Adventist Online

Some zealous members within Seventh Day Adventism hold that the King James version is the only reliable Bible, and that all other Bible versions have been corrupted by the agents of the Devil. These same people frequently endorse Ellen White as one of God’s spokes-people.


Yet it may be of interest to note that Mrs. White used Bibles other than the KJV.
In her Book, Ministry of Healing, for example, at least 45 instances can be found where Mrs. White employs the American Revised Version. This version, along with other Bible versions, relied a great deal [in its New Testament books] on the “infamous” work of Westcott and Hort.


And yet, literally thousands of Bible verses quoted in Mrs. White’s writings are drawn from the so-called corrupted Bibles. Did Ellen White not know any better? Which ever view we might hold on this matter, it is clear that God did not stay her hand in that work. Will He stay ours? I think not.

Views: 2883

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


Ya.. It's been quite the drudgery for a while.. and the minute I get 5 min to my self someone needs my help.. I'm beginning to think I may not actually get any real rest or time to breathe till the coming of Christ.. But thankfully though it is a heavy load He has given me strength to bear it, by His grace.

Frankly, i'm just hoping that I don't end up an insomniac, just trying to keep up with it all.. As of this moment I haven't slept since 4 AM.. It is now 9:14..

I still have a ton of stuff to do, but I am forsaking everything else till tomorrow, out of exhaustion that is now so bad I am dizzy..

So please keep me in your prayers everyone.. My husband has to help his parents for a few months so I will be working 69 hours a week for a while (possibly more if I can get a few hours of night shift on a few of those days) to compensate for the loss of income he gets for going to school from the Navy, on top of our normal juggling..

I think I may get a break in a year, because we agreed that when he is done with collage, he will work and I get to go back to school..


I'm looking a bit as I have a few minutes till I will pass out.. I haven't relocated them yet, but maybe this will help..

Lucian book Truth Triumphant the historian Benjamin George Wilkinson Ph.D writes this about Lucian, and the Alexandrian scrolls that the new versions are based on.. 

(AD 250-312) Lucian was born in Antioch in Syria where the early believers in Jesus were first called Christians. 

"Lucian founded a college at Antioch which strove to counteract the dangerous ecclesiastical alliance between Rome and Alexandria. How bitter the situation became and how it finally split West and East will be clarified by the following four facts:

First, the original founders of the ecclesiastical college at Alexandria strove to exalt tradition. Justin Martyr, as early as 150, had stood for this. 
Second, Clement, most famous of the Alexandrian college faculty and a teacher of Origen, boasted that he would not teach Christianity unless it was mixed with pagan philosophy. 
Third, Victor 1, bishop of Rome, entered a compact with Clement, about 190, to carry on research around the Mediterranean basin to secure support to help make Sunday the prominent day of worship in the church. Sunday was already a day exalted among the heathen, being a day on which they worshipped the sun; yet Rome and Alexandria well knew that most churches throughout the world sanctified Saturday as the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. 
Fourth, when Victor 1, in lordly tones, pronounced excommunication on all the churches of the East who would not with him make Easter always come on Sunday, Alexandria supported this exhibition of spiritual tyranny by the bishop of Rome. Lucian opposed Alexandria's policies and for this has been bitterly hated and his name kept in the background." (Ref: J1)

The Peshitta Version (AD 150) 
The Peshitta was the first Syrian translation from the original languages. Even to this day there are around 350 copies of the Peshitta (or Peshitto) version in existence. In his book Which Bible?

 David O Fuller writes this of the Peshitto:

"It was at Antioch, capital of Syria, that the believers were first called Christians. And as time rolled on, the Syrian-speaking Christians could be numbered by the thousands. It is generally admitted that the Bible was translated from the original languages into Syrian about 150 AD. This version is known as the Peshitto (the correct or simple). This Bible even today generally follows the Received Text

Wilkinson writes in his book Truth Triumphant:

"The Protestant denominations are built upon that manuscript of the Greek New Testament sometimes called Textus Receptus, or the Received Text. It is that Greek New Testament from which the writings of the apostles in Greek have been translated into English, German, Dutch and other languages. During the dark ages the Received Text was practically unknown outside the Greek Church. It was restored to Christendom by the labours of that great scholar Erasmus. It is altogether too little known that the real editor of the Received Text was Lucian. None of Lucian's enemies fails to credit him with this work. Neither Lucian nor Erasmus, but rather the apostles, wrote the Greek New Testament. However, Lucian's day was an age of apostasy when a flood of depravations was systematically attempting to devastate both the Bible manuscripts and Bible theology. Origen, of the Alexandrian college, made his editions and commentaries of the Bible a secure retreat for all errors, and deformed them with philosophical speculations introducing casuistry and lying. Lucian's unrivalled success in verifying, safeguarding, and transmitting those divine writings left a heritage for which all generations should be thankful." (Ref: J2)"

Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called theMajority Text

Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.

Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible(AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point.

Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.

Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.

Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!

Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.

In his book God Wrote Only One Bible, Jasper J Ray pens the following testimony about Textus Receptus:

"Wonder of wonders, in the midst of all the present confusion regarding manuscripts, we still have a Bible we can trust. The writing of the Word of God by inspiration is no greater miracle than the miracle of its preservation in the Textus ReceptusAll criticism of this text from which was translated the King James Bible, is based upon an unproved hypothesis: i.e. that there are older and more dependable copies of the original Bible manuscripts. No one in nineteen hundred years, has been able to prove that one jot or tittle has been inserted or taken out." (Ref:D3)

In his book Final Authority, William P Grady provides further interesting details about Textus Receptus, the Received Text:

"For instance, over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist today ranging from small fragments containing two or three verses to nearly entire Bibles. Their ages vary from the second to the sixteenth century; the manuscripts are ending with the arrival of printing. By comparison, there exist only ten quality manuscripts of Caesar's Gallic War composed between 58-50BC…

"Once again, the outstanding features of the Received Text is its high percentage of agreement among so many thousands of independent witnesses. This agreement is often placed at about 90 percent; in other words, 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text…

I hope this helps.. It is the best I could do in the 25 min I could make my self sit up at the computer.. ttyl God bless.

"You've come to the wrong conclusion as he. You reference the same false arguments as he. You quote the same fictional history as he. It's a pretty easy assumption to make. I mean it's really hard to make exactly the same errors without using exactly the same flawed resources."
Just saying someone is a bad source, does not make it so..
You keep saying these people who have poured in a good chunk of their lives researching the subject, you should at least be prepared to provide a reason for discrediting them.. and let me make this clear.. No blanket statements, I want a specific and proven reason
(not conjecture or hear say, as seems to be the norm with you...) proving that these men are bad sources.. I am intellectually honest enough to accept truth when I hear it so.... Evidence please?
And again... "uh, uh" does not a logical argument make..

English Standard Version Deuteronomy 17:6
"On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness."

On two or three witnesses a matter is established.. You can't possibly expect me to abandon what I know to be present truth, with merely one testimony..

And skimming over it there seems to be little actual fact.. %90.. No.. to be fair since I could only skim over it right now for lack of time I'll say %80 of this link is conjecture, without any real quotes..I asked for evidence.. solid proven indisputable evidence not the opinion of a few people loosely based on almost no actual evidence, that can be quoted..

I gave you in another post a while ago the very words that flowed from the tip of the pen, of Hortt him self... Published by  His own son.. and all you can give me is this conjecture.. This is exhausting me with little to no fruit.. I cared enough to pour time and energy I don't have in to doing this study with you, but there has just been almost no real give and take with you at all.. I had a glimmer of hope with another one of your recent responses but now think that for the time it is a waste of my already sapped energy..


"When the church's highest body on biblical interpretation tells you something and you still reject it you're not standing firm, you're rejecting correction. Woman you are not being faithful to the truth, you are joining your one witness against it in rebellion."

1.) All you are saying is that the Pharisees know more than the fishermen.. I am no "respecter of persons", and neither was Christ..

American King James Version Acts 10:34
"Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:"

American Standard Version James 2:1-3
"1My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons2For if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing; 3and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing, and say, Sit thou here in a good place; and ye say to the poor man,"

(Again I am using the versions you are fighting with every breath to protect for  your sake.. Lest you loose out by dismissing them..)

2.) Did you just call me "woman"?? Do you have any idea how sexist, disrespectful and extremely inappropriate that is..?? 


