7. Other Doctrines; the Jehovah's Witnesses

8. Jehovah's Witnesses, Cont.; Plagiarism

7. Other Doctrines; the Jehovah’s Witnesses

#86, #87, & #88: "Other heretical Adventist doctrines include the teaching that Christ's atonement for sins on the cross was incomplete, that Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel, and that there is no hell."

#86: Adventists teach that Christ's atonement on the cross was incomplete. This is not true. If Adventists did teach this, they would be contradicting Mrs. White:

The great sacrifice of the Son of God was neither too great nor too small to accomplish the work. In the wisdom of God it was complete; and the atonement made testifies to every son and daughter of Adam the immutability of God's law. - Signs of the Times, Dec. 30, 1889.

God has accepted the offering of his Son as a complete atonement for the sins of the world.-Youth's Instructor, Sept. 20, 1900.

The only evidence for this point offered by the documentation package, under "Point 43," is a comment by Mrs. White cited in The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (vol. 7, p. 933). This comment doesn't say that Christ's atonement on the cross was incomplete. If it did say this, then we would have her contradicting herself. Rather, it merely refers to the Day of Atonement services, which Adventists feel did not end at the cross. Thus the charge stands totally unproven.

What is meant by "did not end" is this: The sacrifice offered on the Day of Atonement was fulfilled at the cross, just like all sacrifices were. However, Adventists believe that what the priest did after the sacrifice largely concerns events after October 22, 1844.

Technically, the correct way to view the atonement is probably to consider "the" atonement to be the entire plan of salvation, composed of several different facets. Each of these facets could be called "an" atonement. "The" atonement would thus be made up of a number of "an" atonements.

For instance, biblically speaking, Christ's interces­sory work that He began when He ascended to heaven after His resurrection could be called "an" atonement. So while the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is "a" complete atonement, so also is His intercessory work "a" complete atonement.

According to Leviticus 4 and 5, an atonement was made after the sin offering was slain. The sacrifice provided the atoning blood, which the priest then used to make an atonement for the sinner. This suggests that there was some sort of atoning work for Christ to engage in after His death on Calvary, which at least consisted of His intercession for us.

While Christ's atonement on the cross was complete, the plan of salvation was not over at that point. As Paul said, "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins" (1 Cor. 15:17). All must therefore agree that the plan of salvation was not yet completed until at the very least Christ's resurrection, even though His atonement on the cross was complete three days before.

 #87: The idea that Michael the Archangel is Christ is heresy. So is the video calling Charles Spurgeon a heretic?

Let the Lord Jesus Christ be for ever endeared to us .... He it is whose camp is round about them that fear Him; He is the true Michael whose foot is upon the dragon. All hail, Jesus! thou Angel of Jehovah's presence, to Thee this family offers its morning vows. Morning and Evening Daily Readings, p. 556.

Michael will always fight; his holy soul is vexed with sin, and will not endure it. Jesus will always be the dragon's foe, and that not in a quiet sense, but actively, vigorously, with full determination to exterminate evil. -Ibid. p. 673.

Is the video calling the learned Baptist commentator, John Gill, a heretic? Commenting on Jude 9 he wrote:

Yet Michael the archangel, &c.] By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? and from his character as the archangel, or Prince of angels, for Christ is the head of all principality and power; and from what is elsewhere said of Michael, as that he is the great Prince, and on the side of the people of God, and to have angels under him, and at his command, Dan. 10:21,12:1; Rev. 12:7. So Philo the Jew ]o) calls the most ancient Word, firstborn of God, the archangel   ill's Expositor and the Body of Divinity.

Notice how Gill equated "archangel" with "Prince of angels." Indeed, archo is a Greek word that means "to rule," so "ruler of the angels" is an acceptable definition of "archangel."

Commenting on Revelation 12:7, Gill wrote:

Michael and his angels fought against the dragon: by whom is meant not a created angel, with whom his name does not agree, it signifying "who is as God"; nor does it appear that there is anyone created angel that presides over the rest, and has them at his command. Ibid.

Commenting on Daniel 12:1, he wrote:

And at that time shall Michael stand up, &c.] The Archangel, who has all the angels of heaven under him, and at his command, the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ; who is as God, as the name signifies, truly and really God, and equal in nature, power, and glory, to his divine Father       Ibid.

Another writer of a popular commentary was Matthew Henry. Is the video calling him a heretic too?

Daniel 12:1

Vs. 1-4: Michael signifies, "Who is like God," and his name, with the title of "the great Prince," points out the Divine Savior.-Concise Commentary, p. 1128.

Michael and his angels fight against the devil and his angels, who are defeated. (7-12) .... Revelation 12:7

Vs. 7-11: The attempts of the dragon proved unsuccessful against the church, and fatal to his own interests. The seat of this war was in heaven; in the church of Christ, the kingdom of heaven on earth. The parties were Christ, the great Angel of the covenant, and his faithful followers; and Satan and his instruments.-Ibid., p. 1719.

Is the video also calling the writer of the notes of the 1599 Geneva Bible a heretic?

Even though God could by one angel destroy all the world, yet to assure his children of his love he sends forth double power, even Michael, that is, Christ Jesus the head of angels. -note for Dan. 10:13.

The angel here notes two things: first that the Church will be in great affliction and trouble at Christ's coming, and next that God will send his angel to deliver it, whom he here calls Michael, meaning Christ, who is proclaimed by the preaching of the Gospel.-note for Dan. 12:1.

There must be some reason why these great Bible students of old, as well as many others, felt that Michael was another name for Christ, the divine Son of God. We'll revisit this issue under #93 and #207 ff.

 #88: Adventists teach that there is no hell. To the contrary, Adventists have always taught that there is a hell.

If this charge be true, why did Mrs. White write, "Few believe with heart and soul that we have a hell to shun and a heaven to win"? (Desire of Ages, p. 636). The phrases "heaven to win" and "hell to shun" are found together at least 36 times in her writings.

This charge is "substantiated" under "Point 45" in the documentation package by a paragraph from Mind,

Character, and Personality, volume 2, page 454. In this quotation Mrs. White suggests that some have worried so much about burning eternally for their sins that they have lost their reason. Yet while she thus calls into question the doctrine of an eternally-burning hell, she nowhere denies the reality of hell with its literal fire. More will be said on this later under #160, but suffice it to say for now, the charge stands unproven in the documentation package.

