2) the unknown 12 verses referred to by the Revisers in the margin or (3) no verses at all?

The Spirit of Prophecy gives 45 references to the last twelve verses of Mark as we now have them in the King James Version. Does this have any weight with us in deciding whether the 16th chapter of Mark as in the King James Version is God's word, or are the uncertainties of the Revised Version God's word? My Reviewers called the Revisers' treatment of the last twelve verses of Mark, "FAIR". Is it fair to God's word to us to publish in it the good, bad and indifferent, casting doubt upon the good? Do you call it fair treatment of God's word when a doubt on a portion of it is published in the margin? Why did not the Revisers introduce the Bible with a "fair" note, saying, "Much of this Bible is different in different manuscripts; we cannot be sure of much of it." Is not that fair? This is just what the higher critics did to the Old Testament.

Where is there a scripture on which there has been no doubting commentator? Why not be fair? Why not publish a Bible with a big margin and be fair by giving in it all that doubting commentators have found wrong with that passage? Fair! Fair to what? Fair to God, fair to the truth, fair to the saints, or fair to the corruptors of God's word?

But I have something more to say on this. My Reviewers say, (Section III, 11-17), "But it is a fact that in Westcott and Hort's own Greek Testament they include verses 9-20 along with the rest of the chapter without any question in a footnote or elsewhere." I would like to ask my Reviewers where did they get this information? I would like to ask my Reviewers why did they not read the select notes by Hort at the end of the second volume of the WH Greek N.T.? If they had, they would have seen that Hort devotes 21 pages to the condemnation of these last 12 verses. Here are two statements he makes in these select notes:

"Its authorship and its precise date must remain unknown; it is however apparently older than the time when the Canonical Gospels were generally received; for, though it has points of contact with them all, it contains no attempt to harmonize their various representations of the course of events. I manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age." "The New Testament in Greek, Vol. II. Note p.51.

Also in the Greek text itself these verses are closed in brackets. Their statement here is untrue to fact. Do my Reviewers call 21 pages of condemnation on the inclusion of the verses, "Without any question in a footnote or elsewhere"?

Finally, I want to ask my Reviewers if it is really their best judgment that the evidence against verses 9-20 was sufficient to justify the Revisers in casting doubt upon their authenticity by the way they handle them? Do they really endorse such treatment of the Word of God?

In answering the charge that the whole verse, Matt. 17:21 has been left out in the Revised Version, my Reviewers pass it up by calling attention to the margin of the ARV. They have fastened their eyes on only one word in the omitted verse, the word "fasting"; then calling our attention to Mark 9:29 and 1 Cor. 7:5, that these two verses omit' "fasting", they make some statements which could easily be misleading. They say: "An examination of the MSS shows that ten of them, including all of the major ones omit the word fasting' here, while only three secondary ones retain it."

Well that might answer for the two references alluded to following the main text under discussion, but it does not answer the main argument.

It still remains unanswered. The truth of the matter is only two uncials omit Matt. 17:21, namely, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, (See Expositors Greek New Testament, Matt. 17:21) Then my Reviewers ask, "What should the translator do in such a case?" Of course, if the blind follow the blind and the blind fall into a ditch, you might just as well ask the same question, what was the translator to do in such a case? I think we all should see the point and decline as blind, to follow the blind.

This verse is vouched for by every known uncial but 2, every known cursive but 1, and is witnessed to by 8 ancient versions, by 14 of the fathers and above all, by the Universal East. Why then was it left out? (See Burgon, FP 91,92)

I certainly must insist again on the fact that the ARV sets off to one side and brands with suspicion, the account of the woman taken in adultery, John 8:1-11. My Reviewers claim that it is not set off to one side because it is written in full, though enclosed in brackets. I wonder what setting off to one side is, if putting 11 verses in brackets with a big gulf in between them and the rest of the text, and a note in the margin branding them with suspicion does not do it. Nevertheless, modern textual critics condemn this rejection of John 8:1-11. Professor Burkett says:

"The passage in the Gospel of John concerning the woman taken in adultery was one of the regular church lessons. Jerome found it in many Latin and Greek codices, and preserved it in his Vulgate. It is found in 1,650 codices. It seems difficult to account for such a blunder of omission.'" "Bibliotheca Sacra," pp. 32,33.

