« 2010 Ellen White Symposium: Devotional | Main | 2010 Ellen White Symposium: "Ellen White, Authority, And The Authority Of The Bible In Adventism" »

April 05, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Denis Kaiser has given me permission to post the following email message here. -DH

Dear friends,

When asked about the "daily," it being taken away, the casting down of the sanctuary, etc., Ellen White replied that "these features were not placed before her in vision as the time part was," and that she did not want to provide an explanation of those points.  At another time she said, "I do not know what the daily is, whether it is paganism or Christ's ministry. . . . That was not the thing that was shown me." (Arthur G. Daniells, "Interview with Mrs. E.G. White Regarding the Daily," Sept 25, 1931, DF 201b, EGWE-GC; cf. Jerry A. Moon, W. C. White and Ellen G. White: The Relationship Between the Prophet and Her Son, Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series, vol. 19 (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews Univeristy Press, 1993), 423; Richard W. Schwarz, Light Bearers to the Remnant: Denominational History Textbook for Seventh-day Adventist College Classes (Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1979), 399)

So the second statement is probably taken from the interview that Daniells had with Ellen White asking here questions reg. the "Daily." Right now I realized that I do not have the old edition of Schwarz's book but a new exp. and rev. ed. The page numbers are different. So I could not check to what source he refers to. It may be that the statement is found as well in an unpublished letter/manuscript but so far it seems that it is just an oral recollection by Daniells of what she had told him in that interview. The content of that statement would, however, fit well into other statements she made in regard to her refusal of being quoted to prove this point, such as e.g.:

"I have had no special light on the point presented for discussion and I do not see the need of this discussion." (Ellen G. White, "Pamphlet 20-A Call to the Watchmen," 1910, 5, 6; idem, Notebook Leaflets from the Elmshaven Library (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1945), 2:159; idem, Selected Messages (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1958), 1:164; idem, Manuscript Releases, 12:224; cf. Arthur L. White, The Ellen G. White Writings (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1973), 61)

Such and similar statements show that the point that was discussed (the specific definition of "daily") was not something she had been shown.

Hopefully, this will be of help.

Greetings, Denis

I certainly appreciate the research of Dennis Kaiser. He clearly demonstrated that he is well acquainted with the discussion of the "daily" in Seventh-day Adventist early history. His exegetical work on researching Ellen White's views on the daily is greatly appreciated. As a historian, he has been faithful to the discipline of evaluating history in the light of properly researched evidence that provided a balanced view of the issue of the "daily" in early Adventist thought.

The meeting began with Elder Hurst's reaffirmation that, ultimately, it is what the Bible teaches that matters. Even brother Dennis pointed us to Ellen White's testimony on the proper use of her writing to lead people to search the Scriptures and not to use her writings as a final word on the Scriptures.

It is within this context that I make the following comment:

It is the trend of modern historians to see history as amoral, therefore, the acts done in history cannot be condemned or justified. They are seen as neutral and containing no moral lessons. However, as interpreters of the Scriptures within the context of history we know that "these things were written for our example." Furthermore, Ellen White stresses the importance of the acts of God in history serving as inspiration and providing a certainty that just as God was in control of the past, God is in control of the present and the future.

So, I propose that Christian historians, particularly Adventist, have a responsibility to not just look at history and leave the research in the past but to find a contemporary application that will address our challenge today. For those of us living in the 21st Century, we are concerned with our present situation and our future. We need to know how the lessons of history, how God has led us in the past, will provide spiritual as well as practical resources and guidance to sustain now as we approach "the end days."

It would have been far more engaging to see where the discussion of the "daily" is today and how this study is significant to the continued development of Seventh-day Adventist theology of the sanctuary. This could have serve to inspire students in the audience to continue researching and finding solutions to the "daily" from exegetical work in the Scriptures. Would that we keep the present and the future in view as we look to the past. Would that Ellen White's passion for Jesus and the Scriptures be brought forth in future historical work.

(1) Actually there are more than just three views on the "daily" in modern Adventism. The three views presented are just a selection of views specifically on the 1850 statement found in recent publications rather than on the meaning of the "daily."

(2) Maybe an explanation to the scope of my topic. I was asked to present something on "Ellen White and the 'Daily'" which confined me to the historical realm. I think that my note that Ellen White saw the possibility of studying this matter under different circumstances should encourage students to take up this matter and study it.

I certainly agree that there could be the possibility that a study of this matter might enrich our theology. However, I think it would be too quick to state already what this contribution to our theology could be, before this task (exegetical work + drawing connections in the area of systematic theology) is done. Maybe that is a difference between Europeans and Americans. Europeans study a matter in-depth before they draw conclusions and before they talk about possible practical implications. Americans often ask for the practical significance of a matter before they have even taken up the task itself. Both approaches have something to it. However, what I can give is an European approach, :) although I surely can learn more from the American approach.

In that sense the topic given to me confined me to a descriptive study of historical circumstances and documents including a brief application on debates in our own time. A reference to possible implications of the topic to our theology, etc. would have added a whole new dimension/topic to the study.

However, in regard to the study of the tāmîd in the modern Adventism it can be said that extensive exegetical research has been done during the last couple of years. The most extensive and thorough exegetical investigation of the term tāmîd in the OT context and its Danielic context was made by Martin Proebstle in 2006 (PhD Diss, AU). He showed that the use of the term in the book of Daniel itself–-in the Hebrew part as well as in the Aramaic part–-shows strong connections to the OT sanctuary service and worship of the believers.

Anyone who likes to know more about exegetical work that has been done on the tāmîd can look at pp. 58-65 of my thesis. See here:

http://jewel.andrews.edu/search%7ES9?/akaiser%2C+denis/akaiser+denis/1,1,8,B/l962&FF=akaiser+denis&5,,8,0,0
There are also some other views that are held by people at the margins of Adventism. See pp. 66-71.

Thank you very much for your comments and constructive criticism.

“When union existed, before 1844, nearly all [Millerites] were united on the correct view of the ‘daily’; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test.” EW 75 (1850).

“I now ask that my ministering brethren shall not make use of my writings in their arguments regarding this question (‘the daily’); for I have had no instruction on the point under discussion, and I see no need for the controversy.” MS 11, 1910 (1SM 164).

The 1850 statement addressed the current debate among the scattered Millerites regarding the identity of the “daily” in connection with the fulfillment of the 2300 days. In wake of the 1844 Disappointment, some reinterpreted the “daily” [from Miller’s “paganism” view] and said it was to be understood in the literal sense of being animal sacrifices, and therefore the connected 2300 days were also to be understood as literal days. This view denied that the 2300 days were symbolic or that anything prophetically significant happened in 1844.

The 1910 statement addressed the current debate within Adventism regarding which symbolic view of the “daily” was correct. Was it the “old view” (paganism) or was it the “new view” (heavenly ministry of Christ)? Since both of these views were symbolic views, both concurred that the 2300 days were also symbolic and that something prophetically significant did happen in 1844.

In 1850 Ellen White was shown that the Millerites were correct in identifying the “daily” and the 2300 days symbolically, and that 1844 was the true end-point of the 2300 days. Thus she said that the Millerites had “the correct view of the ‘daily,’” and thus she added the sentence regarding “time” not being a test since 1844. In 1910 Ellen White was not shown which symbolic view of the “daily” was correct, and thus she said that she “had no instruction on the point under discussion.”

The “point under discussion” in 1910 was an entirely different point than the one under discussion in 1850. And thus Ellen White’s 1850 statement and her 1910 statement are in complete harmony with one another.

Engel Yoder’s examination of the differences between the various views around 1844 and 1910 is very keen. However, I would like to refine one point a little bit. He suggested, “In wake of the 1844 Disappointment, some reinterpreted the “daily” [from Miller’s “paganism” view] and said it was to be understood in the literal sense of being animal sacrifices, and therefore the connected 2300 days were also to be understood as literal days. This view denied that the 2300 days were symbolic or that anything prophetically significant happened in 1844.”

I would like to question this point. Ellen White talked about “other views” (plural), and also the debate in the periodicals shows that various views existed.

While it is true that both in the Millerite period and the early Sabbatarian Adventist period criticism was also directed against writers who favored a critical approach (2300 days have to be understood literally and they are connected to the pollution of the temple through Antiochus IV Epiphanes), the views that came up after the disappointment generally still held to a symbolic interpretation of the 2300 days = years. They did, however, search for new starting points, thereby consequently setting new ending dates (as, e.g., O. R. L. Crosier). Some other writers even went beyond that; they interpreted the cleansing of the temple as a literal event in Palestine (which made it somehow necessary to built up the temple again, etc.). Ellen White and the early Sabbatarian Adventists pointed out that the calculation was accurate and the date “1844” was correct.
Thus, from my point of view, the minor refinement is that the “other views” interpreted the 2300 days also symbolically (although some interpreted the event [i.e. the cleansing of the sanctuary] as something literal; it is literal, the question is just to which sanctuary it refers to).

It is correct that the discussion right after 1844 was a different one than the one around 1910. Yet, the difference in 1844 was not so much about symbolic vs. literal but about the aspect of the beginning and the end of that symbolic time period [therefore new time settings]. Around 1910 the issue was not about the beginning and the end of that period but about the identity of both the “daily” and the “sanctuary” in Dan 8:11-13.

Dennis, whatever the “other views” were that were spoken of in the 1850 statement, it seems clear that, in the context of EW 74-75, the reason they were incorrect was that they focused on the supplied word “sacrifice,” which Ellen White was just shown “does not belong to the text.” While the word “sacrifice” would have been central to the literal interpretation of the “daily” (animal sacrifices), it’s not clear how it would have been relevant to those who understood the “daily” symbolically, since symbolic views are not tied to the word “sacrifice” to begin with.

Perhaps reference to “other views” (plural) stems from the two applications of the literal view: (1) one fulfilled in the past in the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes; and (2) one fulfilled in the future when, supposedly, the temple would be rebuilt. Both views would have interpreted the 2300 days literally.

There had to be something wrong with the “other views” beyond the fact that they were merely setting new dates. Ellen White did not affirm “the correct view of the date” in EW 74-75; she affirmed “the correct view of the ‘daily.’” If the post-disappointment Millerites were simply re-dating the 2300 days while still maintaining harmony with the Millerite symbolic view of the “daily,” what was correct about the Millerite view of the “daily” that was incorrect about the “other views”? Of course, some answer this by saying that what the Millerites had correct was the paganism identity of the “daily”; but then, since the paganism view was a central part of the debate of 1900-1910, they cannot explain the 1910 statement: “I have had no instruction on the point under discussion.”

Though following the Great Disappointment there were no doubt many and varied reinterpretations of the “daily” and the 2300 days, it would be well if we could focus on reconciling the two vexing Spirit of Prophecy statements that are in apparent contradiction with each other. After all, the integrity of the Spirit of Prophecy is a more important question than is the identity of the “daily.” Let’s establish the integrity of the Spirit of Prophecy first; then we can focus on the identity of the “daily.” I believe the contradiction can be explained only one way: by limiting the context of EW 74-75 to the debate surrounding the identity of the “daily’ that was tied to the supplied word “sacrifice” in Daniel 8:12. And this debate was regarding whether the “daily” should be interpreted symbolically or literally.

Dear Denis,
I am very glad for your thesis, because it opens the possibility of discussing more important issues. If my opinion is somewhat different, you must excuse me, since I didn't yet finish reading your dissertation.

E G White's statement of 1850, as it correctly stands in your dissertation (page 107) is for me one of the most relevant cases where, we are forced to accept a not so "high" view over prophetic inspiration:

1. First, I would like to make me understand her language that claims special revelation, (or at least it is so used in her writings): "Then I saw in relation to the 'daily' (Daniel 8:12)...." What she had seen ? I'm not so troubled by her contradiction (there are some in the Bible too). There is time lapsed between the two statements. In 1850' she shared the majority view of the Millerites. She had a high view regarding Miller's interpretation of the Bible. In the 20th century she probably was not more confident in the old view, because God never confirmed it by vision and because the new view was accepted by Willie and by many leaders. My question is if she understood the whole implications of her 1850 statement, especially that little clause "I saw". This is my first question.