#89: "During the mid-1800's, within a few years of each other, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Seventh-day Adventists were all presenting doctrines contrary to those held by traditional Bible believers."

#89: They teach doctrines contrary to tradition. The same could be said about nearly every church in existence today. They each proclaimed doctrines contrary to the traditions of the times. When the popular churches rejected the new doctrines discov­ered in the Bible, the people who wanted to stay true to Scripture started a new church.

Even Jesus opposed the traditional beliefs of His day:

He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. (Mark 7:6-13)

The most basic principle of Protestantism is Sola Scriptura, or, the Bible and the Bible only. It used to be that tradition was considered subordinate to the authority of Scripture by Protestants. Alas, times have changed to the point that churches are being condemned on videos if they don't follow tradition.

Yet notice the contradiction: Michael being a name for Christ the Son of God was a popular traditional belief (see #87). If teaching doctrines contrary to tradition is wrong, then this video is wrong in calling the idea that Michael is Christ a heresy. It is also wrong for condemning the idea that the 2300 days would end around 1844 (see #64).

By associating Adventism with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Scientists, the video apparently is trying to suggest that if these other groups aren't Christian, then neither is Adventism. But that isn't necessarily true.

#90 & #91: "Many of the doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists are similar. This is because they had common roots. The founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, even co-authored a book called The Three Worlds with N. H. Barbour, an early Adventist. "

#90: Many doctrines are similar. Find a Jehovah's Witness who knows what Adventists believe, and see if he agrees that "many" of their doctrines are similar. You'll be hard pressed.

The use of the word "many" is a gross exaggera­tion. It's like saying that "many" of the beliefs of a particular church are similar to those of Jehovah's Witnesses simply because both believe that we will spend the millennium on earth. Out of Christian courtesy, such exaggerations should be avoided.

Some groups do not believe that the New Jerusa­lem is a literal city with walls and gates, just like the Jehovah's Witnesses. Likewise many groups believe that the six days of creation were not literal days, just like the Jehovah's Witnesses. Do these similarities justify the statement that "many" of their doctrines are similar?

For the reader's information, Adventists disagree with Jehovah's Witnesses on each of the above three doctrinal points: the millennium, the nature of the New Jerusalem, and the days of creation. They do agree with them regarding baptism by immersion, as do the Baptists and other groups.

Jehovah's Witnesses use Sunday as their major meeting day, just like most other churches. Does this make "many" of their doctrines similar?

Their theology has changed over the years, as has the theology of many Protestant denominations.

Adventism used to be more in agreement with all of them, but their theology has changed.

 #91: N. H. Barbour was an early Adventist. What does Mrs. Martin mean by early Adventist? Does she mean a Millerite? A first-day Adventist? A Seventh­day Adventist? She later calls Uriah Smith an "early Adventist" as well. Smith was a Millerite for a few months at the age of twelve after being baptized in the early summer of 1844. After October 22 he lost interest in religion, but later became a Sabbath­keeping Adventist in 1852. It would therefore appear that Mrs. Martin is calling Barbour an early Seventh­day Adventist. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that Barbour was ever a Seventh-day Adventist.

Barbour was a part of a group that was predicting that Christ would return in 1874. When Christ did not come as expected, Barbour decided that He really had come, only invisibly. He convinced Russell of this unscriptural doctrine in 1876 (Charles Taze Russell in The Finished Mystery, p. 54).

If Barbour had accepted the Sabbath, the sanctuary message, and the investigative judgment doctrine as taught by Seventh-day Adventists, he would not have predicted Christ's return in 1874. He also would not have given up his faith in the literal return of Christ. Hence, he would not have led Russell astray by convincing him that Christ had come after all in 1874. The truth of the matter is, if Barbour had become a Seventh-day Adventist, Russell would never have started the Jehovah's Witnesses!

While "Point 46" in the documentation package proves that Barbour co-authored a book with Russell, it says nothing about him being an early Adventist (see also #98).

#92 & #93: "Both Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses still cling to the heresies of soul sleep and Michael the Archangel being Jesus."

#92: Soul sleep is a heresy. Yet this makes a heretic out of Martin Luther, father of the Protestant Reformation. Hear what he had to say on the subject:

"For just as one who falls asleep and reaches morning unexpectedly when he awakes, without knowing what has happened to him, so we shall suddenly rise on the last day without knowing how we have come into death and through death." "We shall sleep, until He comes and knocks on the little grave and says, Doctor Martin, get up! Then I shall rise in a moment and be happy with Him for­ever." -Froom, Conditionalist Faith, vol. 2, pp. 74, 75.

Commenting on Ecclesiastes 9:10, Luther wrote: "Another proof that the dead are insensible."-Ibid., vol. 2, p. 77. Quite strong was the following:

But I permit the Pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful, such as [1] The Bread and wine are transubstantiated in the sacrament. [2] The essence of God neither generated, nor is generated. [3] The soul is the substantial form of the human body. [4] The Pope is the emperor of the world, and the king of heaven, and God upon earth. [5] THE SOUL IS IMMORTAL, with all those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals Ibid., vol. 2, p. 73.

But if Martin Luther is a heretic, he's in good company, for John Wycliffe was of the same opinion about death (Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 57-59). So was William Tyndale: "And ye, in putting them [departed souls] in heaven, hell, and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrect­ion."-Ibid. vol. 2, p. 94. And the apostle Peter:

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.... For David is not ascended into the heavens. (Acts 2:29, 34)

Many more names could be added of Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Catholics, and Presbyterians who believed the same. Even Pope John XXII in the fourteenth century believed that the soul of the deceased does not stand in the presence of God until after the resurrection (Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 35-37).

Unlike Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that there are some today who do not sleep when they die, but go straight to heaven. This group they identify as the 144,000.

#93: Michael being Christ is a heresy. There are two problems with this charge.

First, it dispenses with and declares worthless one of the most potent arguments to convince the Jews about the deity of Christ. Various rabbis have taught that Michael the Archangel is a divine being, a being named "Jehovah," the high priest of the heavenly sanctuary, the mediator and deliverer of Israel, and one who sits at the right hand of God (Robert Leo Odom, Israel's Angel Extraordinary). Sounds like Christ, doesn't it?

This concept explains why we have so many Old Testament Scriptures talking about an "angel" who is God. More obvious examples of such Scriptures include:

And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob .... I am the God of Bethel. (Gen. 31:11, 13)

And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads. (Gen. 48:15, 16)

And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush .... God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses.... Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. And the LORD said .... (Ex. 3:2-7)

The word "LORD" in all caps in the King James Version indicates that the Hebrew word is Yahweh, commonly pronounced "Jehovah." Therefore, in this last passage "the angel" is plainly called both "God" and Jehovah.

