Where in the Bible is the term "Investigative Judgment"?

[miz3]

OK we will give one more just to be certain:

ORIGINAL SOURCE

SERIES A, NO. 11, P 7 1897

“Let the son of deceit and false witness be

entertained by a church that has had great

light, great evidence, and that church will

discard the message the Lord has sent, and

receive the most unreasonable assertions and

false suppositions and false theories.” {SpTA11

7.2} (Pg 39)

NOTE: In this original account, Sr. White

predicted that if the son of deceit and false

witness (who is Satan himself) will be

entertained by a church which has been

blessed with great light (i.e. the SDA church)

that church will discard the message the Lord

has sent them, and will be left to receive

heresy for religious truth.

CHANGED ACCOUNT

TESTIMONIES TO MINISTERS, P 409

1962 EDITION

“Let the sin of deceit and false witness be

entertained by a church that has had great

light, great evidence, and that church will

discard the message the Lord has sent, and

receive the most unreasonable assertions and

false suppositions and false theories.”

NOTE: In this changed account, one letter

has been changed, and thus the impersonal

“sin of deceit” will be entertained by the SDA

church. This account does not sound as bad

as the original account, which predicted that

the “sOn of deceit”—Satan himself, would be

entertained by the SDA church.

Such a change is extremely significant and makes all the difference in the World!

[John317]

Yet you give me a book by Williams and that's it. I am supposed to read to get the Church's position.

I never said that the Williams book gives the official position of the SDA church. I said you can read it to see that the Bible does contain evidence for the Investigative Judgment.

But there are other good books that do the same thing.

[miz3]

Did you read my quotes of tampering that you asked for?

I will give you soon what BC says on Hebrews chapter 10.

[John317]

OK, here is one:

"Ellen G. White—Periodical Resource

Collection, Vol. 2 p. 481: “Some criticism has

been bade because letters are sent out with a

rubber-stamp signature. We feel that it is not

necessary to ask mother to sign several

copies. It is her custom to sign the original

copy, and our workers claim that it is their

right to keep this signed copy on file in our

office, so that if any body should challenge its

authenticity, we have on file the copy signed

with her own hand. The other copies are

usually stamped with a rubber stamp.” (By

W.C. White 1913)

NOTE: Willie did not say that his mother

approved of this process; but that the office

workers claimed this right for themselves.

Thus, this practice opened the door for

“Document Tampering” by the “brethren”. The

practice of using the rubber-stamp signature

of Sr. White’s name on “Testimonies” sent out,

is contrary to the Biblical example of the

Apostle Paul, who signed every one of his

letters, with his own hand. See

2 Thessalonians 3:17 & Chapter 2 p 14, (Original

book paging) on this point."

Is this your evidence or proof of the changes in her writings made by the SDA church? I hope there's more to it than this.

All Willie is saying is that Ellen White signed one copy and the othr copies were rubber-stamped, indicating that the original had been signed by her. What in the world is wrong with that?

Did Paul sign every copy of his letters? Certainly not.

[miz3]

Keep going.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

the “sOn of deceit”—Satan himself, would be

entertained by the SDA church.

Satan sure as hell is being entertained by this thread.

[John317]

...

Testimony for the Battle Creek Church 1882

p. 20: “To spare my feelings, Willie has

withheld from me disagreeable particulars

concerning matters at Battle Creek.”

NOTE: This has been omitted from the present

edition of 5 th Testimony, p. 45.

I copied the following from the Comprehensive Research Edition CD-ROM of Ellen White's Writings, showing that it is contained in her writigns and made available to the world:

Quote:

Important Testimony.

Healdsburg, Cal., March 28, 1862.

Dear Bro. Smith: Your letter was received in due time. While I was glad to hear from you, I was made sad, as I read its contents. I had received similar letters from Sr. Amadon, and from Bro. Lockwood. But I have had no communications from Prof. Bell or any one who sustains him.

20

{PH117 19.4}

From your own letters I learn the course which you have pursued, in the proceedings against Bro. B. To spare my feelings, Willie has withheld from me disagreeable particulars concerning matters at Battle Creek. For the same reason, others have kept silent. Bro. Brownsberger has answered some plain, direct questions. {PH117 20.1}

I am not surprised that such a state of things should exist in Battle Creek, but I am pained to find you, my much-esteemed brother, involved in this matter, on the wrong side, with those whom I know God is not leading. Some of these persons are honest, but they are deceived. They have received their impressions from another source than the Spirit of God. {PH117 20.2}

It's obvious that no one has tried to hide anything or change Ellen G. White's writings.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: miz2

the “sOn of deceit”—Satan himself, would be

entertained by the SDA church.

Satan sure as hell is being entertained by this thread.

If the accusation is not proved, the accusation will be deleted, so it won't last long, Pam.