The second problem is about the objects that she says she "saw":
a). "that the word 'sacrifice' was supplied by man’s wisdom, and does not belong to the text" (this emphasis is relevant only in the context of the old/Millerite view of the daily/continual paganism). From a linguistic point of view, such observation is not correct. "The daily" is simply an elliptical ("beheaded") expression, shortened from "the continual burnt-offering", as Jewish later writings attest. Just like the expression "the Glorious [Land" (Da 8:9; 11:41), or Enhlish "steam engine" (1815) became > "engine" (1929). There is no theological mystery in insertion of the term "sacrifice" by translators.

b)."and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry."
The most responsible person for that message was, in E G White's eyes, Elder Miller. Or we know his and his associates' view. It was "the continual [paganism]". Her comment follows:"When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the “daily”; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed."
This comment seems to say that a correct view is where unity is (?) Probably some non-historicist interpretations had appeared among Millerites meantime, and the old unity vanished.

In my opinion, though E G White's statement must be honest, it is nevertheless contradicting the theological truth about the tamid, which is not so difficult to understand (I'd bet that some had understood it long before the Millerite movement). And it also contradicts her later statment. Hardly can both be true.

Another point which I would make is that Miller's view is rather a fruit of his exegetical reading back 2 Thess 2:7-8 in Daniel 8, as if it were an example of intertextuality. Actually Miller and not a few of his followers (in space and time) were not equipped professionally to make such statements about the sense of the presence or absence of the word sacrifice, regarding the tamid.

Practical implications for us today are not difficult to see. We should stop using Ellen White as the first and last word in SDA theology, especially when it comes to exegetical minutiae. How can we take so seriously her views about linguistics, and exegesis in a chapter that she recognized she did have neither expertize, nor revelation. She later has shown that inspired authors are not inspired in their language, rhetorics and LOGIC, and the WAY OF THINKING (1SM 12-22). To me, her statements mean more than just words and style. Logic involves arguments and reasoning; and the way of thinking is not just finding synonyms to divine terms. I have a good friend that left Adventism, after reading about E G White's 1850 statement on the daily. Especially the expression "I saw" troubled him. And whether I am not troubled alike, I must acknowledge the difficulty of harmonizing it with the simple truth. Did she saw something, or did not ?

Florin,
I’m not Denis, but I hope you don't mind if I make an attempt at responding to your comments. First, I don't believe it's necessary to conclude that Ellen White's 1850 statement and her 1910 statement are contradictory. It is an apparent contradiction, but it is not an actual contradiction.

In 1850 Ellen White affirmed the Millerite view, but not necessarily in its entirety. As you know, what she had been divinely shown was, specifically, that the word "sacrifice" had been supplied by the translators. This narrow focus of revelation was not an affirmation that the "daily" was paganism; it merely affirmed that the Millerites had correctly interpreted the "daily" in a non-literal way. That is, in the attempt to explain the 1844 Disappointment, some had taken the supplied word "sacrifice" to mean that the "daily" should be understood in a literal way (animal sacrifices) and, therefore, that the associated time period of the 2300 days should also be understood in literal time. This denied that anything of prophetic significance occurred in the year 1844. But by showing His messenger that the word "sacrifice" was supplied, God affirmed that the "daily" was correctly understood by the Millerites in a figurative way and that their figurative application of the 2300 days in year-day time was correct. Thus, what Ellen White affirmed as being correct about the Millerite view of the "daily" was that it was to be understood symbolically, and on this one point and one point only, "nearly all were united on the correct view of the 'daily'" (EW 75). They were all united that their figurative view of the "daily" pointed to the 2300 days ending in 1843/44. But again, in this Sister White did not affirm Miller's specific paganism view, though she, along with virtually all of the other leaders of the newborn remnant church, no doubt presumed at the time that it was indeed correct.

In 1910 the point at issue was not whether the "daily" should be understood literally or symbolically; it was regarding which symbolic view was correct. Was it Miller's "old view" (paganism) or Conradi's "new view" (heavenly ministry of Christ)? On this question, whether the word "sacrifice" was supplied or not was irrelevant. Both views recognized the "daily" symbolically, and both views harmonized with the symbolic application of the 2300 days ending in 1844. On this question Ellen White "had no instruction on the point under discussion" (1SM 164). As we should clearly see, the "point under discussion" in 1910 was not the same point under discussion in 1850.

You say that from a linguistic point of view, making the observation that the word "sacrifice" is supplied is not correct. It’s true that the term tamid is an elliptical, and it’s true that there is no theological mystery in the translators adding the word "sacrifice," but the context of the 1850 debate was very much centered on this supplied word. So it should be no mystery why God would show His messenger that this word was supplied, given that the literalist revisionists were misusing it and bringing in new and confusing views of Daniel 8:11-14. So from the contextual point of view of the 1850 debate, making the observation that the word "sacrifice" is supplied is directly relevant and entirely correct.

Ellen White's comments neither contradict themselves nor contradict the theological truth about the tamid. There is complete harmony in her writings on this subject. The problem is on our part. We fail to recognize the specific context of her statements and then we conclude that God's end-time messenger is untrustworthy on theological issues. I'm truly sorry to hear about your friend. People also leave the Christian faith because they believe the Bible is contradictory and untrustworthy. But the problem isn’t with the Bible. It's with them. We really shouldn't have to have every question answered in order to believe God when He communicates to us through His prophets. This is why "without faith it is impossible to please Him" (Heb. 11:6).

Dear Engel,
I appreaciate your reply. I want to say that I firmly believe in Ellen White's prophetic gift and authority. After my parents, and with even more influence, she shaped my first spiritual education in childhood, youth and even later, until today, though in time I have been concerned more and more with the Bible (because of my professional tasks), and less with Ellen White. I still read reverently her writings, finding courage and divine presence in her message, I still defend her authority, when someone questions or attaks her.

However, my experience, which I got so painfully, taught me that we use to give her too much authority and credit. I would like to understand that actually her 1850 statement about the "daily" were essentially correct. But to my present understanding, it is not the case. With no additional word "sacrifice", תָּמִיד tamid was commonly used in Hebrew to call very terrestrial sacrifices. The nature of the "daily [sacrifice]" in Daniel 8 does not depend at all on the addition „sacrifice". Rather it depends on the nature (symbolical or literal) of the context. Thus, I cannot believe that God informed her about the nature of the daily, because:
1. She expresses a common Millerite view;
2. Her expressed view about the additional word "sacrifice" is erroneous, or at least unnecessary, by any criterion;
3. If God wanted to protect Adventist believers from an erroneous literalist understanding, He certainly could find a better argument. But arguments, which are part of the rhetoric and logic of some author, are not divinely inspired, they are a human, contribution, according to EGW:

"The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers." Ms 24, 1886 (1SM 19-21).

Certainly, such principle is applicable also to any non-canonical prophet. I think that the 1850 affirmation about the daily is simply a human error, and that it is possible that in her first years of prophetic experience, her language was not always carefully refined or concerned to represent exactly the truth. In the same book she confuses 2 or 3 Herods and treats them as they were one and the same individual. I suspect that she used the expression "I saw" in a very large and common way. The past week, a friend of mine, completely sightless, told me by Skype,"I saw that you were online". I was nearly laughing. The equivalent of "I saw" is in any language very much used with no regard of actual vision or sight.
However, if the context shows that she indeed refers to some vision, we must conclude that she really had a vision where some message about Daniel 8 was given her, and that she blended her own (and shared Adventist) view with that vision. I cannot believe that God gave her a confirmation of a Millerite unnecessary reference to the translators' insertion "sacrifice".
I believe that every prophetic message is trustworthy, but not necessarily all what is human: language, genre, style, rhetoric, logic, way of thinking and secondary data -- things which are the humble garment of any divine message.
I agree that we must believe God's message, and our reason must kneel before God's revelation. However, if God revealed to us so much about the nature of inspiration, and if we discover sometimes erroneous or sheer contradicting details, probably is too much to demand our believers keep hold on all this stuff. I think that we did not learn all lessons from such cases. Think of the "amalgamation" controversy, of the origin of volcanoes (in PP), of the confirmation of Litch's and Smith's exegesis on Revelaion 9 (in GC) and so on (probably not too many, but sufficient to make us cautious).
Thanks again !

Thanks for your quick response, Florin. I'm glad to hear you affirm Ellen White's prophetic gift. It sounds like the real issue is in respect to how we understand her authority and writings. Her statements regarding the "daily" provide a good case study in this.

You are entirely correct that whether the "daily" is interpreted symbolically or literally must be determined by the context of the text and not by an uninspired supplied word. But does not the supplied word "sacrifice" prejudice the reader into misunderstanding the context of the text? In trying to help us understand the context, the translators have actually steered us in the wrong direction. Perhaps the translators thought they were inspired when they added the word, but they were not. But Ellen White was inspired when she was shown that the word "does not belong to the text." Apparently, the literalists in the late 1840s were either unaware that the word was supplied or they simply ignored the fact. I don't know what translation they were using, but even now the NAS does not indicate that this word was supplied. Nevertheless, knowing this word was supplied is very relevant and helpful when it comes to determining the context of the text.

You have brought up a relevant point regarding the limitations of language for even a prophet to express divinely inspired concepts. Much of the author is impressed upon any inspired writing, canonical or non-canonical. At the same time, much of the interpreter is impressed upon the interpretation. All of this human input into the communication, then, requires careful exegesis in order to come to a sure understanding of the intended message. Now let's exegete the sentence that seems to cause you the most problem.

"Then I saw in relation to the "daily" (Dan. 8:12) that the word 'sacrifice' was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry." EW 74-75.

This sentence is part of a short four-paragraph section of Early Writings, and in these four paragraphs Sister White said "the Lord showed me," "I saw," "I have seen," or "I was pointed to" no less than 11 times. Thus, I think it's safe to say that she was supernaturally shown all of what she relates in these four paragraphs and that she did not employ the words "I saw" in the sentence above in a mere common vernacular way. But you have a problem with this because you "cannot believe that God gave her a confirmation of a Millerite unnecessary reference to the translators' insertion 'sacrifice'."

Florin, it took me a while to figure out where you are coming from, but I think I finally know. Please correct me if I'm wrong. You believe that because the tamid, correctly understood, stands on its own without the word "sacrifice," then any true light on the "daily" should not be connected to whether this word is supplied or not. That is, whether or not the word "sacrifice" was supplied is irrelevant to the true identity of the "daily." Thus, you believe Ellen White's above comments are not inspired, since the point she makes is irrelevant to the identity of the "daily" to begin with. Why would God make an irrelevant point to establish truth? Am I right so far? You also said:

"I cannot believe that God informed her about the nature of the daily, because:
1. She expresses a common Millerite view;
2. Her expressed view about the additional word 'sacrifice' is erroneous, or at least unnecessary, by any criterion;
3. If God wanted to protect Adventist believers from an erroneous literalist understanding, He certainly could find a better argument."

You say you don't believe God showed Ellen White about the nature of the "daily," even though she claimed God showed her that the Millerites had "the correct view of it." But I believe the "correct view" the Millerites had was the nature of the "daily" (it was symbolic and not literal). So let's look at the three points supporting your skepticism.

1. The "common Millerite view" you reference is apparently the view that the word "sacrifice" was supplied. And since this view was a common one, you see this as evidence that Ellen White was writing under the influence of Millerite thinking. But what God is doing through His messenger here is simply validating the Millerite approach to understanding the "daily" — the approach that does not rely on the word "sacrifice." Many times Ellen White was divinely shown a truth that validated a conclusion others had previously come to through proper exegesis, and there is no reason to believe this was not the case here. Miller's exegesis on the nature of the "daily" was correct, and God affirmed it through His messenger to prevent further confusion.