But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. (Judg. 13:21-23)

The next two passages must be put together:

And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.... And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.... And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. (Gen. 32:24-30)

Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us; Even the LORD God of hosts; the LORD is his memorial. (Hos. 12:4, 5)

According to Genesis, Jacob wrestled with God. According to Hosea, he wrestled with "the angel" who is called Yahweh. Over and over again we have a divine Angel appearing who is called God and Yahweh. Could this "angel" who is God be God the Father? Not according to the New Testament:

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (John 1:18)

And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. (John 5:37)

The Greek and Hebrew words for "angel" simply mean "messenger." Sometimes they are used in Scripture to refer to human messengers, sometimes to Christ, and sometimes to the angels of heaven. The angels of heaven are called "angels" because their primary function is that of being "messengers" for God.

Indisputably, the supreme messenger of all is Christ: "Neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him" (Mat. 11:27). And this is precisely who King Nebuchadnezzar said the "angel" was:

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.... Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him. (Dan. 3:25, 28)

The second problem with calling these ideas heretical is that one can slip into the heresy of polytheism. If this divine "angel" the Bible speaks about is not Christ, who is it? If we have the Bible calling mere angels "god" and yahweh, then we have the Bible teaching that there is more than one God!

Unlike Seventh-day Adventists, most Jehovah's Witnesses will protest strongly to the following ideas:

1. Jesus is divine.

2. Jesus is God.

3. Jesus can be called Jehovah.

Want to read more of what the Bible says on the subject? Check out "An 'Angel' Named Yahweh" and "The Divine Christ in the Old Testament" posted at www.picklepublishing.com/papers

#94: "Early prominent Adventists, including James White and Uriah Smith, denied the deity of Jesus Christ, as do the Jehovah's Witnesses."

#94: Uriah Smith and James White denied the deity of Christ. This is simply not true. The documen­tation package under "Point 48" and "Point 48a" gives no evidence to support such a claim. To the contrary, it cites James White as writing in 1877 that "ultra Unitarianism that makes Christ inferior to the Father is worse. Did God say to an inferior, 'Let us make man in our image?' "

James White repeatedly called Jesus "the divine Son of God" (Bible Hygiene, pp. 192, 203; The Law and the Gospel, p. 14; Life Incidents, p. 357; The Redeemer and Redeemed, p. 46). Uriah Smith called him "God's divine Son" (The Biblical Institute, p. 140). Smith emphatically stated that Christ is not a created being, and opposed such a teaching (Daniel and the Revela­tion, pp. 400, 430; Looking Unto Jesus, pp. 3-4, 10, 12, 18,20-21).

White, Smith, and others reacted against certain speculations of their time regarding the Godhead. Their reactions are assumed to be a denial of belief in what the Bible teaches about the Trinity, making this charge in the video all too common. But such an assumption is unwarranted in light of three popular speculations about the Godhead that they reacted against.

1. A catechism from one church and a book from another taught the following: God is composed of three persons and is "without body or parts," but the second person definitely has a body! This view was criticized in the March 7, 1854, issue of the Review and Herald, page 50.

Early Seventh-day Adventists advocated taking the Bible literally unless there was an obvious symbol used. They saw such views of the Godhead as not doing this, since the Bible describes God as having a form and sitting on His throne in Heaven (e.g. Rev. 4:2, 3).

Just as they rejected views that spiritualized away the literalness of the second coming, so also they rejected views that spiritualized away the personality of God.

2. Some views of the Trinity did not make the Father and Christ to be separate persons. This can readily be concluded from the documentation package's "Point 48." Joseph Bates is quoted as writing: "Respecting the trinity, I concluded that it was an impossibility for me to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, was also the Almighty God, the Father, one and the same being."

3. The orthodox view of the Trinity includes an aspect that speculates regarding when Christ was begotten. Most believers are unaware of this aspect called the "processions." It teaches that the Son proceeded forth from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeded forth from both the Father and the Son. Yet, since God is outside of time, there never was a time when one of the three did not exist. So Jesus was begotten and proceeded forth, but that's not to say that He hasn't always been.

Pope John Paul II's views, found in Hogan and LeVoir's Faith for Today (complete with Imprimatur), describes this position pretty well. John Paul believes that the Father's self-concept, unlike our self-concept, is real. In God's "consciousness" was "an identical image of Himself," and that is how the Son was begotten. "The consciousness of the Father and the Son contains an inner reflection and image of Their act of Love," and that is how the Holy Spirit proceeded forth (pp. 12-14)

A 1933 English translation of a standard Dutch catechism, published in India, describes the processions in essentially the same way (J. F. De Groot, Catholic Teaching, pp. 99, 100).

A priest this writer heard lecture on the right to life included material in his talk about the Trinity. He said that when the Father and Son looked at each other, they had love for each other, and they sighed, and that was "the Holy Sigh."

And yet, though the Son and the Spirit came forth, They always have been, since God and the processions are outside of time (Hogan and Levoir, p. 14). Sounds a bit contradictory? These early Seventh-day Adventists thought so.

They apparently had no problem with the general idea of the processions, judging from what little they wrote on that topic, but they just couldn't be dogmatic about both God and the processions being outside of time. So can we with a clear conscience call men cultists and non-Christians who wanted to take the Bible just as it reads and not speculate like this?

#95 & #96: "Both Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists have produced their own altered versions of the Bible to reflect their aberrant doctrines. Both have set false dates for the return of Jesus Christ, and failed miserably to prophesy correctly."

#95: Both have produced altered versions of the Bible. The version used by the Jehovah's Witnesses is called the New World Translation. In its very title it thus claims to be a version or translation, while The Clear Word's preface distinctly says that it is not such. This charge is therefore false (see #80).

The documentation package under "Point 49" clearly proves that the Watch Tower Society, the organiza­tion behind the Jehovah's Witnesses, has produced its own official version. It is the publisher and it holds the copyright. In contrast, "Point 49a" proves that Dr. Blanco's The Clear Word is but a paraphrase, and that he is the publisher and copyright holder, not the church. Therefore, it can't even truthfully be said that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has produced its own paraphrase.