Actually, all this does is show how weak the case is of people who claim that Mrs. White's writings have been changed.

By the way, nice to see you!!

[John317]

I'm totally open-minded as to evidence, and will look at anything, but so far you haven't shown anything that makes your case.

[miz3]

Important Testimony.

Healdsburg, Cal., March 28, 1862.

Dear Bro. Smith: Your letter was received in due time. While I was glad to hear from you, I was made sad, as I read its contents. I had received similar letters from Sr. Amadon, and from Bro. Lockwood. But I have had no communications from Prof. Bell or any one who sustains him.

20

{PH117 19.4}

From your own letters I learn the course which you have pursued, in the proceedings against Bro. B. To spare my feelings, Willie has withheld from me disagreeable particulars concerning matters at Battle Creek. For the same reason, others have kept silent. Bro. Brownsberger has answered some plain, direct questions. {PH117 20.1}

I am not surprised that such a state of things should exist in Battle Creek, but I am pained to find you, my much-esteemed brother, involved in this matter, on the wrong side, with those whom I know God is not leading. Some of these persons are honest, but they are deceived. They have received their impressions from another source than the Spirit of God. {PH117 20.2}

John317,

It may be on the CD-Rom but that is not what was asserted.

It said that the part you put in "red" is not in the 5th Testimony pg45. I checked it and it is indeed omitted from the "written 5th Testimony pg45. Everything else is there but not what you put in "red".

It is indeed clear that the written published Testimony has been TAMPERED WITH!

Somebody at some time "TAMPERED" with the SOP.

THIS IS UNDENIABLE!

[John317]

Miz3, are these posts the best and clearest examples of how the SDA church has changed the writings of Ellen White?

Can you give me her writings that you claim have been changed, and then prove that they were changed?

[miz3]

Did you read all that I gave including my remarks about your CDROM post?

I don't know what you want except read the whole thing. How much is enough for you.

To me even the smallest tampering puts whole lot into question. It makes you wonder just how reliable what we do read in the "Red Books" is (not the CDROM) and the millions who went before us relying on those "Red Books".

This doesn't concern you even in the least little bit? It does me.

God's Word should be absolutely PERFECT, WITH NO DEFECTS!

If we find even the slightest flaw then the whole comes into question. God claims Perfection so anything less, no matter how small the flaw, taints the whole Word of God.

[John317]

It may be on the CD-Rom but that is not what was asserted.

It said that the part you put in "red" is not in the 5th Testimony pg45. I checked it and it is indeed omitted from the "written 5th Testimony pg45. Everything else is there but not what you put in "red".

It is indeed clear that the written published Testimony has been TAMPERED WITH!

Somebody at some time "TAMPERED" with the SOP.

THIS IS UNDENIABLE!

The Testimonies as they appear in the volumes we buy at the bookstore are exactly as they were when Ellen White supervised their publication in the Testimonies For the Church. Not everything in the original letter was part of the Testimony as printed in 1882.

What we have on the CD-ROM is Pamphlet 117. But the Testimonies for the Church is the same as it always was. Not all the Pamphlets were published in the Testimonies exactly as they were written or printed as a pamphlet.

Some parts of the original letter didn't concern the entire church. It was written as a private letter. That is why the names are deleted in the published edition.

So, yes, someone did indeed tamper with them, and that someone was Ellen White herself.

[John317]

Quote:

Important Testimony.

Healdsburg, Cal., March 28, 1862.

Dear Bro. Smith: Your letter was received in due time. While I was glad to hear from you, I was made sad, as I read its contents. I had received similar letters from Sr. Amadon, and from Bro. Lockwood. But I have had no communications from Prof. Bell or any one who sustains him.

20

{PH117 19.4}

From your own letters I learn the course which you have pursued, in the proceedings against Bro. B. To spare my feelings, Willie has withheld from me disagreeable particulars concerning matters at Battle Creek. For the same reason, others have kept silent. Bro. Brownsberger has answered some plain, direct questions. {PH117 20.1}

I am not surprised that such a state of things should exist in Battle Creek, but I am pained to find you, my much-esteemed brother, involved in this matter, on the wrong side, with those whom I know God is not leading. Some of these persons are honest, but they are deceived. They have received their impressions from another source than the Spirit of God. {PH117 20.2}

Compare the above (the original letter and pamphlet) with the following, which is taken from the fifth vol of the Testimonies For the Church on the CD-ROM. You will see it is exactly the same as it is in the published books as Ellen White wanted them printed.

Quote:

Chap. 5 - Important Testimony

Healdsburg, California, March 28, 1882.