2. If you believe she is speaking exclusively in respect to the true identity of the "daily," I can understand why you believe her statement was "unnecessary," since, because the word "sacrifice" was added by the translators, this word was not connected with the tamid to begin with. Why would Inspiration rely on any human input (especially unnecessary input) to point out truth? But what is being pointed out here is not the truth about the "daily" itself, but the truth about a hermeneutical principle in interpreting the "daily" correctly. But why you say Ellen White's statement was "erroneous" totally escapes me. The word was added, and Ellen White said it was added. There is nothing at all erroneous in what she said.

3. Since the literalists were basing their interpretation on the supplied word "sacrifice," what's wrong with God refuting their interpretation by showing His messenger that the word the literalists relied upon doesn't belong in the text? What better way to refute error than to point people to the correct reading of the text itself? The inspired writers were constantly directing people to a closer study of the Scriptures as their primary source of truth. If the literalists would have carefully followed sound hermeneutical principles, they wouldn't have come up with their wrong interpretation to begin with.

Florin, if you read the problem sentence of EW 74-75 in the context of it explaining how to interpret the "daily," I think you will find the difficulties going away. It is not a statement reflecting human error. It provides divine insight into how we are to come to the correct understanding of the tamid. And when it comes to the specific identity of the "daily" itself, this is the context in which I believe Ellen White's other statement was made: "I have had no instruction on the point under discussion" (1SM 164). God has given us inspired instruction that the "daily" should be understood in a symbolic sense (undoubtedly to affirm that the 2300 days ended in 1844), but He chose not to employ His end-time messenger to instruct us as to the specific symbolic view. He has left this for us to wrestle through, prayerfully, diligently, and in accordance with every principle of sound prophetic interpretation.

Lastly, it appears to me that Sister White's treatment of the Herods in Early Writings is the same treatment the Bible gives them — with no attempt to distinguish between the individuals. She was not giving us a history lesson, so we need not expect her to go into detail regarding the specific identities of the different Herods. As for amalgamation, volcanoes, the exegesis of Rev. 9, and whatever else we might even find in the Bible itself that doesn't fit our understanding of science or history, I think we will ultimately learn that these few difficulties have a satisfactory explanation as well.

I apologize in advance if I have gotten your position totally wrong. But I hope that what I've said makes some sense. If inspired writers had trouble communicating, how much more uninspired ones! God bless!


Thanks for your good reply, Engel.
Yes, you understood my point very well. However, I feel that I still have something to clarify, in order that you understand my argument fully.
My argument regarding the supplied word "sacrifice" is that it does not prejudice anyone and anything, since the expression הַתָּמִיד [i]hattāmîd[/i] = literally, “the [sacrifice of] continuance”, has the same pragmatic meaning, no matter if it is elliptical, as it is in Daniel and Mishnah, or if it is complete, as in the Standard Biblical Hebrew use: עלַת הַתָּמִיד [i]‘ōlat hattāmîd[/i] (Num 4:7, 16; 28:10, 15, 23f, 31; 29:6, 11, 16, 19, 22, 25, 28, 31, 34, 38; Neh 10:34), where [i]‘ōlat[/i] means „the burnt offering of...”, and [i]hattāmîd[/i] is literally „the continuance”, which is used always adjectival or adverbial (continual, unceasing). Therefore all Hebrew lexicons translate the elliptical form [i]hattāmîd[/i] as „the regular sacrifice”. The word „sacrifice” is in fact not „supplied”, it is intrinsic to the colloquial form [i]hattāmîd[/i]. The word [i]tāmîd[/i] is used 78 times in the Bible without definit article, usually adverbial, but even adjectival, in relation to the sanctuary ritual, or in various situations (of anything that is said to be or made permanent). But of the 19 occurrences where it has a definite article [i]hattāmîd[/i] (excluding the 5 occurrences in Daniel 8:11-13; 11:31; 12:11), 17 times it refers to „the daily/regular sacrifice”. Therefore I said that [i]hattāmîd[/i] is a beheaded expression, and „sacrifice” is not supplied, as if it were a smart idea added by the translator; it is the translator’s obligation to translate the whole meaning of the word, not just the word itself as a lexical item.
I kow there are people who believe that the best and safest translations are literal, word for word. But friend, the real matter is that that not only the „sacrifice” is an uninspired word in Daniel; all Biblical or Spirit of Prophecy words are uninspired, even though they fulfill God’s purpose. You wrote: „..the translators have actually steered us in the wrong direction. Perhaps the translators thought they were inspired when they added the word, but they were not. But remeber, not only words are uninspired, but also the rhetoric and logic and the way of thinking reflected in the Bible. All these are human and imperfect aspects. At least, this is White’s testimony, and I agree with her. Please reread it (I pasted it above with my post at September 19):
"The [b]Bible[/b] is written by inspired men, but it [b]is not God's mode of thought and expression[/b]. It is that of humanity. [b]God, as a writer, is not represented. [/b] Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But [b]God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible[/b]. " Ms 24, 1886 (1SM 19-21).
There is not such thing as inspired word. Not even the text of the Decalog was preserved exactly in words. For example, in Exodus 20 we have [i]zākōr[/i] „remember... (the Sabbath day)!”, while in Deuteronomy 5 we have [i]šāmōr[/i] „observe... !”; to say nothing about the other differences, even an additional reason to keep the Sabbath in Deut 5. Moses says that he added nothing (Dt 5:22), and this is true only you refer to the message, to the general meaning of the commandment. But if he refers to words, then we find him liar, or bad alike, we must suppose a gross scribal corruption.

You said, „Ellen White was inspired when she was shown that the word ’does not belong to the text.’" Yes she was inspired in her message that she intended to convey us through that vision/testimony. But in understanding and explaining what it was revealed to her, she obviously made a mistake, an error of [b]logic[/b] and of [b]way of thinking[/b], which she later (1886) had to show, these aspects are not the object of divine inspiration.
There is no need that translators should indicate that some word or particle in translation is supplied. Or such specification is necessary in rare cases were the text is obiously corrupt. Look at KJV, 1611/1769 edition (as it is in the BibleWorks computer program). Thranslators (or editors) rendered in italics the „supplied” words:
Da 8:11 Yea, he magnified [i]himself[/i] even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily [i]sacrifice[/i] was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.
8:12 And an host was given [i]him[/i] against the daily [i]sacrifice[/i] by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.
8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain [i]saint[/i] which spake, How long [i]shall be[/i] the vision [i]concerning[/i] the daily [i]sacrifice[/i], and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
12:11 And from the time [i]that[/i] the daily [i]sacrifice[i] shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, [i]there shall be[i] a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Now please think of all these words “supplied”. They are unnecessary indications. They just tell the English reader something about the specifics and tics of old Hebrew, but they do not communicate any idea. Therefore present NAS editors do not use to mark these “additions”. No translator marks such „supplies” when he or she translates from any modern language into English. The KJV translators would have made a better job if they had marked the whole verse 8:12 as very difficult, and probably corrupt, showing disagreements and logical problems. Or if they had translated more literally in 8:13,14 “until when?”, instead of “how long?”
Thus “the literalists in the late 1840s” were not unaware that the word was supplied. They “simply ignored the fact”, because there was no linguistic and theological reason to question the need of that „supplied” word. Thus I insist that knowing the word “sacrifice” was “supplied” is of no help to the reader. It just encourages wild theological speculations. It does not add any light to the context. Actually the obvious sanctuary context and its evening and morning ritual days, calls attention thatהתמיד is about the daily sanctuary liturgics centered on the daily renewal of the lamb holocaust.
I acknowledge that White’s statement is part of an inspired message, but the statement itself is mistaken or at least confused. And when a simple sentence creates reasonable difficulties, we should not always blame readers. When a Bible author wants to express a truth and his expression is unnecessarily hard core and hard shell, it is not time to proclaim this phenomenon a divine mistery, it is just deficient communication. Thus if Ellen White intended to speak about 2300 days, her reference to the “daily [sacrifice]” is only confusing. And if this confused me some time, there is no problem, since my English is poor anyway. But contemporary ministers, as the pioneer Stephen Haskell, who was literalist, could not accept the new view about the daily, because of White’s statement. The stuck to the old view, not because of Miller or Smith, but because of their inerrant view of inspiration. They understood well what Ellen White has written, and there are even today such sincere people in marginal ministries, that understand E. G. White as she expressed, so they stick to the old (the daily = paganism) view.
When White says that the Millerites had "the correct view of it," to what IT she refers, if not to the daily, which she had spoken of in the previous clause. If she referred to the daily, she is mistaken and confused, as I have shown. Or if she referred to the literal-spiritual controversy between Sabbatarian and Age-to-Come Adventists, then she is right, but wrong in logic of expression.
Now you say that “Miller's exegesis on the nature of the ‘daily’ was correct, and God affirmed it through His messenger to prevent further confusion.” Then I ask, if Miller’s exegesis on the daily was correct, why no SDA theologian buys it today? Please show me just one scholarly reference. (Not from Hartland’s or of 1888 Group etc.).
You wrote: “But what is being pointed out here is not the truth about the ‘daily’ itself, but the truth about a hermeneutical principle in interpreting the ‘daily’ correctly.” I believe that if she meant a hermeneutical principle, it is likewise pointless and not true, because the only problem with the “daily” is linguistic, not hermeneutic, and translators did their job perfectly in this case.
“The word was added, and Ellen White said it was added. There is nothing at all erroneous in what she said.” Yes she was right in that the word was added, as all readers could see the italics, but I said it is erroneous, because this addition is only in wording, not in idea, and it is linguistically binding, since without it, readers might wildly speculate about what should be “daily”—maybe daily search for the missing object.
You have written that God has shown to EGW that „the word the literalists relied upon doesn't belong in the text”. Please understand that in this case, the real literalist is the one who sticks to the letter, and is troubled by a supplied “word”. On the other hand, the literalists in understanding of the nature of sacrifice used the presence of the word “sacrifice” as an argument that was anyway more sound that the “pagan phase” view. Their own problem was that they could not see that the prophecy extends “even to the time of the end” (8:17), or they probably believed in a modern sanctuary restoration, which is even worse.
Regarding Herods, it is true that in some cases Bible does not differetate, but you cannot think of Pharaoh or Caesar as if be an individual. This is a good illustration that inspiration does not necessary illuminates the prophet regarding the exact historical truth.
“Herod’s heart grew still harder, and when he [Antipas] heard that Jesus had arisen, he was not much troubled. He [Agrippa I] took the life of James ; and when he saw that this pleased the Jews, he took Peter also, intending to put him to death” (Spiritual Gifts, 1858, Vol 1, p.71).
You said that “she was not giving us a history lesson, so we need not expect her to go into detail regarding the specific identities of the different Herods.” While this maybe true, the same reason should be applied to the “daily” statament. It was not a lesson of exegesis or theology, or linguistics anyway. And in fact, of Herod she was confused, as any simple reader of the Bible. It was not just a didactical way of expressing spiritual truth.
“As for amalgamation, volcanoes, the exegesis of Rev. 9” etc, while there are still misteries in nature and in the Bible, the real truth is that Ellen White was simply wrong in sharing such interpretations. There is no mistery in these cases. In fact, she did not repeat such interpretations. We have real problems if ignore such mistakes and avoid to face and explain them according to her own statement about inspiration. The same problem we have with the Bible authors in some cases. There is of no use to expect that statements like those in Lev 11 (about hares and rabbits cudding their chew, or about four-legs insects and locusts), are misteries to be explained to us in heaven. They are simply cultural mistakes. If these are not mistakes, then tell me, to what concrete cases in the Bible refers EGW, when she says that Bible writers were not divinely inspired in their words, logic and way of thinking? It seems to me that not a few of our attempts to explain such “misteries” are more clumsy than the mistakes themselves.
I apologize too, if I have gotten your position wrong. Yes, uninspired persons have sometimes trouble communicating. But I see no direct relation between inspiration and communication ability. They are different gifts. You may have both, you may have one of them, or you may have none. In 1 Cor 12 you find a list of many gifts. There is no hint there that prophets cumulate all inferior gifts. And some of these gifts are not so spectacular and miraculous: word of wisdom, word of knowledge, discriminating spirits... Thus there is enough room for critical exegetes to correct even prophets – not in their reveiled/inspired message, but in their human imperfect ways of expressing it. This is a hard truth for common believers, but today I find it necessary, though painful and risky.
God bless you too !
(I am Romanian. Are you German ?)