While paraphrases by their very nature interweave interpretations into the text, translations are not supposed to. However, as in the case of the New World Translation, they sometimes do.

#96: Both have set dates for Christ's return. Mrs. Martin would be hard pressed to prove that Seventh­day Adventists have ever set dates for Christ's return, other than a renegade member now and then. Ever since they were organized as a denomination in 1863, they have never predicted a date for the second coming.

So is Mrs. Martin referring to some incident before 1863? Let's examine the historical facts.

In the July 21, 1851, Review Extra, Mrs. White published a vision of the previous September that opposed predicting dates for Christ's return (cf. Early Writings, p. 75), a vision the video itself quoted from under #14. Before even this, in 1845 we have her opposing some first-day Adventists who were setting dates (Early Writings, p. 22; Arthur White, vol. 1, p. 91). That takes us just about back to 1844.

And what about 1844? In January of that year there were no Sabbath-keeping Adventists, all Millerites being Sunday keepers. Sometime between that spring and the end of the year, a single congregation in Washington, New Hampshire, began to keep the Sabbath.

James and Ellen White did not become Sabbatarian Adventists until 1846. So before Ellen White became a Seventh-day Adventist, she was already opposing the setting of dates for the second coming.

It was Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians who predicted the dates of 1843 and October 22, 1844, not Seventh-day Adventists. The group that became the Seventh-day Adventist Church was the group of Millerites which took a firm position against setting any more dates for Christ's coming.

In contrast, Jehovah's Witnesses, or more correctly, the Watchtower Society, set a number of dates from 1914 to 1975. Yet the video is even wrong here. Not one of the Watchtower dates was a prediction of Christ's return. When Barbour convinced Russell that Christ had really come in 1874 after all, it was already 1876, and the Watchtower Society did not yet exist. Likewise, the 1914 date for Christ's coming did not replace 1874 until the early 1930's. So with both the 1874 and the 1914 dates, the Watchtower adopted them as dates for Christ's return after the fact. They were not predictions.

Mrs. Martin wouldn't likely be an expert at Watchtower doctrines, even though the video presents her as such. But the one who wrote the script should be. Lorri MacGregor used to be a Jehovah's Witness, and her ministry is dedicated to disseminating "facts" about Watchtower doctrines.

Under "Point 50," the documentation package is supposed to prove that the Watchtower set dates for Christ's coming. However, it instead proves that they continued to teach as late as 1929 that Christ had come in 1874, thus showing that the Watchtower never predicted Christ's return in 1914. Regarding their predicting Christ's return in 1874, not one pre­1874 publication of the then non-existent Watchtower Society is cited.

#97: "Both have covered up their errors and claimed to be the only remnant church in the world."

#97: Both claim to be the only remnant church. Under "Point 52a" in the documentation package is proof that Jehovah's Witnesses do not teach that they are the remnant church, contrary to what Mrs. Martin just said.

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the 144,000 are the only ones who go to heaven, few of these still being on earth today. The rest of the redeemed they believe will stay on earth. The photocopy under "Point 52a" plainly says that this latter group, the "earthly class" or "bridesmaids," are not the remnant. Only the 144,000, the "heavenly class" or "bridal congrega­tion," are:

Of course these figurative bridesmaids do not expect to go to heaven with the "remnant," but they honor the heavenly King and his Bridegroom Son, and show due respect for the remnant of the Bridal congregation.-The Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1974.

Thus Witnesses teach that only a very minute portion of their numbers are the remnant. How minute? Of 10,650,158 Witnesses who attended the 1991 Memorial Service (communion service), only 8,850 believed they were part of the 144,000 (E. B. Price, Our Friends the Jehovah's Witnesses, p. 47). That means that in 1991, only .0831% of Jehovah's Witnesses were the remnant while 99.9169% were not, according to their own beliefs. And since the remaining 144,000 are quite advanced in years, thisproportion decreases every passing year.

Seventh-day Adventists base their teaching of the remnant primarily on Revelation 12:17. "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev. 12:17). First of all, what does this woman symbolize? All through Scripture, a woman is used to symbolize God's people or church:

Turn, 0 backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you. (Jer. 3:14)

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; (Eph. 5:23-25)

We therefore have in Revelation 12:17 a picture of God's last day people, His remnant church. They are described as keeping God's commandments and having the testimony of Jesus. What is Jesus's testimony? How does He testify to us when He isn't here in person?

Yet the LORD testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes. (2 Kings 17:13)

Yet many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy spirit in thy prophets. (Neh. 9:30)

Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, ... Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (1 Pet. 1:10, 11)

So when Jesus is not here in person to give His testimony, He testifies by His Spirit through a prophet. This is why the book of Revelation equates the "testimony of Jesus" with the "spirit of prophecy":

I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (Rev. 19:10)

Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets. (Rev. 22:9)

Thus the remnant church is a church that keeps all of God's commandments and has the gift of prophecy. Find a church that meets that description, and you have found the remnant church of Bible prophecy.

8. Jehovah's Witnesses, Cont.; Plagiarism

#98 & #99: "Both have been guilty of plagiarism of earlier works without giving credit to the previous authors."

#98: Both plagiarized. If this charge is true, it can't be proven by the "evidence" in the documentation package.

In the index under "Point 53," it says: "Both SDA's and JW's are guilty of plagiarism of earlier works. The SDA section is documented under point 54 and the JW plagiarism is listed here." When one turns to "Point 53," one finds a single sheet put together by a Mr. Gary Busselman from South Dakota. This sheet purports to contain an outline of history about the Witnesses. The only evidence that one finds on this sheet even remotely connected to this charge is the following:

John Aquila Brown: published in book, Even-Tide (1823), his interpretation of the "seven times" of Daniel, by means of the day-year formula, to produce 2520 years, in exactly the same way as the Watch­tower Society does today, except he started with 604 BC and ended up with 1917 AD. This 29 years before C. T. Russell was born, 47 years before C. T. Russell started his Bible study group, and 50+ years before the book "Three Worlds" was written.

A major problem with this is that Brown was from Britain. Did Russell ever hear of Brown's work, let alone read it? The documentation package is advertised as "substantiating the information contained in this program." Yet no demonstration of a connection between Brown's book and any Watchtower publica­tion is even attempted. If the Watchtower really plagiarized Brown's book, where is the evidence?

Besides, Busselmari s sheet is unreliable. It says that "Ellen White ... founded the Second Advent Movement, the present Seven-Day [sic] Adventist group" after splitting off from the "Miller movement." However, the Millerite Movement was the "Second Advent Movement," or at least a very prominent part of it, and Mrs. White didn't found it. She was only four years old when Miller started preaching!