" believe the truth is, Quacinda, that there is error in every translation.  How could there not be since we are prone to mistakes? "

So you don't believe that the God who made all of this would not be able to preserve His word in tact through the hands of His servants? The people who kept the Bible going were so serious about it that even if they had been working on one for a week, if they messed up so much as one word they tossed it, and started over..

"Our pioneers never reverenced the KJV as some do today"

Then how come sister Whites family Bible is KJV? She heled it up over her head during many of the times she went in to vision, quoting it word for word.... Would God have His prophet quote miraculously without even looking at the page quote perfectly, a single word from scripture that was in error?

Don't get me wrong many are saved with those other translations, and God can still work with it, but when you are looking for the meat of the word, you need the one that teaches right doctrine, and is not missing any content..

I really appreciate your passion about the KJV! I share it. Other translations leave out HOLY Spirit, its just spirit. So many changes. The effects of sin, Christ as the only way, etc..


A really good little , well, would be pamphlet if they had them! Its at In the free library there is a 'book' called either The Faithful Witness, or The True Witness..


Anyway, it gives wonderful details of why, how, and where. Also that we CAN trust the KJV. If not, what would we , as lay people, DO?


It makes no sense that He would allow His Word to be tampered with. Psalms 12:6-7 says ...


12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.



I think that makes it plain. This is a verse I am memorizing, from the KJV.. It has power for me. I NEED to know these verses that state my claim as to the infallibility of my Bible.


I also like Isaiah 46:9-10...


46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:



THIS one, I already HAVE memorized!! What a powerful verse!! for a GREAT Scripture Memorization program thats free, and very comprehensive!!


Not all of the versions are based on the originals, or even the copies of the originals, but an entirely different text all together.. That's what I have been trying to get at..


Older does not mean better... One of the many ways this has been confirmed is that historians have taken personal letters that the early church members wrote to one another, that contained verses as they wished to encourage each other, and compared them to both the Received text, and the Alexandrian scrolls.. The early church (those who were around for the original version) was quoting verses that don't even appear in the Alexandrian scrolls, but do appear in the Received text...

It is also historically proven (if I remember correctly, and I am pretty sure I do)  that Constantine at the dawn of the first Roman Pope commissioned the Alexandrian scrolls, and they weren't even good enough for them, because they through them in the garbage....

So then I have to ask my self.. What do I trust more..

1.) The Bible propped up by the early Roman church.

2.) The Bible used and quoted by the early church that was persecuted by the aforementioned Roman church....

For me, after researching the history of these two texts it is not hard for me to come to a conclusion...


Be patient I just told you in another post that I have lost a lot of blood in the past few days and on pain meds, so I am woozy and have been in and out of consciousness all day..

As I am so sick it would help me out immensely if you just took a few seconds and Google these things.. They are not hard to find, and should pop right up on a search... I'm just to sick to talk any more today. My body is not reproducing my blood as fast as it should for some reason so I'm in pretty bad shape..

The only reason I answered any of these the way I feel is because, I don't think it's good to let your self be without fellowship on Sabbath even if you are bed ridden.. Please pray for me.. I'll likely come back to the discussion when I am felling better.. ttyl

All translations come from copies of manuscripts. None are original. The reason that the Vaticanus and Sinaticus copies are older is because Rome destroyed all of the oldest copies of which we now have the Textus Receptus. 

It would be like me writing a letter to my wife. Someone found the letter and made copies. Another after that also got hold of the letter and made copies, howbeit, the latter  changed the content my letter. People continued to make copies from copies of my letter as the years passed by. Then one day a family member for selfish reasons did not want people to know the intent of my original letter so they sought out and destroyed all of the accurate copies of my letter they could find. While they destroyed the earliest (accurate) copies on my letter they were not able to get rid of them all as others continued to make copies. So while the earliest surviving copies would be the oldest copies they were still the corrupted copies. The later and only surviving (accurate) copies were by necessity new copies but more accurate none the less.

Hi teresa,

Here is a site that has an open source Bible program.

There are many public domain Bible versions and some that you need to pay for.  It has a "parallel" tab that you can select any 4 versions that you have downloaded.  I have 36 English and a couple of Greek Bibles.

Happy Sabbath


Site Sponsors


Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free

USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:


© 2022   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service