Why HTML tags do not work ?

Florin, thank you for your clarification. It was very helpful. In response, I will first point out that I don't believe you will find the Hebrew word "olah" (Strong's #5930; "burnt offering") in Num. 4:7, 16. However, you can add Ex. 29:42; Ezra 3:5; and Eze. 46:15 to your list, making [by my count] a total of 18 times this word is connected to "hattamid" (#8548; "the daily") in Scripture.

You say that the word "sacrifice" is not supplied in Dan. 8:11–13; 11:31; 12:11 because it is "intrinsic to the colloquial form hattamid." Another way to put it is to say that "sacrifice" is implied in hattamid. I both agree and disagree with this. I agree that "sacrifice" is generally implied in hattamid; I disagree that the word "sacrifice" is not supplied.

If the word "sacrifice" is included in the whole meaning of "hattamid," then why does every instance hattamid is found outside Daniel add "burnt offering" or some other noun (or verb) for hattamid to modify? Would this not be redundant in these other cases? The importance of recognizing the fact that Daniel uniquely employed hattamid elliptically cannot be overstated. Let me ask, do you believe Daniel had a reason for employing hattamid as an elliptical that was important to the inspired message being conveyed? Or do you believe this was merely an uninspired linguistic option that Daniel chose to use in communicating the inspired message. That is, was there an inspired purpose for the elliptical? Or do we attribute its unique employment by Daniel to his freedom of expression and personal choice of words?

Despite the fact that I agree that the idea of "sacrifice" is generally implied in hattamid, I believe there was a divinely inspired purpose for Daniel to use hattamid as an elliptical, and this purpose was to distinguish Daniel's prophetic hattamid from the literal and historical burnt offerings of what the Hebrews understood Tamid to mean. Without a noun to modify, Daniel was using hattamid alone to convey the inspired message that this tamid was to be understood in a uniquely figurative and prophetic sense, and it was not to be understood in the literal sense in which the Hebrews understood it and applied it (such as they did in the tractate titled "Tamid" in the Mishnah). Thus it was also not to be understood in the sense the literalists understood it 160 years ago at the time "Experience and Views" was written. The word "sacrifice" hides the fact that hattamid is elliptical, and thus this supplied word would indeed prejudice a 19th century reader to interpret hattamid in a literal way. It was in this context that Ellen White was properly shown that the word "sacrifice" "does not belong to the text."

In understanding Ellen White's EW 74-75 comments, it is imperative that we keep in view the immediate context in which she made them. Her comment regarding the supplied word was not erroneous, nor was it unnecessary, in the context of the situation in 1850. I will agree that it is an unnecessary point to make today, since we are well past the literal interpretation of hattamid, but I disagree that it was an unnecessary point to make at the time it was made. Here is a quote from the SDA Encyclopedia on the history of interpreting the "daily" that I have found helpful:

"History of Interpretation. 1. Literal and Symbolic Interpretations. Through the centuries, long before the advent movement . . . of the 1840's, there had been two classes of interpretations of the term "daily," or "continual." The literal view saw the "daily" as meaning the Jewish sacrifices in the Temple, and the taking away of the "daily" as their interruption by Antiochus (2d century B.C.), or by the Romans (A.D. 70), or by a last-day antichrist. In this view the "two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings" (Dan 8:14, margin) are 2,300 (or 1,150) literal days, and the 1290 days (ch 12:11) similarly literal days." SDA Encyclopedia, 367.

Those who were interpreting the "daily" in a literal way were still very much alive and well in 1850, and it was to put the "kybosh" on (i.e. bring to an end) the literal view that Ellen White was shown that the word "sacrifice" does not belong in the text.

You make a valid point that the so-called "supplied" words are not really supplied by translators. But when it comes to translating ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, every translator must take a certain amount of liberty to interpret what the original author meant. Even capitalization and punctuation is a function of interpretation (where is the comma in Luke 23:43?). I'm no linguistics expert, but I suspect that a significant number of the italicized words in the literal translations are in fact supplied to express the translator's interpretation of the text. No two translators translate Bible texts identically, and their translations may even express entirely different ideas. Even the same translation will offer alternate words in the margin. Obviously, translating ancient languages is not an exact science, and I find that noting a Bible translator's own choice of the words he put in italics to be a great help in doing my own interpreting of the text. In the case of Daniel's prophecies, the fact that most translators italicize the word "sacrifice" is extremely helpful. It tells the reader that the word "daily" is elliptical, and this has significant bearing on how we interpret the meaning of hattamid.

When I said that "Miller's exegesis on the nature of the 'daily' was correct," I was limiting "nature of" to mean the symbolic vs. literal nature of the "daily." That is, Miller's exegesis was correct in that it led him to recognize the symbolic nature of the "daily." This is the "correct view" in Ellen White's comment that "the Lord gave the correct view of it." However, Miller's exegesis of 2 Thess. 2:7 in identifying the symbolic view as paganism was horrible. Thus, his symbolic application of hattamid was right; his symbolic paganism identification was wrong.

Once the reader recognizes that Miller's exegesis regarding the "nature of" the "daily" was correct, then I will agree with you "that knowing the word 'sacrifice' was 'supplied' is of no help to the reader" and that "it does not add any light to the context." But before the reader recognizes this very important first element of Miller's entire exegesis on the "daily," the fact that the word "sacrifice" was added adds very much light to the context. You say that "the obvious sanctuary context and its evening and morning ritual days calls attention that [the daily] is about the daily sanctuary liturgics centered on the daily renewal of the lamb holocaust." Well said. But do you believe that what is obvious to us today was obvious to the literalists in 1850? Again, Ellen White wrote this in 1850, not 2010.

Regarding the IT in "the correct view of it," you say that "if she referred to the literal-spiritual controversy between Sabbatarian and Age-to-Come Adventists, then she is right, but wrong in logic of expression." Again, from our vantage point we would wish she had made her point more clearly, and we might say she was "wrong in logic of expression," but the prophet was not speaking to our generation, nor was she even speaking to the one 50 to 60 years future. She was speaking to the issue facing God's people at the time of her writing, and I think we should give her some slack if she didn't express herself in a way that fits our current perspective of the subject. But perhaps we are just dealing in semantics here. I really don't think we are very far apart in our positions. You say Ellen White had to correct an error she made; I say she merely clarified a valid point she made.

What you call "deficient communication" on Ellen White's part I call "deficient knowledge" of the subject of the "daily." She was obviously limited in her knowledge of the "daily" given her admission in 1910 that she "had no instruction on the point under discussion." Looking back at the limited information God gave His messenger in 1850, and with the advantage of research that has shed light on the subject, we might think that Ellen White's reference to the "daily [sacrifice]" is "only confusing." Perhaps it is confusing to us, and it was confusing to the "old view" proponents 100 years ago like Stephen Haskell (not to mention a few "old view" diehards today), but I contend it wasn't confusing in 1850 when what threatened God's remnant people was the "literal view" of the "daily" that undermined the historicist view of the 2300 days and that promoted either a preterist or futurist view of the prophetic time periods.

You say that "the only problem with the 'daily' is linguistic, not hermeneutic, and translators did their job perfectly in this case." OK, even though I think it was wrong for the translators to supply the word "sacrifice," I can agree that this word should not steer us in the wrong direction. This is because we virtually all agree that Daniel employed hattamid in a symbolic way; thus, now that we've got this point right, the word "sacrifice" doesn't mislead us. But in 1850 the literalists interpreted hattamid in a literal way, and they defended their view by putting undue emphasis on the supplied word "sacrifice." In their case at that time, the problem with the "daily" was one of hermeneutics, and God corrected their hermeneutic problem with an inspired testimony from His messenger ("the word 'sacrifice' was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text").

I believe the inspiration Ellen White received was, like all prophets, in respect to salvational issues. She could very well have expressed inaccurate details of history or science. Infallibility is not a standard we should expect from even a prophet of God. Your point that the prophets' words and expressions are not what is inspired is an important one. Ellen White herself oversaw certain revisions in her writings when they were republished, and I wonder if the Bible writers would have expressed themselves differently had they, looking back, been given the opportunity. At the same time, when God's messenger says "I saw" or "I was shown," we should expect the message that follows to be true and accurate in every respect. I also suspect that the texts of the Bible that contain apparent factual inaccuracies (non-salvational) are most likely due to scribal or translation errors that crept in. If the information has no bearing on what could be called gospel truth, it probably doesn't not warrant divine protection from human failures. These details certainly do not undermine the gospel.

Sorry for taking so long with this response (I'm way behind the power curve). But I'm enjoying our discussion and I appreciate your perspective. Thanks for referring me to the article by Arthur Patrick. I'll read it when I get a chance. (I'm an American of Pennsylvania Dutch [German] descent and whose European roots go back further than I care to investigate.)

Dear Engel,
You are right about Nu 4:7.16, there is no “burnt offering” there. In Nu 4:7 appears the “continuous bread”, which did not depend on the daily service. In v. 16 appears the “continuous [grain]offering”, that was related to the daily sacrifice. I was in a hurry, and no wonder I have made this mistake, though I remember that I had intended to leave these two referrences out of my counting.
Regarding Ex. 29:42; Ezra 3:5; and Eze. 46:15, you are right that noun “‘olah” occurs in these three references, but I did ignore them intentionally, because I wanted to mention only the definite occurrences of the expression עלת התמיד ‘olat HA-ttamid (THE daily burnt-offering). In the three examples above, this expression is without definite article: עלת תמיד ‘olat tamid (which is normally translated, “a daily burnt offering”, or “a continual burnt offering” NAS, but in special cases it may be understood as definite by itself, even without the definite article).
Regarding the meaning (but not the word) “sacrifice”, as included in the whole sense of "hattamid," you asked, “why does every instance hattamid is found outside Daniel add ’burnt offering’ or some other noun (or verb) for hattamid to modify? Would this not be redundant in these other cases?” OK, I did not refer instances where hattamid is explicitely associated with various rituals etc. I referred only the cases in Daniel and in late Hebrew writings that use the expression in an elliptical manner. Such use is NOT USUAL in literary Biblical Hebrew. It is rare and occurs especially in expressions that reflect colloquial language, as we found in Daniel. I already have indicated similar cases, e.g. Da 8:9 הצבי hatsébi (“the [land of] Beauty”), cf. KJV, “the pleasant [i]land[/i]”, in comparison to Da 11:16,41, where the expression is complete (’érets ha-tsebi).
Dear Engel, there is no inspired reason for elliptical or non-elliptical reasons. I’m sorry that you did not understand the statement of EGW, which I supplied, regarding inspiration. There is no heavenly reason in using such and such expression. It is only a human affair. The message only is inspired, since it comes from God, through revelation. There are many unusual things and peculiarities in Biblical Hebrew, as well in any any phase of Hebrew language, but non of these has any relationship with inspiration. They relate to any human language, illustrating various kinds ov variability (sinchronic or diachronic) as it is the nature of language. This elliptical use of “hattamid” in Daniel can be interpreted in only two ways. It is either a proof that the language of Daniel is Late (Hellenistic) Hebrew, as modern scholars claim, or is a form of popular (vernacular, colloquial) expression, as I believe, since there are indisputable cases of colloquial language in Daniel. But to suppose that the elliptical expression has a superhuman reason and origin, unnecessarily complicates the case.
You said, “I believe there was a divinely inspired purpose for Daniel to use hattamid as an elliptical, and this purpose was to distinguish Daniel's prophetic hattamid from the literal and historical burnt offerings of what the Hebrews understood Tamid to mean.”
I understand your insistence in seeking a providential meaning, in the elliptical expression of hattamid, but really it cannot be so. We must simply ask ourselves, how contemporary and next generations Jews would normally understand this elliptical expression? This I have told you repeatedly. If Tamid names the daily service, which is concentrated on the earthly burnt offering, how could the elliptical expression be mor suggestive of a spiritual meaning rather than a proper one.