Busselman's sheet also says that "William Miller" "quit the movement he founded when his predictions, called the 'great disappointment of 1844,' failed." This is very slightly true. He officially quit the movement in December 1849 when he died. As he was dying he said to "Brother Bosworth": "Tell them (the brethren) we are right. The coming of the Lord draweth nigh; but they must be patient, and wait for him."-Bliss, p. 377.

Perhaps Busselman's sheet is the reason why the video leaves the impression that N. H. Barbour was a Seventh-day Adventist. The sheet identifies Barbour, Paton, and Wendell as being Second Adventists. Since it says that Mrs. White started the "Second Advent Movement," this leaves the impression that Barbour, Paton, and Wendell were Seventh­day Adventists. In actuality, they were Advent Christians, not Seventh-day Adventists.

 #99: Both were "guilty" of this crime. One other problem with claiming that the Witnesses were "guilty" of plagiarizing Brown's book is this: Since Brown was from Britain, his book was fully in the public domain. There was no copyright protection in America on British books written prior to July 1, 1891 (Nichol, pp. 454, 455). Thus it is incorrect for anyone to say that the Witnesses were "guilty" of plagiarizing Brown's book.

 #100: "In 1982 an Adventist pastor, Walter T. Rea, released this book, The White Lie. It was dedicated to all those who would rather believe a bitter truth than a sweet lie. He loved Mrs. White's writings and thought that he should read what she read. He began to see huge amounts of plagiarism in her writings."

#100: The book tells you about a bitter truth. The bitter "truth" that The White Lie teaches is a "truth" that is totally repugnant to evangelicals who believe in the final authority of Scripture:

Used in all Seventh-day Adventist schools and colleges as authoritative on Old Testament matters, Patriarchs and Prophets has been accepted by Adventists as the final word. No deviation from this norm is accepted in matters of ideas concerning Creation, geology, theology, or Christology.-p. 73, italics added.

This statement by Mr. Rea strongly suggests that he does not believe what the Bible says about Creation and Noah's Flood. Otherwise, why would he be critical of Adventist schools that do not allow deviations from Mrs. White's endorsement of the biblical accounts of a six-day creation and the origin of the geologic column?

When the present writer asked Lorri MacGregor, the video's script writer, about evidence for the long­ago debunked lawsuit myth (see #103&105), she suggested that he call Mr. Rea. In talking with him, this writer asked if his reasons for not believing in Mrs. White could also be applied to the Bible. He proceeded to say that he:

1. does not take the Bible literally,

2. does not believe in a world-wide flood,

3. does not believe that God told Abraham to offer up Isaac, and

4. does not believe God told the Israelites to slay the Canaanites.-Jan. 4, 2000.

Mrs. White wrote:

It is Satan's plan to weaken the faith of God's people in the Testimonies. Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition.-Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 211.

Whether one believes in Mrs. White or not, she had a point. Many of those who like Mr. Rea have given up faith in her writings have also come not to believe what the Bible says. It is no longer the authority to them that it once was. This kind of thing is all too common.

And why is this? Because the same arguments used against Mrs. White's inspiration either can be or are used against the Bible's inspiration too (see #101).

Seventh-day Adventists take the Bible just as it reads:

1. They believe that Jesus created the world in six literal days about 6000 years ago.

2. They believe that sin entered the world at the fall of Adam and Eve, and that death did not exist until after the Fall.

3. They believe that there was a world-wide flood in Noah's day that buried everything.

4. As a very natural conclusion of the above three Bible-based beliefs, they also believe that the fossils in the earth must be those of the creatures that were buried during the Flood.

Mrs. White's writings clearly endorse the above Bible-based beliefs. This is why some Adventists of a liberal bent would like to see Adventism jettison her writings. Generally, Adventists think she was a prophet. Since she endorsed what the Bible says about Creation and the Flood, faith in her writings is a major obstacle to liberal Adventists who would rather see the church adopt evolution. Thus her writings must be attacked.

Too bad every denomination doesn't have someone who spoke "with prophetic authority" about how we should take what the Bible says about Creation and the Flood literally. We would then not have so many denominations today openly teaching that evolution is a fact and that the Bible accounts are a lie. You see, Mrs. White's writings have helped the Adventist Church retain its conservative stance on these issues.

Do you really want to accept the bitter "truth" that The White Lie endorses?

To be fair to Mr. Rea, it should be added that despite his views on Mrs. White's inspiration, he still considers her writings to be very inspirational. He particularly enjoys her Christ's Object Lessons on the parables of Jesus, and Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing on Christ's Sermon on the Mount. Grab a copy and see if you can figure out why he likes them so much.

#101: Her inspiration was borrowed from others without giving credit. The problem with this argument is that it directly undermines the authority of the Scriptures.

Anyone reading Matthew, Mark, and Luke can tell that someone borrowed from someone without giving credit. Does that mean that Luke got his "supposed inspiration" from Matthew? Should we conclude that Luke was therefore a false prophet?

The books of Kings and 2 Chronicles are awfully similar in many places, and some of Chronicles's genealogies are found elsewhere. Parts of Jeremiah are just like 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, and 1 Chronicles is nearly identical to 2 Samuel in places. Joshua 15:16-19 is the same as Judges 1:12-15. Someone was borrowing from someone.

The similarities between 2 Peter and Jude are another very striking example:

If Jude "copied" from Peter, then he "borrowed" a total of 14 out of 25 verses!

"But Jude and Peter were both Bible writers. Mrs. White copied from people who weren't." Talk to the right skeptic, and he'll try to convince you that the Bible writers did that too. For example, compare the following selections from the book of 1 Enoch with 2 Peter 2:4, 9, and Jude 6:

And again the Lord said to Raphael: "Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness:... . and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire."-10:47, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament.

And there mine eyes saw how they made these their instruments, iron chains of immeasurable weight. And I asked the angel of peace who went with me, saying: "For whom are these chains being prepared?" And he said unto me: "These are being prepared for the hosts of Azazel, so that they may take them and cast them into the abyss of complete condemnation."-54:3, 4, Ibid.

Four points should be noted. First of all, is the book of 1 Enoch inspired or is it not? Its seventh chapter tells us that angels married people, and that their kids grew to be "three thousand ells" tall. Then when men ran out of food to feed these giants, the giants started eating people. These and other doings led to the fallen angel Azazel and his cronies getting the punishment described above. Now you know why the book of I Enoch never became part of Scripture.

