Will 'The Great Controversy' Project Harm Adventism Again?
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/08/26/will-great-controversy-project-harm-adventism-again/#comment-102222
COMMENT
Aage Rendalen - Fri, 08/26/2011 - 12:34
In 1973 SDA historian Donald McAdams came across EGW's first draft of the 1888 GC chapter on Huss and Jerome. The entire chapter, McAdams discovered, was basically a rewrite of J. A. Wylie's The History of Protestantism, including its historical errors. The most interesting part of this chapter, though, was EGW's own material, which was so poorly written that her editor deleted all of it from the final manuscript.
Here are a couple of samples from EGW's rather pathetic prose--and I'm not making this up--that was not deemed sufficiently inspired to make it into print:
"And the day has come in 1887 when the Scripture is being fulfiled when signs and wonders shall be wrought that if it were possible they will deceive the very elect and the man of sin will come with lying wonders, wonders that will apar in sight of men to prove *that* a lie is Gods truth. But the only safty for Gods people in this age is the sure word of prophecy; Gods oricles are to be the sure foundation tradition customs human doctrines will be urged upon the people but they have the detecter in their hands that tells them what it is safe for them to accept and what to reject...."
"We trace the footprints of Satan and his emessaries by the fruits that mark their pathway from generation to generation to the present time outward events are not nee [sic] evedences. ['the' crossed out] God's [mid toward?] us The very first Christian was put to crul death, and the very first murder escaped alone. Gods outward providences are not to be read as the exact evedences of his love and affection toward us. When ever there has existed and continue to exist a self righteousness and a persecuting spirit there is nothing like a missionary spirit how ever they may weare the missionary cload let us look to see if the Spirit of men are changed who have not the restorative power of the Gospel of Christ Jesus up to the time of the Lord 2500 years after the time ['when this' crossed out] of the murder of Abel what is the decision of our Lord. He was the truth his judgment must *therefore* be true He was one who could read the hearts of all men and he would not darken the picture already dark enough He says out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts adulterous fornications murders thefts covetousness wickedness and deceit lacivious and evil eye blasphemy pride foolishness. All these were ['working with a' crossed out] active agents until the charicter be benovalent Jesus proved it before all heaven before the universe he the perfection of all ['exeel' crossed out] excellence the brightness of the Fathers glory come to earth and as a messenger from heaven to restore by his precept his example the moral image of God in man. But his own nation said he hast a Devil crucify him Who was it the chief priests the rulers of the people came down to the period after his death and resurrection and ascention to heaven..." and it goes on and on.
Since I'm a teacher by profession, let me propose some study questions at this point:
- Why haven't I heard anything about this before?
- In what sense is this chapter of Great Controversy inspired, when the words of Wylie the historian have been retained but those of EGW have been tossed out?
- What do you make of the fact that EGW places Creation 2500 BC?
- Obviously, nobody would ever have gotten through Great Controversy if EGW hadn't had an editor with the skills to discriminate between inspired rubbish and inspired gold and the ability to make God sound lucid. Was her editor also inspired?
Send an Email to us here!
The reason you may not have heard about this is because it's a non-issue. As I understand it, at the time this draft was written there were no Copyright laws in the US. It wasn't until the beginning of the 20th century that this law was enacted.
ReplyDeleteWhen it finally became the law of the land Sister White gave written instructions to her helpers on several occasions to include the source from where the quoted material comes.
Before the 20th century Christians were of the opinion that their thoughts and ideas were from our God and therefore not their private possession.
For further information Google "The White Lie" which is by someone else who also came across what appears to be an unlawful practice.
As to your second point.
You give the impression that our God only reveals truth to the Adventist Church, which is not the case. The Jewish leaders also thought that at the time of Jesus birth here on this earth over 2,000 years ago. For that reason they had no interest in determining if the message of the three Wise Men was true or not.
Our God would had have preferred working with His chosen people but they refused to take his advice. They went so far as to kill our God's messengers.
Take a look at the work that's being done in spreading the message and whose is getting credit for it.
In Music it's the Gaithers. In defending the 'Ten Commandments' it's a Baptist Judge. Defending the Sabbath is Joe Lieberman a Jewish senator. And in your Church how many are talking about a Second Coming or even singing about it?
The message of Revelation is going to get out to the people of this world with or without the help of the Adventist Church.
Point #3. Just be patient. When you are finally as old as Sister White when she wrote the draft in question, you will get a plausible answer as why this date is in error.
Point #4. Sister White wasn't our God's first or second choice to do the work. She was the one our God found who was willing to give it a try. And because of sickness and an accident in childhood, she couldn't attend school at Andrews U. As a matter of fact her health would have prevented her from attending Andrews Academy. But in spite of this handicap and her lack of education, she was still able to write her thoughts down on paper in a cognitive way so that the Editor new what she had in mind. And when there were questions about what she had written, the Editor usually asked.
I hope my comments are detailed enough to answer your questions.
Thomas 'the believer'