You said, “However, Miller's exegesis of 2 Thess. 2:7 in identifying the symbolic view as paganism was horrible. Thus, his symbolic application of hattamid was right; his symbolic paganism identification was wrong.”
I cannot understand how this could be. There is no difference between the symbolic identification and symbolic application of Father Miller. It is one and the same and it is wholly wrong. He would have been more right, if he had identified hattamid with the daily sacrifice of the earthly sanctuary. But there were no linguistic or apocalyptic hermeneutic reason to think that it refers to paganism. We should avoid explanations that no (non-adventist) linguist or exegete is able to understand.
You wrote, “I also suspect that the texts of the Bible that contain apparent factual inaccuracies (non-salvational) are most likely due to scribal or translation errors that crept in. If the information has no bearing on what could be called gospel truth, it probably does not warrant divine protection from human failures.”

Yes, there are scribal and translation errors in the Bible, and new Bible translations usually tend to remove such errors. But EGW statement which I quoted referred not to scribes and translators, but to authors themselves. (And the same principle applies to her). Are you sure, you never have found such original mistakes? I already have written to you about Leviticus 11 (rabbits chewing their cud, and insects having four legs?), Genesis 1 (whaters above the expanse?), Psalm 24 (earth established on seas and rivers?), Psalm 121 (the Moon smiting people by night?). Or at least, please read Hebrews 9:4, where the author, who was hurrying (see. v. 5b), reviews some sanctuary items mistaking their place: the altar of incense was not in the Holiest, the manna and Aaron’s rod have not been hidden in the ark. To explain away such errors, is to me a more awkward situation than to acknowledge the simple fact that the author erred. Similarly, EGW made some mistake in her writings. And not only in words and language. This is fair only, and I don’t believe that well true believers would reject inspired writings because their authors made some mistakes.

Florin, I think I'm finally getting the full sense of your contention that the word "sacrifice" is not supplied despite the fact that most literal translations indicate it is supplied by italics. I've received no formal education in these things so there is much for me to learn, and it takes me longer to learn it. I'm curious to know what your educational and professional experience is.

I understand you to say that there is no inspired reason for any inspired writer to use an elliptical or non-elliptical expression, given the fact that the writer's choice of literary expression is only a "human affair." Your reference to 1SM 21 has been duly noted. But God's messenger goes on to say, "The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God." Now we have a problem. If the divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will, it still seems that we should be very hesitant to characterize whatever we don't understand or don't agree with to be a human mistake, since the human mind of the writer has been combined with the divine mind. While we can recognize this "combining" of the human and the divine to be the case for the inspired writer, it is not necessarily the case for the reader. (I'm not taking the position that a prophet of God will never make a mistake.) To what extent do we attribute what seems to us to be an apparent mistake to the writer's human error of expression, or to the possibility that what was revealed to the messenger isn't the whole story, or to the possibility that we simply don't understand the inspired message being communicated?

Accepting the point that the words themselves are not inspired, but only the message [that the words are intended to express] is inspired, I have two more questions for you when it comes specifically to Daniel's elliptical "daily." First, of what bearing is the fact that in each instance the elliptical is part of a symbolic apocalyptic prophecy? In Daniel 8, Daniel relates what he saw and heard, then he said that he fainted and was sick for days and that he "was amazed by the vision, but no one understood it" (v. 27). In a broader context, Sister White said, "The prophets had made the statements, but the spiritual import of what they had written, was undiscovered by them. They did not see the meaning of the truth" (1SM 404). If the prophets, like Daniel, "did not see the meaning of the truth" when they wrote what they wrote, it seems they must have had some help in writing what they wrote, since they didn't understand the inspired message themselves. How can one put into his own words that which he himself does not understand?

Second, of what bearing is the fact that in each case Daniel is not merely relating an inspired thought, but is instead quoting a heavenly being? Does the point of 1SM 21 apply in such a case? Were not the original words of the Decalogue, which Moses recorded in Exodus, God's chosen words? When someone speaks with the gift of tongues, are not the words spoken a divine affair? And when a prophet, canonical or Ellen White, quotes words from Jesus or the angel Gabriel, do not these words bypass human input? When Ellen White quotes what her accompanying angel said to her while she was in vision, are we not to accept that what she relates are the precise words of the angel and not her own? What was said to Ellen White was said in plain English, and for the English reader the problems associated with translation are not a factor. While this is not the case in EW 74-75 since she is not quoting anyone, in each case of Daniel's elliptical "daily" Daniel is quoting a heavenly being. Thus, can we say that this elliptical is simply a human affair on Daniel's part? Of course, I suppose the angel could speak in colloquial Hebrew just as well as Daniel.

You ask, "how could the elliptical expression be more suggestive of a spiritual meaning rather than a proper one"? Good question. My thinking was that the elliptical expression hattamid suggested a symbolic meaning because it was in an apocalyptic prophecy, and the highly symbolic nature of apocalyptic prophecy was what dictated the elliptical expression to be a symbolic expression. Obviously, hattamid in Daniel's prophecies has an apocalyptic (vs. classical) prophetic application consistent with prophetic year/day time and with beasts representing political kingdoms. But you are helping me see that the elliptical expression in and of itself does not necessarily suggest a symbolic meaning.

Given the fact that hattamid is elliptical, it seems to me to be a bit presumptuous to say that whatever noun we add to complete the thought is precisely the colloquial meaning of the term. How do we know precisely what the colloquial meaning was? We are forced to inject our own interpretation to "fill in" the colloquial elliptic, and for me this justifies saying that this "filler" word is "supplied." This is a different context than the context in which you say the word was not supplied, but it is a legitimate context nonetheless. I personally have no problem with the word "sacrifice," though "service" may be better, since the morning and evening Tamid ceremonial involved more than just the burnt offering of the animal sacrifice.

You cannot understand how I could say that Miller's application of hattamid was right while his symbolic paganism identification was wrong. You said, "There is no difference between the symbolic identification and [the] symbolic application of Father Miller. It is one and the same and it is wholly wrong. He would have been more right, if he had identified hattamid with the daily sacrifice of the earthly sanctuary."

Perhaps we do not understand "symbolic" in the same way. My point all along has been that Miller correctly interpreted the "daily" in the symbolic sense (as opposed to the literal sense pertaining to the earthly sanctuary) but that his specific symbolic view of paganism was wrong. I understand that there have been three principal symbolic views of the "daily" set forth: (1) Miller's and Adventism's "old view" of paganism; (2) the Crosier/Conradi and Adventism's "new view" of the heavenly ministry of Christ; and (3) the historic Protestant and Catholic view of the true worship of God. Before Miller, the "daily" was generally understood either in the literal sense of the animal sacrifices (connected with the Jewish temple in Jerusalem) or in the symbolic sense of the true worship of God. Then Miller came along and gave a new symbolic application to the "daily." While Miller was right in applying the "daily" symbolically, he was wrong in the particular symbolic view he came up with. And if he "had identified hattamid with the daily sacrifice of the earthly sanctuary" his view would no longer have been a symbolic one. I'll say it again: Ellen White affirmed that Miller was correct to interpret the "daily" symbolically but we should not understand her EW 74-75 statement to affirm his paganism view. Miller's general symbolic application and his specific paganism application are not one and the same.

For those of us who agree with Miller that hattamid is to be understood symbolically, the added word "sacrifice" or "service" should pose no stumbling block. But for the literalist who understood hattamid to mean the literal burnt offering of the Jewish temple services, the added word "sacrifice" was misunderstood in that it lent support to their literalistic misapplication. When Ellen White said that she "saw" that "the word 'sacrifice' was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry," what she saw was the mistake the literalists were making in their misunderstanding of hattamid. Now let's look at the entire paragraph that is at the heart of our discussion:

"Then I saw in relation to the 'daily' (Daniel 8:12) that the word 'sacrifice' was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry. When union existed, before 1844, nearly all were united on the correct view of the 'daily'; but in the confusion since 1844, other views have been embraced, and darkness and confusion have followed. Time has not been a test since 1844, and it will never again be a test." EW 74-75.

Florin, have you ever wondered what the last sentence here has to do with the two preceding ones? Actually, the last sentence provides the context of the whole paragraph and it is imperative that we read the first two sentences in this specific context. The issue is one regarding "time" and nothing more. This paragraph is the second of a four-paragraph segment of Early Writings. The third paragraph warns against the "false excitement" of preaching "time," and the fourth deals with the "great error" of believing it necessary for God's people to go to Old Jerusalem. In this entire segment God was using His messenger to steer His infant remnant church away from the wrong course the literalists wanted to take them — namely, the course of interpreting the "daily" literally and believing that the Temple would be rebuilt, that the Tamid would be reinstituted, that our prophetic focus should be on Old Jerusalem, and that the 2300 days would be literal days fulfilled in the future.

Reading the above EW paragraph in this single context, we see that "the correct view of the 'daily'" Ellen White spoke of was the "correct view" as it related to the issue of "time" — that the Millerites had the correct view of the "daily" to the extent that it harmonized with the 2300 days being 2300 years ending in 1844. Though we now see clearly that there are other symbolic views of the "daily" that also harmonize with the 2300 days being 2300 years ending in 1844, the question of which symbolic view is the right one was not the context of Ellen White's 1850 statement. The 1850 context was limited to the literal vs. symbolic views of the "daily" as these views impacted the issue of "time." This is the point that the "old view" proponents, even today, miss. They believe Ellen White endorsed Miller's paganism view of the "daily," and they believe that to reject this "old view" is to reject the prophetic gift of Sister White. But the real problem is that they are not reading EW 74-75 in its context.

Now let's consider the question of the supplied word "sacrifice." Ellen White said that "the word 'sacrifice' was supplied by man's wisdom, and does not belong to the text." We could read this superficially like the "old view" proponents read it, or we can read it in its true context of "time" being the burden of the message. Overlooking the context of "time," we could read it like you read it and take issue with Sister White by saying that the word "sacrifice" is not supplied by man's wisdom and that this word does in fact belong to the text. But if we recognize that the issue of "time" is what underlies the message, we can read it to say that the word "sacrifice" was being taken out of context by the literalists and that in this misapplied context the word "sacrifice" does not belong to the text. With the word hattamid being an elliptical expression, the word "sacrifice" was in fact supplied by man's wisdom, and it was in man's wisdom that this supplied word was misunderstood to mean the literal sacrifices of a reinstated temple Tamid.

If we were to remove the issue of "time" as being the burden of what Ellen White "saw" in 1850, there is no reason for EW 74-75 to have been written in the first place, and the issue of the word "sacrifice" being supplied would never have been noted by God's messenger. I don't believe there would ever have been an inspired testimony objecting to the word "sacrifice" if the literalists had not been misinterpreting it; nor do I believe God would have impressed upon His messenger to object to the word "sacrifice" if it was being understood in a symbolic sense harmonizing with the symbolic application of the 2300 days. But Miller's symbolic application of the "daily" was not connected to the word "sacrifice," whereas the literalist view was; so Ellen White affirmed Miller's view [to the extent is related to "time"] and she refuted the literalist view [particularly because it was wrong in respect to "time"]. For me, if we take the context of "time" out of the EW 74-75 equation, then it is understandable why "old view" proponents believe the paganism view of the "daily" and it is understandable why you believe Ellen White made a mistake in saying that the word "sacrifice" was supplied.