Second, did either Peter or Jude, in borrowing the wording of this uninspired source, say anything that was not factually and doctrinally accurate? Not at all.

They simply referred to the fact that the angels who rebelled against God will be punished on the day of judgment. These angels are on death row in prison, as it were. Moreover, neither Peter nor Jude endorsed the idea that these angels had fathered giants who ate up all the food.

Third, did either Peter or Jude "plagiarize"? Using a modern definition given by Encyclopxdia Britannica, let's see.

plagiarism, the act of taking the writings of another person and passing them off as one's own.... 

If only thoughts are duplicated, expressed in different words, there is no breach of contract.

No, they didn't plagiarize. They didn't copy 1 Enoch verbatim and then pretend that they had written the material themselves. Instead, they borrowed a few words to use when expressing their own thoughts.

Fourth, did Jude or Peter fail to give "proper credit"? It is safe to assume that they did whatever was considered "proper" by society at that time.

God inspired Peter and Jude with divine thoughts, and they then put those thoughts into the best human words they could find.

Evangelicals, Bible-believing Christians every­where, if a prophet cannot borrow some of the words of another writer without giving credit and still be considered divinely inspired, then the Bible is not inspired!

Surely Jeremiah Films could not have known that this video they were making at the behest of former Adventists would strike right at the heart of the authority of Scripture.

#102: "Her major books, including Patriarchs and Prophets, The Desire of Ages, The Spirit of Prophecy, The Great Controversy, Selected Messages, The Acts of the Apostles, Christ's Object Lessons, Counsels on Stewardship, Evangelism, Fundamentals of Christian Education, Gospel Workers, Messages to Young People, the Ministry of Healing, My Life Today, Prophets and Kings, Sons and Daughters of God, Steps to Christ, Testimonies to the Church, Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, and others contain plagiarized material stolen from earlier writers."

#102: All these books contain "stolen" material. A major problem is the use of the word "stolen." In order for Mrs. White to have "stolen" words and thoughts from another writer, those words and thoughts had to legally belong to them and not to her. You can't steal what you already own.

Until 1909, portions of the words and thoughts of other writers, along with the general flow of topics in a manuscript, were in the public domain. They did not belong solely to the writer, and so could not be "stolen" from him or her. While the entire work belonged to the writer, some wording and thoughts could be used by another without "stealing."

Perusal of The White Lie indicates that what Mrs. White did at times, in the borrowing of some words and thoughts from other writers (like the Bible writers did), was to make a "derivative work." A derivative work is not one that has been copied verbatim. It is a work that is based on and derived from another work.

From the previous section it is clear that either Jude or Peter made a derivative work based on the other's epistle. Either Jude or Peter took thoughts from the other and utilized them in writing his own work. That's a derivative work, not a plagiarized work.

Making a derivative work without permission from the original author became illegal in 1909. Interest­ingly, as The White Lie points out on page 49, 1909 was the very year that Mrs. White requested that credit to the historians quoted from in Great Contro­versy be added in the next edition. This suggests that when it first became possible to steal material in this manner, Mrs. White took the needed precautions to prevent such occurrences.

Though the term "proper credit" took on a new definition that year, 1909 wasn't the first time she expressed concern about such issues. This is indicated by her comments in the April 14 issue of Review and Herald, comments regarding "proper credit" that was given to a particular author. Oh, the year? 1868.

Rest assured that whatever "proper credit" meant at the time, Mrs. White endeavored to make sure it was given. It's just that society didn't consider any sort of credit necessary when making a derivative work.

The list of books that the narrator gave, with two exceptions, comes from pages 173-175 of The White Lie, photocopies of which appear under "Point 54a" and "Point 54b" in the documentation package. These photocopies also give a list of "plagiarized" sources. At the top of the list on page 175 is this entry:

Nichols, Francis Davis, Ed.

The S.D.A. Bible Commentary Washington, D.C., Review & Herald Pub., 7 vol., 1953-1957

So according to The White Lie, Mrs. White even borrowed from books published 38-42 years after her death? Must be a typo, but that's what it says.

If The White Lie had been written to provide answers rather than to raise doubts, some of its content would be radically different. Take for example this statement on page 147:

Please observe that the artists' signatures on the drawings have been altered. In some cases, Pacific Press, Oakland, Cal., has been inserted in place of the artist's signature; in others, the signatures have either been obliterated or cut off, and Pacific Press, Oakland, Cal. added below.

Then follows five examples of artwork appearing in the 1886 printing of volume 4 of Spirit of Prophecy, artwork that was taken from Wylie's History of Protestantism.

In the last of the five examples of artwork, "Swain SC" is substituted with "Pacific Press, Oakland, Cal." "SC" is an abbreviation for the Latin word sculpsit, a word meaning "he engraved it." Since Pacific Press had to re-engrave the picture before they could print it, Swain was no longer the engraver, and they had every right to replace his name with theirs.

Now let's examine some of the other pictures in light of this discovery. In both the second and fourth examples of the five, the artist's initials in the lower right-hand corner are retained in Pacific Press's copy. Only the engraver's signature in the lower left of both pictures was replaced. No credit being given?

Whether Mr. Rea discovered these "stolen" pictures on his own, or whether he borrowed the idea from a 1930's issue of E. S. Ballenger's The Gathering Call, his book does not say. But it is a simple fact that the White Estate produced docu­ments to answer such charges in the 1930's, proving that the right to use the artwork had been paid for.

Cassell and Company, who owned the rights to the illustrations in question, had offices in London, New York, and Melbourne. Mrs. White's son, W. C. White, coordinated negotiations with all three offices. By giving specific credit to Cassell for every picture used, they saved themselves 40% of the price when using them in the British Adventist paper. But for Spirit of Prophecy, volume 4, they opted for paying the full price and omitting the credits ("Did The Great Controversy Contain Stolen Illustrations?").

So the Whites endeavored to do everything appropriately, but even if something got overlooked, we shouldn't crucify them for it. The best of us sometimes goof.