Dear Brother -----: Your letter was received in due time. While I was glad to hear from you, I was made sad as I read its contents. I had received similar letters from Sister ----- and from Brother -----. But I have had no communications from Brother ----- or anyone who sustains him. From your own letters I learn the course which you have pursued in the proceedings against Brother -----. {5T 45.2}

I am not surprised that such a state of things should exist in Battle Creek, but I am pained to find you, my much-esteemed brother, involved in this matter on the wrong side with those whom I know God is not leading. Some of these persons are honest, but they are deceived. They have received their impressions from another source than the Spirit of God. {5T 45.3}

Can you see now that this is not evidence of the church or Willie White attempting to change Ellen White's writings? It is simply the difference between the original letter and the way Ellen White wanted it printed as part of the Testimonies for the Church.

Here's the part that was left out of the published version of the Testimonies For the Church DURING ELLEN WHITE'S LIFETIME:

Quote:

To spare my feelings, Willie has withheld from me disagreeable particulars concerning matters at Battle Creek. For the same reason, others have kept silent. Bro. Brownsberger has answered some plain, direct questions.

[miz3]

You have clear uncontroverted evidence that it was Ellen White and not some else who made the changes.

You went ballistic and threatened my posts unless I fessed up.

Now it is your turn to show uncontroverted evidence that the ONLY CHANGES were made by Ellen White and only Ellen White. You of course can also prove beyond a shadow of doubt that no one, and absolutely no one changed even a comma, a period, etc. without Ellen White's clear and provable permission.

[John317]

Is what you've posted so far the best and clearest evidence you know of that proves the SDA church has changed Ellen White's writings?

[miz3]

It should be enough for you to want more. If that is the case then go to the link and read it all.

If you want to just dismiss it out of hand because it does not fit your template, that is your right to do so.

What I gave you is devastating enough for someone to find out if there is more.

Oh, are you going to give me that uncontroverted evidence I asked for in post #437869.

Did you read the article attributed to Ellen White by others around her which was not written by her at all?

[John317]

You went ballistic and threatened my posts unless I fessed up.

You said there is documentary proof that the SDA church, or the "brethren," have tampered with or changed Ellen White's writings. That is a very serious charge.

No one can come on this Forum and make such an accusation/claim without being held accountable for their allegations. If the accusation is simply a false accusation, it shouldn't stand.

You claimed earlier to try to protect Ellen White from "shabby" treatment, yet it appears to me on the basis of your accusations that you are the one who is treating her and others shabbily.

I was expecting you to post quotes from Ellen White's writings as they were originally written or published, and then to see other quotes of the actual writings proving that someone other than Ellen White made the changes after her death. But you have not produced such evidence.

Do you have documenary proof of such changes? Or are you going to continue talking about changes that were made during Ellen White's lifetime and under her supervision?

I would like to suggest that you visit the Ellen White Estate and ask how Ellen White's books and writings were produced and published. The evidence you've shown up to now are merely evidences that you and whoever wrote the book have a lot of misinformation. You ask, did anyone change punctuation and grammar or spelling, etc., in her writings? Yes, of course. They were paid to do it. That was their job. She had secretaries who edited her writings. Most writers do.

Do you believe that God dictates word for word what the prophets wrote down? If so, perhaps this helps explain why you believe as you do and why you think no one should have made any changes at all in her writings. It is a very unrealsitic view of how prophets of God were inspired to write.

[John317]

Now it is your turn to show uncontroverted evidence that the ONLY CHANGES were made by Ellen White and only Ellen White. You of course can also prove beyond a shadow of doubt that no one, and absolutely no one changed even a comma, a period, etc. without Ellen White's clear and provable permission.

I'm afraid you have things backward. It is you who claim that her writings are changed. You need to prove that point. It is not up to me to prove that no one ever changed even a comma. Of course people made some changes in her manuscripts. They were supposed to. She would write, and then her helpers would pick up the manuscripts, type them up, and then they would be edited.

May I suggest that you read Robert Olson's book "One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White." See especially pages 90, 91, where Elder Olson shows a photo copy of some manuscripts. They are examples of the kinds of things her helpers would do in editing her manuscripts before publication. Study pages 89 to about page 108. You can get this book in the Comprehensive Research Edition CD-ROM. It is the first one listed under "Research Documents."

[John317]

What I gave you is devastating enough for someone to find out if there is more.

What is the most "devastating" evidence you know of?

I want to see it. I'm not interested in believing something that is not true, so if you have proof that her writings can't be depended on because they were altered or changed, I want to know it.

But I am not interested in mere claims. I want to see the hard evidence, not rumor and not what someone "said" they heard or read.

If you have it, let me know.

I will probably read the whole book, but if you know of evidence that can be easily shown to prove your point, I would think you would post it here and now.

[John317]

If you want to just dismiss it out of hand because it does not fit your template, that is your right to do so.

I never dismiss anything out of hand, miz3. I have not dismissed this out of hand. I am looking hard at all the evidence. If you don't think so, check out my responses.

[miz3]

I did show you a change that was made after her death.

Did you not read the post about the "son of deception" and the "sin of deception"?