Sister White uses and refers to this case no less than 12 times; but my Reviewers say that "Westcott and Hort in their Greek Testament place this passage in the list of both suspected and rejected readings," and "scholars must deal with facts as they find them in the best evidence available." Will my hearers agree that Westcott and Hort are the best evidence available over and against the Spirit of Prophecy?

King James: "But He turned and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy man's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village."

Revised: "But He turned and rebuked them. And then went to another village."

My Reviewers defend the omission in Luke 9:55,56 of these words, "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them". Their defense is "for lack of textus evidence". Dean Burgon, on this verse, says, "Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers from the second century downwards, (as Tischendorf admits,) witness eloquently in its favour."

Sister White quotes it:

"They were surprised to see that Jesus was pained by their words, and still more surprised as His rebuke fell upon their ears: "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.'" "Acts of the Apostles," p. 541.

It is marvelous how accurately Erasmus put together the sum total of the Textus Receptus, when after 400 years of most furious attacks we find that verses which a host of people following textual critics left out, must be restored by later and more thorough research.

My Reviewers justify the omission of this verse because besides the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, they have the help of six other MSS, but above all, they think they have the help of Dr. Scrivener. On the other hand, Sister White gives this verse fully, as follows:

"Then Philip . . . began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Vol. 8, p.58.

Here as in many places elsewhere the Spirit of Prophecy shows that the Revised version in not the true, complete, authoritative word of God by quoting a text which the Revised omits as spurious. Other verses she quotes from the Authorized Version, which though included in the Revised, are so treated as to cast doubt upon their authenticity.

King James: "For we are members of his body, of His flesh, and of His bones."

Revised: "Because we are members of His body;"

Because I noticed that the AV says, "we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones" while the ARV says only, "we are members of His body my Reviewers wonder how this effects the meaning, and virtually tell us that the Lord did not need to add "and of his flesh, and of His bones ". An atheist protested to me once about putting in Revelation 7, all the names of the twelve tribes of Israel in a repetitive fashion, when one general summary would have done. But a close study reveals glorious truths in the Lord's doing it this way. I hold that there is a vast difference between saying, "We are members of His body", and saying "We are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones". In the change in this text doctrine is affected.

It is peculiar that my Reviewers do not use here this generally used argument on textual attestation. They use a theological argument to sustain them in the cutting down of this verse. On the genuineness of these words Burgon and Miller say:

"Yet are the words genuine. They are found in DFGKLP and the whole body of the cursives; in the Old Latin and Vulgate and the two Syriac Versions:" and then they name many Fathers.

Thus by theological arguments sometimes, mainly by an appeal to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus MSS, (which are sometimes supported by a few other authorities), verses of Holy Writ, which for 400 years have led the great Protestant world forward in magnificent triumph, are cut down. Brethren, I appeal to you, if we start on this road, where will it end?

King James: "He that leadeth into captivity, shall go into captivity."

ARV: "If any man is for captivity, into captivity he goeth."

I claim that the ARV had changed it from a prophecy to an axiomatic statement and in the margin put a black mark against it. My Reviewers completely passed over this damaging evidence. "A straight line is the shortest distance between two points" is axiomatic; so is, "if any man is for captivity, into captivity he goeth." Well, I am not for captivity, who is? Thus a glorious prophecy of the papacy going into captivity is changed into an axiomatic statement. Since Rev. 13:10 is a verse Adventist preachers greatly use in their sermons on the United States in Prophecy, would you like to know what is said of it in the margin? The margin brands it this way: "The Greek text in this verse is somewhat uncertain." Do you call this enlightening? Sister White did not think it was uncertain. She quoted the verse entire in "Great Controversy" page 439, just as it is in the King James Version. Does this not mean anything to us as Seventh-day Adventists?

ANSWERS-TOC

NEXT