Take for example the video's jacket, copyrighted by an organization associated with Mark Martin, the video's executive producer. In the upper left comer is a translucent, ghost-like picture of Mrs. White behind a church. This picture apparently was first published in 1960, having been "recently discovered" at that time (The Spirit of Prophecy Treasure Chest, p. 172). That being so, Mr. Martin should have enquired with the White Estate before using it. Since the White Estate has no recollection of such an enquiry, and Mr. Martin declines to comment, apparently Mr. Martin forgot to ensure that he was not violating any copyright laws. Perhaps it was just an oversight.

#103, #104, & #105: "One book, Sketches from the Life of Paul, was plagiarized in its entirety by Ellen White. It resulted in a lawsuit and the book was quickly taken out of print."

#103: It was plagiarized in its entirety. This writer has both Mrs. White's 1883 book and Conybeare and Howsori s book, and this wild charge is simply not true. As well as being different in both wording and size, the books definitely differ on basic interpretations of verses dealing with Paul's life.

F. D. Nichol's book, Ellen White and Her Critics, was published in 1951. It gives statistics for how much material from Conybeare and Howson was included in Sketches. Direct quotations of words, phrases, and clauses, along with close paraphrases, amount to 7% of Mrs. White's book being taken from 4% of Conybeare's book. Another book utilized in this way was one by Farrar. 4% of her book came from 2% of his book. If we throw in loose para­phrases for good measure, we have a total of 15.35% of her book being taken from these two sources (pp. 424-426). This is a far cry from being "plagiarized in its entirety."

Script writer Lorri MacGregor sent this author alleged documentation to support this long-ago debunked lawsuit myth. It consisted of the 1919 Bible Conference Minutes published in volume 10, number 1, of Spectrum. Spectrum is a theologically liberal journal which does not take the position that the Bible, the infallible Word of God, is the final authority in matters of faith and practice. This has led through the years to its publishing of articles endorsing evolution and denying the substitutionary atonement of Christ.

In these minutes discovered in the 1970's, General Conference president A. G. Daniells says that he compared Sketches with Conybeare, "and we read word for word, page after page, and no quotations, no credit, and really I did not know the difference until I began to compare them."

Obviously, he didn't know what he was talking about. The books are not the same "word for word, page after page."

A number of major factual errors like this one, coupled with the fact that the minutes were only recently discovered, raises the question of whether they are a forgery. It appears, however, that they are indeed genuine, and that sometimes Daniells would shoot from the hip, without being particular about accuracy. At times he would grossly exaggerate.

The documentation package is supposed to prove this charge under "Point 55." Rather than proof being given, a citation appears from page 27 of The White Lie which claims that Conybeare and Howson's book is "similar" to Mrs. White's book. Thus once again the documentation package proves the falsity of the video's charges, for if the books are "similar," they cannot be identical, and thus Sketches was not "plagiarized in its entirety."

#104: It resulted in a lawsuit. This myth was debunked at least by 1951 in F. D. Nichol's book.

First of all, Conybeare and Howson's book was from Britain. Since there was no copyright protection in the US for British works written prior to July 1, 1891, it was in the public domain. There thus was no legal basis for such a lawsuit.

Second, even if their book had been written after 1891, copyright protection still did not yet cover the making of derivative works. Conybeare and Howson would have had to prove in a court of law that Mrs. White's book was a plagiarized work, not a deriva­tive work. They would have been hard pressed to do so.

The Thomas Y. Crowell Company of New York, a US publisher of Conybeare's book, wrote in 1924:

We publish Conybeare's LIFE AND EPISTLES OF THE APOSTLE PAUL but this is not a copyrighted book and we would have no legal grounds for action against your book and we do not think that we have ever raised any objection or made any claim such as you speak of.-Nichol, p. 456.

Thomas Y. Crowell was just one publisher of Conybeare's book in America. By law they could freely publish the book without sending any royalties back to Britain, and never get sued, for it just was not a copyrighted work. Since they themselves were publishing the book in its entirety without needing to get permission, they well knew that there could be no lawsuit.

D. M. Canright, an extremely bitter former Adventist, included the lawsuit myth in his 1919 book, Life of Mrs. E. G. White. According to Nichol's research, this is the first time the myth appeared in print, the very year of the above mentioned Bible Conference. According to the 1919 Bible Conference Minutes, A. G. Daniells did mention the lawsuit story as if it were a fact. All this shows is that Daniells likely read Canright's book and thought that the myth was factual. Yet Canright offered no proof whatsoever of the charge, and there was no possibility that it could have been true (Nichol, p. 438).

Sketches was published in 1883. Canright's first book against Adventism and Mrs. White, Seventh-day Adventism Renounced, came out in 1889. It contained three short paragraphs about plagiarism, but never mentioned a lawsuit. Over the next 25 years, it went through 14 editions, but the lawsuit myth was never included (Ibid., p. 429). All this indicates that nobody had yet dreamed up this particular fable.

 #105: It was quickly taken out of print. Sketches was published in 1883. The Signs of the Times promoted it through most of 1885. As late as 1887, editions of The Great Controversy sold by colporteurs to the general public contained direct advertisements for the book.

American editions of The Great Controversy mentioned Sketches on the title page. Editions in England, homeland of Conybeare and Howson, mentioned Sketches on the title page as late as 1907. Nichol put it well: "What a strange way to 'suppress' a book!" (pp. 443-446).

#106, #107, #108, & #109: "Despite the irrefutable evidence the Seventh-day Adventist Church chose to fight back against these charges with a book titled The White Truth. In it, their main line of defense was that since there were no copyright laws at the time, Ellen White hadn't actually broken the law, which of course side stepped the issue."

#106: The evidence is irrefutable. A careful reading of #100-#105 shows that the evidence is anything but irrefutable. 

#107: The book's main line of defense concerned copyright laws. This is not true. The question of what the law was like back then was only one of a number of defenses presented in the book, not the main one.

The White Truth has six chapters composed of ninety-eight pages. The chapter titles are

1. The Truth About Sources

2. The Truth About Plagiarism

3. The Truth About Prophets

4. The Truth About Authority

5. The Truth About Inspiration and Revelation

6. The Truth About Lies.

In the chapter, "The Truth About Plagiarism," the question of what the law was like back then occupies less than 4 pages out of 16. Unless there is some brief mention elsewhere in the book about legal matters, we have only 4 pages out of 98 dedicated specifically to the question of nineteenth century copyright laws.

 #108: It said that there were no copyright laws back then. This too is untrue. On page 32 is a description of a conversation with a judge who said that the first copyright law was passed in 1790. Thus The White Truth says clearly that there were copyright laws in America 37 years before Mrs. White was born.