Testimonies to Ministers was compiled after her death.

Did or did not the "brethren" make those changes after her death?

Even though the change is "one letter", that one letter makes a big difference.

Did you or did you not read that example?

[John317]

...To me even the smallest tampering puts whole lot into question. It makes you wonder just how reliable what we do read in the "Red Books" is (not the CDROM) and the millions who went before us relying on those "Red Books".

This doesn't concern you even in the least little bit? It does me.

So far, I don't see any genuine tampering at all. It seems to me you are jumping to conclusions when you say you wonder how reliable the "Red Books" are. Why don't you first have proof or very strong evidence before you arrive at that conclusion and make the accusation? You don't want to be paranoid about this.

The so-called changes you point out aren't changes at all.

All it is are the differences between the original letter and the way Ellen White wanted it published as part of the Testimonies For the Church. That was done during her lifetime and with her approval. Ellen White made a habit of reading her own writings once they appeared in print or in the Review and Herald. She had no interest in writing things that would be changed so they didn't express what she believed God wanted he to say.

[miz3]

ORIGINAL SOURCE

9 TESTIMONY, P 28, 29 1909

“In the visions of the night a very

impressive scene passed before me. I saw an

immense ball of fire fall among some beautiful

mansions, causing their instant destruction. I

heard someone say: “We knew that the

judgments of God were coming upon the

earth, but we did not know that they would

come so soon.” Others, with agonized voices,

said: “You knew! Why then did you not tell

us? We did not know.” On every side I heard

similar words of reproach spoken.” {9T 28.1}

“In great distress I awoke. I went to sleep

again, and I seemed to be in a large gathering.

One of authority was addressing the company,

before whom was spread out a map of the

world. He said that the map pictured God’s

vineyard, which must be cultivated. As light

from heaven shone upon anyone, that one was

to reflect the light to others. Lights were to be

kindled in many places, and from these lights

still other lights were to be kindled.” {9T 28.2}

“The words were repeated: “Ye are the salt

of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor,

wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth

good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be

trodden underfoot of men. Ye are the light of

the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot

be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put

it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it

giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let

your light so shine before men, that they may

see your good works, and glorify your Father

which is in heaven.” Matthew 5:13-16.” {9T

28.3}

“I saw jets of light shining from cities and

villages, and from the high places and the low

places of the earth. God’s word was obeyed,

and as a result there were memorials for Him

in every city and village. His truth was

proclaimed throughout the world.” {9T 28.4}

“Then this map was removed and another

put in its place. On it light was shining from a

few places only. The rest of the world was in

darkness, with only a glimmer of light here

and there. Our Instructor said: “This darkness

is the result of men’s following their own

(pg 40)

course. They have cherished hereditary and

cultivated tendencies to evil. They have made

questioning and faultfinding and accusing the

chief business of their lives. Their hearts are

not right with God. They have hidden their

light under a bushel.” {9T 29.1}

“If every soldier of Christ had done his

duty, if every watchman on the walls of Zion

had given the trumpet a certain sound, the

world might ere this have heard the message

of warning. But the work is years behind.

While men have slept, Satan has stolen a

march upon us.” {9T 29.2}

NOTE: We have marked for the reader with the

[Color parts] in the original published

account, what has been omitted, in the later

1946 compiled account of Sr. White’s vision.

In this 1909 account, two maps were shown to

Sr. White, relating to the spreading of God’s

light/truth in the world. On the first map, Sr.

White saw jets of light shining in many places

on the globe, and in obedience to God’s word,

God’s truth was proclaimed throughout the

world. This map was removed, and a second

map took its place. On this map, light was

only shining from a few places, with the rest of

the world in darkness. This second map is the

reality concerning the spread of God’s truth

in the world; while the first map was what

might have been, had Seventh-day

Adventists followed God’s counsel. The reality

according to the Heavenly Instructor is, that

God’s work is years behind!

My note: In the interest of honesty: I miz3 color coded what the source emphasized by different symbols than the blue color I inserted. The words are not changed in the Ellen White parts but are only highlighted in blue to show what was left out of the compilation made AFTER ELLEN WHITES DEATH.

[John317]

I haven't read that yet. I will, right away. I have a cat and a wife and daughter that sometimes get my attention. Plus I have been writing and reading.

ADDED two hours later:

None of those so-called "changes" are genuine changes. One was a typo or misprint, and the other was from 9 T and evidently had been used in a 1946 compilation which did not include all of that chapter. It is good to realize that in compilations, it is expected that not all of a chapter will be included. The editors put elipses for the purpose of showing something was left out, and they always tell the reader where they can find the original source.

Conclusion: you have not supported your claim that the brethren changed Ellen White's writings. Up to this point, it cerrainly appears that your claim is without foundation. Do you want to add anything? Do you have any stronger evidence than what you've produced so far?