The topic of Bible versions has frequently generated much discussion among Adventists, and this goes back over 100 years. Here on this forum, multiple topics have been opened on this subject, including these:

King James Bible vs newer versions

Bible Doctrines affected by Modern Versions

Why the King James Version is Superior...

However, while arguments about what Ellen White may have opined on the topic have been sought for, and her usage of multiple versions discussed--usually as a point in favor of new revisions, very little has been found to support what she actually taught on this matter.

Some may feel that, if she was silent on the topic, it must not be important. Some may feel her use of versions other than the King James Version (KJV) is a broad endorsement to newer translations.

BUT THE TRUTH IS SHOCKING.

After you see what she REALLY taught on this topic, you may experience a little "righteous indignation," as I have, over why the Ellen White Estate seems to have kept these statements tucked away for so long, finally releasing them with the trove of online material that now anyone can access. Even now, there is no fanfare to these statements, and if one knows not where to look, they will likely remain in the recesses of obscurity.

It is clear that souls will be lost over this issue, and the lack of clarity on it, dating back to the Bible Conference of 1919, will have everlasting results.

If only I had had this information many years ago...but it only came to my attention not long before the COVID crisis began. Until a friend forwarded me a partial set of these statements, I had blindly assumed, as have many others, that Mrs. White never wrote on the issue. My posts in the archives of the links listed above show that I was ignorant of these statements. I have since found more on my own, and perhaps I have not exhausted them yet.

I trust Mrs. White. Even if she were to write against my opinion, I would desire that my opinion be changed, for the truth is the truth. As there are a number of statements on the matter, I will let the weight of them soak in individually, one at a time. Feel free to comment or discuss the statements as they appear here.

Again, if only I had had this information back in 2013 when we were discussing "Why the King James Version is Superior," and similar topics!

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here's one statement. Expect more, and stronger statements to come.



For a refresher, here's what it says in Revelation about changing the wording of the Bible:



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The most accurate scriptures are, of course the originals, in their original languages.

Only problem is that the originals were written thousands of years ago. We are dependent upon people who carefully wrote out copies of the original scriptures.

So first we need to know which of these copies (in the original language) accurately contain the original words.

Seems that through the centuries there were two main streams of manuscripts.
--One comes to us through the Catholic church (which early translated to Latin, plus two or three Greek manuscripts have been found dating to about Constantine's time )
--The other "received" strain comes to us mainly from outside the Catholic church. There are hundreds of Greek manuscripts with remarkable identical reading.

Bible versions based on the latter "received text" are deemed the closest to the original -- and in the English language the King James Version is generally considered the closest to the received text.

Personally I like to have the King James Version as the basic Bible for study. Yet, there are other translations that still stick pretty close to a "literal" translation that bring out meaning from texts that are missed when reading the King James, simply because they use language we are more familiar with.
Nice to have interlinear resources when there is doubt to check to see what words were actually used in the Greek received manuscripts.

Of even greater concern is the difference between "literal translation" and "thought' or paraphrase translations.
The literal translational seeks to translate the words accurately from the Greek or Hebrew, while the second translates the verse to say what they think it means.
There are wide variations in meaning in many of these Bible versions.


It's in these more loosely translated paraphrases and "thought" translations that we see a lot more outright REWRITING and rewording to make the Bible say sometimes the exact opposite of what it actually says.

Take for example a text often used against Sabbath keepers --

Colossians 2:16-17 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, Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. KJV

Nothing in that text says anything about doing away with the Sabbath.
It does say "don't let anyone judge you in respect of.....
Doesn't say there's a shadow which is now fulfilled
but there is a shadow of things still coming.
Doesn't say anything about temporal Jewish rules that are now ended.
The "body" (sōma) means "body" and refers to the church -- and Christ is the Head.
for we see in the fnext verses -
the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you...in worshipping angels...and not holding to the Head from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment....

Now look at these Bibles --

NIV 12:6 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

They added quite a few descriptive words.
They changed the future tense (is to come) to a past tense (were to come) in verse 17, and changed the rest of the verse.

The Living Bible goes even further, changing the meaning by adding all kinds of things.

16 So don?t let anyone criticize you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating Jewish holidays and feasts or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths. 17 For these were only temporary rules that ended when Christ came. They were only shadows of the real thing?of Christ himself.

The ASV is closer

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: 17 which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ?s. 18 Let no man rob you of your prize by a voluntary humility and worshipping of the angels...19and not holding fast the Head, from whom all the body, being supplied and knit together ....

Statement #2:



Does a Luciferian revision of the Bible sound attractive to you? Ellen White is clear that Lucifer's party on earth, including members of the angel choir that followed him in his rebellion in heaven, "will make revisions of the Bible." Clearly, those revisions are unsafe. And we must avoid them. This puts a bit more "spark" to the discussion of Bible versions--but the full gravity of the situation is more fully disclosed in yet another quote to come.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Interesting EGW quotes.

Keep them coming.

Statement #3:



This is a simple message here: We should not be among those who are changing the Word.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Is the 1611 KJV a better/more accurate translation than the KJV of today?

What is Ellen White talking about here? What is the context, what is she implying is specifically being changed?

Statement #4:



This message seems particularly appropriate in the era of COVID. There is more here than first meets the eye. You may wish to read carefully, with a mind open to themes beyond that of Bible translations merely. But, speaking of them laying "their sacrilegious hands on the scriptures," have you heard that the Chinese government is producing a new Bible translation? Yes, they want to make one that is more friendly to the ideals of Communism. This, of course, is an extreme example, and would probably not work so well in the West. But Satan is adaptable, and finds ways to work in every locality.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Statement #5:



The statement speaks for itself. Note that "would" has more significance than merely the future-conditional context we ordinarily use it for nowadays.

One more statement before the "bombshell" comes...then on to application of these to the inspired writings of Mrs. White herself. If God's Word will be tampered with, what immunity would her writings have?

I realize that some will have theological difficulties with the fact that God, who says He will preserve His Word, would allow corruptions of it to exist. But there is a preserved line of manuscripts for the Bible and anyone who is honest in heart and seeks for this can find it. Some of our past discussions on Bible versions highlighted them: we have the "Majority Text" and the "Minority Text": Perhaps more on those later.

"Truth is the first casualty of war."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.