But once again, these American copyright laws did not protect British books until 1891, and did not prohibit derivative works until 1909. 

#109: This sidestepped the issue. No it didn't, as the video itself makes clear.

There are two issues being addressed: 1) Was Mrs. White "guilty" of "stealing," of "plagiarism"? 2) Did she get her inspiration from others instead of from God?

Was she "guilty"? Before we can have a trial and reach a verdict, we have to find out what the laws were like back then. If her critics would quit using such words as "guilty" and "stolen," what the laws were could be ignored. Since they choose to use such words, the matter must be investigated. It therefore is not sidestepping the issue that they themselves have chosen.

Did she get her inspiration from others instead of from God? We must conclude that, according to the Bible, inspired writers can borrow wording and document structure from other writers without making their own writings less than inspired (see #101). A portion of The White Truth is dedicated to dealing with this issue as well, so there was no sidestepping here either.

Additionally, The White Truth presents a number of other arguments besides these two, which the reader is invited to read for himself.

#110 & #111: "Yet the Seventh-day Adventist hierarchy has been unable to respond to the challenge to prove that even 20% of her writings were original."

#110: They're unable to respond even after twenty years. The truth is that the "hierarchy" responded 31 years before Mr. Rea's book was even published.

As brought out under #103, F. D. Nichol's 1951 book stated that, including loose paraphrasing, 15.35% of Sketches from the Life of Paul, a book which was "plagiarized in its entirety," was taken from two other books. That means that around 84.65% was Mrs. White's own work.

How about other books by Mrs. White that were not "plagiarized in" their "entirety"? Obviously, they should have an even higher percentage of original material.

A lot of this video's problems could have been avoided if its researchers had simply read F. D. Nichol's book Ellen White and Her Critics.

#111: Prove that 20% of her writings are original. Does this kind of challenge even make sense? How could one ever prove such a thing? You would have to have infinite knowledge of every book that Mrs. White could possibly have read, and would have to compare these books to every word she ever wrote.

A much easier task would be for the critics to prove that 80% of her writings were not her own. Yet that would be such a time-consuming task, they would not likely attempt it.

Another way to put it is, Would it be more appropriate to say, "Prove that 20% of the Gospel of Luke is original," or more appropriate to say, "Prove that 80% of the Gospel of Luke is not original." The latter approach would be more appropriate, because the former would be impossible to prove.

Here's a different sort of challenge for Jeremiah Films: Prove that 20% of the information contained in this video is both accurate and relevant. Try to respond within twenty years. Since it's going on three years since this writer contacted you, you still have seventeen to go.

#112: "Equally as shaky were the visions she claimed to have from God."

#112: Her visions were shaky. One thing the video does not touch with a ten-foot pole, and understand­ably so, is what would happen during her visions. There was unquestionably something supernatural about them. The 1868 book Life Incidents described it this way:

1. She is utterly unconscious of everything transpiring around her, as has been proved by the most rigid tests, but views herself as removed from this world, and in the presence of heavenly beings.

2. She does not breathe. During the entire period of her continuance in vision, which has at different times ranged from fifteen minutes to three hours, there is no breath, as has been repeatedly proved by pressing upon the chest, and by closing the mouth and nostrils.

3. Immediately on entering vision, her muscles become rigid, and joints fixed, so far as any external force can influence them. At the same time her movements and gestures, which are frequent, are free and graceful, and cannot be hindered nor controlled by the strongest person.

4. On coming out of vision, whether in the day­time or a well-lighted room at night, all is total darkness. Her power to distinguish even the most brilliant objects, held within a few inches of the eyes, returns but gradually, sometimes not being fully established for three hours. This has continued for the past twenty years; yet her eyesight is not in the least impaired, few persons having better than she now possesses.-p. 272.

Regarding "closing the mouth and nostrils," it might be added that Daniel T. Bourdeau himself performed this test for ten minutes on June 28, 1857. He had up to that point been "an unbeliever in the visions," but not any longer. More than thirty years later he declared, " 'Since witnessing this wonderful phenomenon, I have not once been inclined to doubt the divine origin of her visions.' "-General Conference Daily Bulletin, Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, 1893, p. 60.

John Loughborough, an early Seventh-day Adventist who was a bit of a historian, stated:

At my house on Champion street, in this city, in the autumn of 1863 she had a vision. A brother was present, a stone mason. While she was in vision, kneeling, as her arms moved about seemingly in an easy manner, Elder White said to the man, "Brother, that looks like an easy motion, and as though you could readily bend her arm. You can try it if you wish. This brother placed his knee in the bend of her arm, took hold of her extended hand with both his hands, and settled back with all his might. It made no impression. He said to Elder White, "I would as soon think of bending an iron bar as that arm." He had hardly spoken these words before her arm moved around the other way. As he tried to resist the pressure, he was slid along upon the floor....

In the third vision of Miss Harmon, which was given in her father's house in Portland, she arose in vision, her eyes looking upward, took from the bureau one of the great family Bibles published in 1822 by Teale, Boston. (This Bible measured 18 x 11 x 4 inches, and weighs a little over eighteen pounds.) Opening this great book upon her left arm, extended at right angles from her body, she held it in that position for half an hour. With her right hand she turned from text to text, repeating the same to which her finger was pointing, yet her eyes meantime looking upward and away from the book. One or another of those present looked at every text quoted, and found that she was correctly repeating the scripture to which she pointed.-Ibid., Mar. 18,1891, p. 145.

What was really remarkable about the Bible-holding incident, which occurred more than once, is that a strong man cannot hold that kind of weight in that manner for that length of time. Try it and see.

What would be the purpose of such manifestations? Loughborough provides an answer:

That God who wrought his wonders in Egypt did it that the people to whom he was going to speak his law might know that he who spoke to them, was none other than the God that made heaven and earth. So we should expect if he should reveal himself by vision to his people, there should be with the introduction of such manifestations such demonstra­tions as would arrest the attention of the people. That a feeble girl, seventeen years of age, should simply say, "I have had a vision," would not be sufficient. Should we not expect the Lord to work in such a manner as would cause the people to say, "I will turn aside and see what this is." .. .

Some in these days, who have never seen Mrs. White in vision, undertake to explain it as disease, hysterics, or something of that kind. The fact is, the vision itself is a miracle. The voice proceeding from the burning bush was miraculous. What shall we call a voice quoting scripture, proceeding from a breathless body, but a miracle?-Ibid.