Regarding the side issue of biblical "mistakes," could not the "waters above the expanse" of Gen. 1:7 equate with the "waters above the heavens" of Ps. 148:4? Are these not merely expressions describing the water vapor of the atmosphere or sky? I see no reason to get so scientifically technical with biblical expressions that we undermine the Bible's trustworthiness for being inerrant in its original form. Are not the psalms poetic literature? Should we expect poetic literature to be technically accurate scientifically? Do you have a problem with gates lifting up their heads in Ps. 24:7? If not, why have a problem with the language of v. 2 regarding the earth being established on the rivers? The moon smiting people by night of Ps. 121:6 must be read in the context of v. 5: "The Lord is your keeper; The Lord is your shade at your right hand." I don't believe David is talking about the literal sun and moon here; he is talking poetically about the troubles that come day and night; troubles from which the Lord provides our "shade." The altar of incense was not physically located in the Holiest, but its daily function was to perfume the Holiest, representing the ascending prayers of God's people into the presence of God. This was not just a function on the Day of Atonement; it was daily. The priests serviced the altar in the first apartment as part of the Tamid, but its function related to the second apartment to the point that the writer of Hebrews could describe the altar of incense as part of the Holiest. The special connection between the altar of incense and the Holiest is also seen in the fact that incense was taken into the Holiest on the Day of Atonement, while those things relating to the other articles of furniture were not. Moses' "book of the law" was to be placed "in the side of the ark" (Deut. 31:26). Could this not also be where the manna and Aaron's rod were located? And just because the writer doesn't want to go into detail about the sanctuary particulars doesn't mean he was in a hurry and was prone to make factual mistakes. We agree that there are scribal and translation errors in the Bible. So when a mistake is found, how are we to know that the mistake was not made by a scribe or translator? The issue of rabbits chewing their cud and insects with four legs could very well be the result of scribal or translation errors. On what basis can it be established that these are mistakes original to Moses? For me, these problems are better explained by the limitations of language and translational issues we have been talking about. One final question: Do you believe the Bible is infallible?

Dear Florin and Engel,

I saw that you both are discussing the issue of the supplied word “sacrifice” in Dan 8 but I wasn’t able to respond due to limitations in time. However, now I thought it would be good to give at least some exegetical notes on the question. They are copied from my M.A. thesis, pp. 58-65, without the footnotes (http://jewel.andrews.edu/search~S9?/akaiser%2C+denis/akaiser+denis/1,1,10,B/l962&FF=akaiser+denis&5,,10,0,0). Maybe that will be helpful since it shows that Daniel probably used hatāmîd intentionally “substantively without an extra noun to modify.”

The most extensive and thorough exegetical investigation of the term tāmîd in the OT context and its Danielic context was made by Martin Pröbstle in 2006 (“Truth and Terror: A Text-Oriented Analysis of Daniel 8:9-14” (Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 2006), 206-232, 350-352, 475-477). He showed that the use of the term in the book of Daniel itself–in the Hebrew part as well as in the Aramaic part–shows strong connections to the OT sanctuary service and worship of the believers.

Old Testament background
As others have pointed out, the writers of the modern period referred to the fact that the expression ‘olat (burnt offering, sacrifice) is not found in the Hebrew text, which uses only the term hatāmîd. While it is usually used as an adjective modifying a noun, in the book of Daniel that adjective is used substantively without an extra noun to modify. When the term tāmîd is used as a modifier, it qualifies different activities related to the Hebrew worship system as, for example, the daily evening and morning burnt offering (Exod 29:38, 42), the renewal of the shewbread (Exod 25:30; Lev 24:8; Num 4:7), the daily maintenance of the burning lamps (Exod 27:20, 21; Lev 24:2-4), the daily burning of incense (Exod 30:8), the continual maintenance of the fire upon the altar of burnt offering (Lev 6:13), the regular grain offering by the high priest (Lev 6:20), and the continual mediation by the high priest (Exod 29:38, 42). Thus the term is used in connection with many activities the priest performed continually in the court and in the holy place of the sanctuary but it is never linked with an activity performed in the most holy place. Therefore the usage of hatāmîd; in Daniel comprehends all these services, and not only one of these. Pröbstle further showed that the term occurs in its nominal view almost exclusively in cultic contexts, mainly in the cultic laws of the Pentateuch. The form hatāmîd; occurs exclusively in cultic contexts, although these occurrences differ from the Danielic use as they always occur in a construct relation with cultic terms. The regular cultic activities performed by the high priest often stand in connection with God’s presence “so that the object or the activity is part of the regular worship of YHWH.”

In response to the common view that the 2,300 evening-mornings signify 1,150 daily burnt offerings (evening and morning), Roy Gane pointed out that the burnt offerings at the Jerusalem temple represented morning and evening burnt offerings, not evening-and-mornings as in Dan 8:14, and that the morning and evening burnt offerings comprised only one unit (Num 28:1-8). Since hatāmîd; is referring to all the continual priestly activities in the holy place of the sanctuary on behalf of the people, it was suggested to translate the term as “continual intercession.” Pröbstle showed, however, that in cultic contexts the term “does not necessarily mean ‘non-stopping, unceasing, continual,’ but rather that the ritual acts in question are to be repeated at regular intervals and at fixed times.” That is why the term tāmîd should better be rendered as “regularly, not perpetually.”

The book of Daniel
In contrast to the supporters of the old view, these scholars viewed the little horn to be taking away the tāmîd; from the prince of the host (heavenly prince, the Messiah) and throwing down the place of his sanctuary (the heavenly or God’s sanctuary). Some writers stated that the personal pronoun “his” in regard to the sanctuary (Dan 8:11) refers to the “prince of the host,” suggesting that the “prince” is a messianic term. The “daily” constitutes the starting point for the 1,290 and 1,335 days/years of Dan 12:11, 12. The term hatāmîd; is used in Dan 8:11-13 in connection with several clear cultic terms. The taking away of the tāmîd “from him” (the prince of the host) can denote “the worship and cultic activities directed toward … [the prince of the host] as well as the cultic activities of the … [prince of the host] as (high) priest itself.” The service and true worship of the Lord is taken away and replaced by a false and abominable worship. The use of “the definite article … without any introduction or explanation” in the respective places in Daniel indicates that the term tāmîd “must have been known and identifiable … in this communicative situation.” Pröbstle provided compelling evidences for the topical, contextual, and linguistical connections between the Aramaic tedîr (continually; Dan 6:16, 20) and the Hebrew hatāmîd (Dan 8:11-13, etc.) that show that Daniel’s prayers “can be regarded as cultic activity and as being closely associated with the sacrificial worship of JHWH,” and that this occurrence in Dan 6 introduces and defines the term for the bilingual reader of the book of Daniel.

Typology
All the continual services and sacrifices in the Israelite sanctuary system typified Christ’s true sacrifice at Calvary and his intercessory ministry in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 8:1). All through human history, there was only one mediator between God and men, namely Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5). Thus the tāmîd; in Dan 8 points to the “priestly activity of the Prince [Jesus Christ] in the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary” (Heb 8:2). Anderson explained that the burnt offering signified the death of Jesus, the true Lamb of God. The shewbread and incense typified his high priestly and intercessory ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.

Parallels between Dan 8 and Lev
Shea pointed to close parallels between Dan 8 and Leviticus, the tāmîd being only one of these, although it is a key term in this passage. The tāmîd refers to daily services (Lev 1-15) that took place during the 2,300 days until the yearly service started (Lev 16) at the end of the 2,300 days. Just as Lev 1-7 shows the true application of tāmîd services as forgiving the sins of the believers and recording them in the sanctuary, so Dan 8:14a presents the prince as the heavenly high priest serving continually during the 2,300 days. Daniel 8:10-12 uncovers the activities of the little horn, namely a wrong and desolating application of the tāmîd services, while Lev 11-15 showed different states of impurity and uncleanness that defiled the sanctuary. Then eventually Lev 16 clarifies how the sanctuary is cleansed and restored by a final judgment on the rightful forgiven sins and the unrightful contaminations, just as Dan 8:14b and 7:9-10 show a judgment at the climax of the tāmîd services, at the end of the 2,300 evening-mornings. Usually the rebellion of the little horn against God could be expiated in the sanctuary (Lev 16:16) but in this case it is not possible because the little horn attacks and controls the tāmîd, the very instruments of expiation.

