NIV changes, from 'ta hagia' to 'hagia haggiwn'.

[hobie]

10 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Here is the EGW passage in which, comparing the KJV and ERV, she described the ERV as the true version:

"When Christ told Peter that unless he submitted to this service, he could have no part with him, Peter surrendered his pride and self will. This can never, never be. He was all broken up at the thought, and exclaimed, "Not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." Jesus had a lesson, deep, full, and significant: "He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all." The true version reads, "He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet." That lesson comprehended more than bodily cleansing." R&H July 5, 1898

I hope you understand. EGW called the version [ERV] based on the Wescott & Hort text the "true version" contra the KJV.

John 13:10 Jesus saith to him, He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. ERV

John 13:10 Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. 11For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. KJV

When Christ told

Need to be careful in your studies as the underlined part is not from Ellen White nor in the R&H as you see the original here https://text.egwwritings.org/read/14874.4577

[Hanseng]

2 hours ago, hobie said:

Need to be careful

I underlined that. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Underlined or not, EGW calls the Wescott & Hort based English Revised Version, "the true version" compared to the KJV.  The reference you cited is from the Desire of Ages, not the Review & Herald article I quoted from. The article is certainly written by EGW or at least credited to her. July 5, 1898 in the Review and Herald, Ellen White quoted the English Revised Version, based on the Greek test of Wescott & Hort. She called it the true version, compared to the KJV.

I agree that we need to be careful in our studies.  You cited a  reference from Desire of Ages. I cited one from the R & H. In the Review and Herald article she says "the true version reads," siding with the English Revised Version against the KJV. Get it? The English Revised Version, at least in this text, is the true version. That version is based on the Greek text of Wescott and Hort. Westcott and Hort manuscripts

[hobie]

20 hours ago, Hanseng said:

I underlined that. Sorry I didn't make that clear. Underlined or not, EGW calls the Wescott & Hort based English Revised Version, "the true version" compared to the KJV.  The reference you cited is from the Desire of Ages, not the Review & Herald article I quoted from. The article is certainly written by EGW or at least credited to her. July 5, 1898 in the Review and Herald, Ellen White quoted the English Revised Version, based on the Greek test of Wescott & Hort. She called it the true version, compared to the KJV.

I agree that we need to be careful in our studies.  You cited a  reference from Desire of Ages. I cited one from the R & H. In the Review and Herald article she says "the true version reads," siding with the English Revised Version against the KJV. Get it? The English Revised Version, at least in this text, is the true version. That version is based on the Greek text of Wescott and Hort. Westcott and Hort manuscripts

No, that is the view in a editorial from 2019 by John J. Grosboll, and he adds "the true version reads," not Ellen White.

[Hanseng]

2 hours ago, hobie said:

White.

Hobie, That editorial by John Grossboll is quoting the article signed Ellen G. White in the July 5, 1898 Review and Herald.  Grossboll uses no quotes and cites no reference. Go to the SDA archives, find the periodicals, then Review and Herald, July 5, 1898. Grossboll is copying EGW and not giving her credit.

Try this link to the original article in which EGW sides with the ERV [Wescott and Hort] against the KJV. The remark in question is in the third column, 2nd paragraph.

Hobie, I, too, was invested in the KJV only nonsense. Not to worry, God is Great!

[Hanseng]

"On Mrs. White's attitude toward the English revision of the 1880's, her son, W. C. White, reports:

"Before the revised version was published, there leaked out from the committee, statements regarding changes which they intended to make. Some of these I brought to Mother's attention, and she gave me very surprising information regarding these Scriptures. This led me to believe that the revision, when it came to hand, would be a matter of great service to us." W. C. White, DF 579 (1931); Ministry, April, 1947, p. 17.

It is significant that almost immediately after the appearance of the English Revised Version, Mrs. White made use of it in her books, as she did also of the American Standard Revision when it became available in 1901. It is also significant that four major statements from Mrs. White's pen concerning the Bible and the Bible writers were penned during this decade of the appearance of the revised versions of the New and Old Testaments."

Ellen G. White® Estate: The E. G. White Counsel on Versions of the Bible

[hobie]

22 hours ago, Hanseng said:

Hobie, That editorial by John Grossboll is quoting the article signed Ellen G. White in the July 5, 1898 Review and Herald.  Grossboll uses no quotes and cites no reference. Go to the SDA archives, find the periodicals, then Review and Herald, July 5, 1898. Grossboll is copying EGW and not giving her credit.

Try this link to the original article in which EGW sides with the ERV [Wescott and Hort] against the KJV. The remark in question is in the third column, 2nd paragraph.

Hobie, I, too, was invested in the KJV only nonsense. Not to worry, God is Great!

Read the original

[Hanseng]

2 hours ago, hobie said:

Read the original

 Do you mean that you read the original or are you telling me to read the original? If it is the later, to what do you refer?