Blessings, Denis

Engel, this is my short CV for your curiosity.
I am born SDA Romanian and live in Romania, now serving our Seminary in Cernica, near Bucharest (some faculty members of AU know me). My theological education was first a conservative SDA family training (as I am a pastor’s son), then I began to read theology after my baptism at 18 (Sabbath School lessons, fundamental doctrines, Spirit of Prophecy, commentaries, apologetics, comparative Bible Study). When I was still in the high school, I began studying Hebrew by myself, fourty years ago. Since I had so few sources of information, my Hebrew progress was slow in those first years. Nevertheless, after less of a decade, I was able to read fluently the Hebrew Bible, to understand a lot, and even to memorize some portions (Decalogue, Psalm 1, Book of Zephaniah, etc.). I began in parallel to learn Church history and universal history, in order to better understand Daniel and Revelation. I also have learned NT Greek, then English, by reading religion and history (since in the school I learned only French, Russian and Latin) and I was involved in serving the needs of SDA church with poetry, music, and frequent preaching.
Some of my friends have been also involved in similar informal training. But in my case, this hobby became a proffession. Unfortunately, I was not accepted as a Seminary student in the Communist regime, and the story is too long for this post. But ironically, our Union staff invited me later as a librarian and teacher of Biblical languages. The Communist authorities did not approve my name, so that I could be employed only after the fall of Ceauşescu (1989). As a subeditor of Signs of the Times, then a Seminary librarian, I completed my first formal theology degree in 1994, which it was officialy recognized in 1998 for most of our Romanian SDA Seminary graduates. I taught Biblical languages, OT and NT exegesis, Daniel and Revelation, Church History, Spirit of Prophecy, Hermeneutics etc. Too much, in fact, but we were a few teachers by then. My self education continued, especially in my most passional areas: Hebrew, exegesis, Bible translation, linguistics, Daniel and Revelation, history of SDA movement and church, etc. I completed a Master of Theology in OT with UNISA (2000), where I wrote a dissertation (An Exegesis of Daniel 7-9) and even survived. After some vain efforts to make my way to a doctoral program in Hebrew, in order to attend some regular courses, because I was only in distance courses, since my 3rd grade in the high school. (I had been expelled from the school, because of my SDA convictions and timetable, with the wrong day off, and I was forced to complete the first two grades in 3 years of distant courses). I could not find a better solution, and I register for a Dlitt et Phil in Semitic Languages with UNISA (by correspondence also), where I am striving to finish my doctoral thesis, while I grow old (58). My thesis is in Hebrew linguistics: A Diachronic Description of the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel. Now I am Lector in Biblical Theology and I teach Daniel and Revelation and NT Exegesis in our Seminary, for theology students. But as you see, I cannot stop out of communicate via internet and email. I think I answered your queston. Probably too much.
Engel, I noted you your reference to 1SM 21 ("The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God."). I know it and I agree, but I suspect that you understand it in a way that contradicts her former statements. Only THUS „utterances of the man are the word of God”. That is only because the divine mind and will are combined with the human mind and will. In other words, human language with all its aspects (rhetoric, logic, way of thinking etc.) as imperfect as it is, is the best way of conveying divine truth. Though the human contribution is not inspired at all, it conveys the God inspired message, and in spite of any human error, of any kind, it is God’s infallible Word.
Engel, there are so many obvious mistakes in the inspired writings, we cannot suppose they are divine misteries. I admit, we may make mistakes in some cases (and I have this experience too), but I suggested that you ponder a few Biblical and SOP examples to check it for yourselves. If you are a theology student, as I suspect, please ask your teachers. They will surely tell you similar things.
You say “I'm not taking the position that a prophet of God will never make a mistake.” I see, but you are not glad to recognize one of them. I do not judge you, in fact I was very affected and fustrated when I discovered that Ellen White was mistaken to accept the exegesis of Josiah Litch (to Revelation 9) in Great Controvery. But if I knew it earlier, it would have been much better. Anyway, I will not stop trying to help others understand this theological an hermeneutic aspect, as early as possible. For example, in my country some people are excited, other are stirred by a gospel according to Jeff Pippenger. I was asked to help that church, but I see it is very difficult to give an explanation that runs counter SOP. In such cases, some people choose to stop thinking, stop reading, stop checking for themselves. The daily must be paganism, not because of Pippenger, but because of SOP; the famous Othoman prophecy of Revelation 9 is true, because Ellen White wrote positively abou it. And so on. With such kind of reasoning, fundamentalism, ultraconservative voices and all kinds of self-made prophets bewitch our people and cause them turn their weapons toward official voices in the Church. They wonder why Church ministers and teachers do not tell the people all these secrets, and why only dedicated men like Jeff disclose such heavenly misteries: trumpets, thunders, 144.000 and especially 9/11, the time when the judgment for the living began !
EY: „Of what bearing is the fact that in each instance the elliptical is part of a symbolic apocalyptic prophecy?”
You are write, apocalyptic prophecy may use symbols ad criptic language. But criptic or covered is not awkward or strange. To say ‘the continuance’ when you mean paganism, is an non-admissible ellypsis. Apocalyptic language is sometimes criptic, drammatic, and symbolic, but it is nevertheless, normal. Symbols speak, suggest from themselves, or at least reflect older poetic patterns, they are not off-hand devices to hide a truth in such a way that even angels do not explain it. Besides I would not say that all passages of Daniel are apocaliptic. The prophecy of chapter 9 and 11 are written in normal language, with extremely rare apocalyptic elements mentioned. In Daniel 9 the time element only is in symbolic language. The rest is a kind of poetry. Daniel 11 is prose, and you have there no symbolic phrase (except this tamid, if you want it symbolic).
EY: "’The prophets had made the statements, but the spiritual import of what they had written, was undiscovered by them. They did not see the meaning of the truth’ (1SM 404). If the prophets, like Daniel, "did not see the meaning of the truth" when they wrote what they wrote, it seems they must have had some help in writing what they wrote, since they didn't understand the inspired message themselves. How can one put into his own words that which he himself does not understand?”
Engel, prophets (or even angels) did not understand sometimes special messages (e.g. the time message of Daniel 8). But they surely have understood the language. Daniel never asked angels about the meaning of tamid, and if it were the case, he certainly would have needed some cherub to interprete the kabbalistic word.
Quoting heavenly beings is just human memory. Sufficient for practical purposes. If you compare the two versions of the decalog (Exodus 20 and Dueteronomy 5) you will discover that neither God’s words are quoted exactly. Words are not important by themselves. The same meaning may be carried by other words, and the same message may be conveyed by completely different literary devices. If we would see, today, the decalog written on the stone tables, we will probably notice some differences in wording, that would be of philological interest, but the commnadments would be certainly the same.
EY: „When someone speaks with the gift of tongues, are not the words spoken a divine affair?”
No, the divine affair is the gift itself, but the use of that language is so human, that Paul must teach and warn such people to a wiser use of their gift (1Cor 14).
EY: „And when a prophet, canonical or Ellen White, quotes words from Jesus or the angel Gabriel, do not these words bypass human input? When Ellen White quotes what her accompanying angel said to her while she was in vision, are we not to accept that what she relates are the precise words of the angel and not her own?”
Not necessarily. Minds differ. Some memorize even words, others only ideas. It is possible that sometimes the exact saying of Jesus is recorded, but not necessarily. If you compare the Gospels you convince yourself. “Sermons” that may have lasted hours are recorded on a half page. In Daniel 7:1, the prophet says that „he wrote down the dream in summary fashion” (NET), or “He wrote down the substance of his dream” (NIV).
“In EW 74-75 Ellen White is not quoting anyone”, but her language reflects the Millerite use of the elliptic expression, thus it has a theological sematic cargo.
No, Daniel does not quote in each case a heavenly being when he writes about the elliptical "daily". In Daniel 8, for example, he is simply describing, in his own words the vision that was revealed to him.
EY: „Given the fact that hattamid is elliptical, it seems to me to be a bit presumptuous to say that whatever noun we add to complete the thought is precisely the colloquial meaning of the term.”
I’m sorry, if I made you understand this way, I would only say that hattamid is the elliptical form of only one expression “the daily SACRIFICE” / burnt-offering”. The elliptical expression does not stand for everything “continual”.
EY: “How do we know precisely what the colloquial meaning was? We are forced to inject our own interpretation to "fill in" the colloquial elliptic, and for me this justifies saying that this "filler" word is "supplied."”
Please no, Engel, elliptic expressions are recognized as such by any contemporary speaker. And nobody, never, has freedom or right to fill in whatever he or she wants. For example, when I say “English is rich and beautiful”, you understand that I refer to English language, not to any possible noun that may be joined to the adjective “English”. You will not suppose I refer to English people, country, way of life, no matter how true is the proposition. In the elliptical expression that is now so usual as a noun, “the English”, the head noun ”language” is understood and, at least in colloquial speech, there is no need to add the word „language”. If you translate it in a language that has not this habit of beheading most usual expression, there is no need to mention anywhere that the term language is “supplied” by human wisdom, or if it is necessary to add a corresponding term for “language”, you have to appreciate this human wisdom.
Neither I have any emotional problem to add „service” to the “daily”. The only problem is that Jews did not use this elliptical word to mean everything in the daily service. The term was consecrated to the burnt offering of morning and evening and its regular service. Any other daily or regular service (as for example, personal offerings, festive offerings etc.) were not a parte of the ”continual”. If you limit this “service” to the morning and evening regular ceremonies centered in the burnt-offering of lamb, I agree with “continual service”, as a metonymic manner of saying „continual burnt-offering and its regular ritual (the grain and wine associated offerings, incense offering, trimming the candles of the candlestick, sounding the trumps etc.)”.
Engel, I admire your insistence to make me understand that Ellen White’s endorsement of the millerite ”daily” is correct. My point was that, since not a few of our pioneers clung to her testimony, to not let go the old view, then they who understood White’s English better than me, are acceptable witnesses that the statement states as they understood it. I cannot see a better attitude for the time, than agreeing with Haskel, as regarding the logic of the statemennt, but agreeing with Danniels and the new view as regarding the true interpretation of the daily. I also find her late statement, as being the truth about her actual knowledge on the subject.
As regards my Biblical examples of non-inerrance, yes, the "waters above the heavens" of Ps 148:4 are the same as in Gen 1:7. They are not just poetic expressions describing the water vapor of the atmosphere or sky. Atmosphere is not a Biblical concept, it is modern, scientific. Sky is a good English equivalent of the Hebrew terms I mentioned.
You said, “I see no reason to get so scientifically technical with biblical expressions that we undermine the Bible's trustworthiness for being inerrant in its original form”. Engel, I have respect for your position, since I lived the same experience, and I know I was sincere and honest. However I was not right, and you should know that the quasi-official SDA approach to the theology of inspiration is different from the inerrantist position. We take Bible as trustworthy, as to its divine messages (“Scripture was given for practical purposes” – said EGW), but not to any iota of language, rhetoric, logic and culture etc., that reflect complete human authorship. Bible is 100% inspired, as regards God’s messages, and 100% uninspired, as regards human expression of thoughts.
Yes, Psalms are poetic literature, and we should expect poetic literature to use metaphoric language. In fact, some examples I have given, we may use today as simply poetic language. But if we search the Biblical prose, and read the cosmologic view of authors through (or behind) their words, we quickly understand that their cosmological model was not much different from our great-great-great-grandfathers. That is they were not technically, scientifically accurate.
I have no problem with gates lifting up their heads in Ps. 24:7. That is obviously poetry, because even the most stupid ancient reader, who has noticed how gates look and function, could not understand it literally. And you are right, there are a lot of metaphors in Biblical poetry. But when Paul says that he was taken to the third heaven, there is no poetry, but usual language that reflected popular, non-scientific view about heaven/sky/“spheres”. The same is tru for Genesis 1 and 7, etc.
You wrote, “Moses' ‘book of the law’ was to be placed ‘in the side of the ark’ (Dt 31:26).” In the side is anyway, beside (cf. NET, NIV, NJB etc.), or next to (CJB), which is OUTSIDE, and NOT INSIDE. I agree that the manna and Aaron's rod were located also there, outside the ark. You say that this is only a general, not detailed description, but it is actualy wrong in some details. I don’t want to attack the authority of the Bible or Paul (or whoever was the author of Hebrews), but I am convinced that we do not respect the truth when trying to deny any evidence of non-inerrance.
EY: “So when a mistake is found, how are we to know that the mistake was not made by a scribe or translator?”
When all translators agree, it is nearly always certain that the text is clear and well translated. Any objections may be confronted with the original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek text. An experienced researcher who studied textual criticism comparing manuscripts can say if some detail or statement is probably a scribal mistake or even a possibly conscious addition. Scribal errors are classified and we know today a lot of them, because of parallel manuscripts or ancient Versions, while other scribal errors are more difficult to find, and rarely they are true scribal errors, they may have other explanations.
EY: “The issue of rabbits chewing their cud and insects with four legs could very well be the result of scribal or translation errors. On what basis can it be established that these are mistakes original to Moses? For me, these problems are better explained by the limitations of language and translational issues we have been talking about.”
Engel, I would be glad if someone proposes a hypothesis, with a minimum of probability to prove that in these cases we have scribal errors. There is no doubt about translations, I have checked, they are good. There is no trace of scribal error. All textual witnesses have the same. You may be right that in some cases we may explain some oddities as limitations of language. But really any primitive language has a name for all figures 1-10, Hebrew has them up to 10,000. Therefore, to say that insects are four-legged is probably a too free speech, or maybe poetical? Probably this was their conventional way to speak of beings that have more than two legs? But in the same context we read about creeping things that run on a great number of legs. No problem with the fame of Moses. Aristotle himself could not count correctly the spider’s legs.
To your final question: “Do you believe the Bible is infallible?” I cannot answer you in a direct and postive way, because you understand this infallibility as inerrancy. On the other hand, you know, this adjectiv “infallible” derives from the Catholic use regarding the atributes and authority of pope. RC doctrine does not claim that infallible means to have right in any imaginary situation. Popes make mistakes, may sin, etc., as any bishop or priest. But when Pope solemnly proclaims a doctrine ex cathedra (from the hight of his episcopal chair), and if it is in harmony with the Church’s tradition, including the Bible, that proclamation is infallible, that is cannot be false or deceiving. Your above plea for Biblical inerrancy convinced me that you want a higher view of inspiration. Probably I did not find the best words to describe my understanding, but I think that I have said enough, and I am happy with my Hebrew and Greek Bible, and even with all translations, since all are the Word of God, which is absolutely wise and authoritative, and perfect in his message, for all practical purposes (for example, in Lev 11, the errors mentioned have no practical consequence: we must abstain from eating rabbits, no matter how we understand their chewing cud, and from indiscriminately eating insects, no matter how many legs they have exactly). This was my point.
I think it’s enough for the time. I wish God keep you true to Scripture. It is better to be inerrantist or fundamentalist, than doubting and destroying God’s word, as some of my former friends do.

Dear Denis
Thanks for reminding me about your thesis and of Martin (whom I know personally and appreciate). I have both theses, and I have read mod of them. However, I must review some portions. They are mines of gold for any researcher in Daniel. If for the time we possibly do not agree in each detail, there is no problem.
Your opinion is that “Daniel probably used hatāmîd intentionally ‘substantively without an extra noun to modify’.” To summarize my reply, I would say that an important problem in all theological seminaries (SDA not excepted) is that we learn old languages, while we ignore some basic principles of linguistics. Languages have their life, principles and rules, while conservative literalistic approach to language produces unnatural ways of perceiving linguistic realities, as James Barr and others have shown.
I’m not reluctant to express these sentiments, because I was entrenched myself with non-scientific ways of interpreting the finer aspects of Biblical language. I am not sure I am completely awake now, but I am glad for which I discovered. We should accept the simplest explanation (Occam’s blade) if there is one. I have roamed for decades to seek for the missing noun implied in the adjectival noun התמיד . Christ’s service, ministry, intercession, or even an object seen in vision, as His tiara or breastplate (since these should have been continually born by the Heavenly Pontiff), have been tried by me. Finally I have found the simplest explanation in the Tamid section in Mishnah. Actually I knew it longtime before, but I could not understand its force of argument until I learned about some linguistic phenomena. Thus I’m now convinced that התמיד is an elliptical, colloquial way to refer the עולת התמיד(and then metonymically to the regular service of morning and evening), since it is used as such in Mishnaic Hebrew. My point is that we should exhaust any linguistic and literary explanation, before proceeding to find the true meaning through more theological ways of thinking. For example, I would ask you, what is your exclusive linguistic explanation for using the elliptical form התמיד , if it has a so broad meaning ?
I will continue to study your thesis. I needed for this week good academic materials on the topic, but I had forgotten of your thesis. Thank you again for reminding me. Best regards,
Florin Lăiu

Florin, you certainly have an interesting bio. Our pastor's wife was born in Romania and as a child she was released to the West after her parents escaped and held a hunger strike for the release of their children. No, I am not a theology student, though I would like to be one. It's a bit late for me (I'm three years older than you).

I think we are much closer in our thinking regarding the inspiration of Scripture than what it may appear. I understand the "mistakes" to be more a breakdown in communication than to genuine mistakes. Your suggestion that referring to four-legged insects was probably "their conventional way to speak of beings that have more than two legs" brings up a good example of what I mean. I find your suggestion to be a perfectly valid possibility in explaining what is an apparent mistake to the modern reader, but which is not an actual mistake by the inspired writer. When I asked if you believed the Bible is infallible, I was referring to the Bible in its original form and intent, and I take your answer to be Yes.

You addressed nearly every point I made except the most important one — that the context of EW 74-75 was the issue of time, not whether or not the "daily" is paganism. I am sorry I have failed to help you see it. If you could, I believe you would be much more effective in repairing the damage Pippenger has caused in one of your churches. Pippenger believes the "daily" is paganism, and as I understand it, he teaches that this is a salvational issue. This is nonsense. If the people could just be shown that the Spirit of Prophecy did not endorse the paganism view, how easily this much of the trouble and confusion would be removed. You say that I am not glad to recognize that Ellen White made a mistake in her EW comment. The reason I am not glad to see it is because it is not there, and saying that it is is not helping God's cause. Telling your sincere church members that God's prophet made a mistake merely undermines the credibility of the established church, and this then lends more credibility to the ultraconservative voices like that of Pippenger.

You make the appeal that if the "old view" proponents like Haskell, who knew English better than you do, understood that EW 74-75 was an endorsement of the paganism view, then this is proof enough that EW 74-75 meant exactly what Haskell et al understood it to mean. Are you saying that Conradi, Prescott, Daniells, Willie White and all the other "new view" proponents did not know English? These men did not believe the EW statement was a mistake. They believed she spoke on the issue of time, and thus they did not undermine the integrity of the Spirit of Prophecy. You agree with the "new view" and at the same time agree with Pippenger that Ellen White endorsed the "old view," then you explain this inconsistency by saying the prophet made a mistake. You also say her 1910 statement was "the truth about her actual knowledge on the subject." Am I to take you to mean that her 1850 statement was not only a mistake, but a mistake which she came to recognize but could not bring herself to admit? This does not speak well of her character.

Florin, for the sake of the misguided saints I appeal to you to prayerfully reconsider the critical point I have been making. It is not a new point in Adventist history as you surely know. Your position and influence to correct the wrong could well have an infinite effect for good for those who, like Haskell was, are totally sincere but who are also totally misunderstanding the message Ellen White was conveying. All this confusion regarding EW 74-75 is over nothing more than the fundamental error of misunderstanding context, and after 100 years it's high time it stopped. Identifying the "daily" in itself is not a salvational issue, but who knows how many will lose their salvation because their faith in the inspired writings has been shaken?

Engel,

Thank you for a good reply.
My last research (not an exhaustive one) regarding hattamid, discovered that the real chart of 1843 was not as it is supposed, with all interpretations of Miller. Since Fitch had noticed some problems in part of Miller’s interpretations, and made him known as early as 1838, and because the same Fitch have drawn the chart of 1842-1843, that was voted in the General Conference as representing a unified Adventist belief, he avoided some issues where millerites did not agree (tamid = paganism’s supremacy of 666 years; Litch’s exegesis to Revelation 9, etc.). Ellen White may have referred to this chart of unity in faith, where there was no trace of applying the 2300 days to the earthly sanctuary and to the judaizing-evangelical millenarism.

However, her linguistic argument should not be bought today, it is not true. I refer again to the word supplied (actually, implied). A similar mistake makes Paul in Gal 3:16 (NIV) : “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds’, meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed’, meaning one person, who is Christ.“ While Paul’s message is true, his linguistic argument is not convincing, because the Hebrew word זרע zéra (seed), when used in the singular has a collective meaning (biologic seed, offspring; posterity, descendant/descendants). If used in the plural, it means grains, seeds of plants.

Thus we should not take Paul as correcting established Hebrew linguistics. Not even his chronology agrees always with Biblical history. He says that from Abraham to Sinai have passed 430 years (Gal 3), while Moses, who must have been the best expert in the contemporary chronology, counted 430 years only from Jacob entering Egypt, to Sinai. Thus from Abraham to Sinai must have been 645 years. Paul has learned it from Rabbi Gamliel, and LXX in Ex 12:40 adds „and of their fathers” or „and in Canaan”, to mean that the 430 years span the time from Abraham to Moses. Such are the uninspired errors of inspired authors, to which I refer, and I think that it is too much to claim innerancy for them. Innerancy must be proven and not affirmed apriori. Though some suspected cases might prove to be not mistakes (and I have this experience too), the reverse is also true. There are clear mistakes and imperfections, and we should assume them, with our honest faith, and not explain them away, not denying them.

„Telling your sincere church members that God's prophet made a mistake merely undermines the credibility of the established church, and this then lends more credibility to the ultraconservative voices like that of Pippenger.”

Engel, if we tell people that prophets cannot make mistakes in their writings, we will go counter the evidence. And some people today are believers because they do not read. When it comes to theology student and any believer who must read more than others, we must arm them with more accurate knowledge, not just tell them that Biblical or SOP errors cannot be. They will discover them soon, since some discovered before them and published. See please here http://sdanet.org/atissue/books/bradford/prophet-append-a.htm
„Are you saying that Conradi, Prescott, Daniells, Willie White and all the other "new view" proponents did not know English? These men did not believe the EW statement was a mistake. They believed she spoke on the issue of time, and thus they did not undermine the integrity of the Spirit of Prophecy. You agree with the "new view" and at the same time agree with Pippenger that Ellen White endorsed the "old view," then you explain this inconsistency by saying the prophet made a mistake. You also say her 1910 statement was "the truth about her actual knowledge on the subject." Am I to take you to mean that her 1850 statement was not only a mistake, but a mistake which she came to recognize but could not bring herself to admit? This does not speak well of her character.”

Engel, I am not sure what to say. Probably it was not a matter of character, but of memory or possibly of ignoring such problems, because she did not believe that it is an important issue. Anyway, if Haskel has been so tortured by the contrast between the EW published statement and E.W. later statement, I would have more glad if she would have made a good atempt to explain Haskell the true meaning of the old statement, and not just saying that it is not important, and that she has no light, after she has written something. For me it is so clear that Ellen White made some real mistakes. Read, please, what G. Bradford has written on the topic. http://sdanet.org/atissue/books/bradford/prophet-19.htm

Danniels and Prescott were not at all innerrantists. This experience opened their eyes. Conradi had some personal problems with Ellen Whites and American adventism. And other people are easily inclined to explain away some Biblical or SOP discrepant statements.

Regarding the context of EW, I would say that when someone did not understand correctly a statement, it is always the possibility that it is ambiguous and obscure. Ellen White is usually careful, but EW is an eraly statement. In those times she was assisted by James as editor, and I would not wonder if he even added something, as editor. In some cases, I know that he did it (for good purposes, certainly), and I cannod believe that Ellen had any reason to reject such help. One of her first visions has Biblical references added by James, and some of those Biblical references are from Apocrypha. I received a good material from White Estates on the topic, and I’ve seen with my eyes.
I know from experience that she sometimes did historical or scientifical mistakes. Every informed Adventist scholar in such subjects (Bible and SOP) knows what I mean. It is of no use in our time of intelectual (if not moral) enlightment, to deny such truth. Ellen White cautioned us to be prudent, but not to avoid the problem. In fact she had put it so clear in 1SM. Please read Graeme Bradford’s book. It is very enlightening. One of our best publishing on the topic.
God bless.

Dear Florin,

I agree with you that prophets are fallible, erring human beings. Ellen White described it as follows. When talking or writing about common, everyday things, one should not assume that the information conveyed bears the divine imprint and had to be without mistakes. However, (a) when a message is communicated that had been revealed through a vision/dream it bears divine authority. (b) When the Holy Spirit leads the prophet to collect information or to convey a message on religious matters it has divine authority. She stated further that the Holy Spirit does not overrule the prophet’s communicative or grammatical abilities although that does not mean that the message itself would be faulty.

Coming to her later recounting of what happened in 1850, she made very interesting statements. In 1909, when Arthur G. Daniells asked Ellen White about her 1850 statement, she recalled that “some of the leaders who had been in the 1844 movement endeavored to find new dates for the termination of the 2300 year period . . . for the coming of the Lord.” Whereas this caused confusion among those who had taken part in the Millerite movement, the Lord showed her that the old dates were correct for the 2,300 days and should not be revised to set new times for the Second Advent. When asked about the “daily,” it being taken away, the casting down of the sanctuary, etc., she replied that “these features were not placed before her in vision as the time part was,” and that she did not want to provide an explanation of those points. At another time she said, “I do not know what the daily is, whether it is paganism or Christ’s ministry. . . . That was not the thing that was shown me.” (Daniells, “Interview with Mrs. E.G. White Regarding the Daily;” Ellen G. White, Early Writings of Ellen G. White, 243; Schwarz, Light Bearers to the Remnant, 399)

What strikes me is the fact that her 1850 statement was based on something that was “shown” to her by God; this is at least what she claims. Already in the 1850 statement itself the phrase “the Lord showed me,” “I have seen,” “Then I saw,” “The Lord has shown me,” and “Then I was pointed.” The phrase “I saw” appears all over the place in that 1850 statement. This does not sound as if she had the impression that something was so but that she claims that God had shown it to her. That makes it more complicated.

Coming back to her above recollection, she stated that she was not shown by God the features of a specific interpretation but just the time part. Assuming that it was God who “showed” her those things, I am reminded of God’s patience in how he leads people and his accommodation. Sometimes, he corrects a specific detail because it would lead people into fanaticism but he doesn’t correct everything. He spares that part for later. Although the prophet himself serves as God’s messenger, he/she may not really fathom everything she is communicating.

In regard to the word “hatamid” it is clear that the Hebrew text of Dan 8, 11, and 12 contains only the word “hatamid” and none of the words for sacrifice. This is a fact. That is why her statement that the word “sacrifice” was supplied is correct; whether we agree with the following interpretation that this was done correctly or not. Thus what she says had been shown to her—that the word “sacrifice” was supplied—is correct if we just stay on a literal or let’s say textcritical level.

The basis for the people who said new dates was the word “sacrifice.” Because they inferred from that word that the sacrificial services in Palestine would be set up again; accordingly the temple had to be built again. That caused them to search for new beginning dates and to set new dates for that event. By pointing to the fact that the word “sacrifice” was added after the word “hatamid” the foundation for the resetting of dates was withdrawn. Did God want to protect people from running into fanaticism, from setting new dates, from looking for a wrong event (building of the temple) so that they would loose their faith altogether when this event would not materialize? Maybe God just corrected this point (sacrifice) that they wouldn’t go into that direction so that he could correct this interpretation altogether at some point in the future when the danger of slipping into that mistake was no longer there. And, in fact, the “new” interpretation of the “tamid” came up when the silence settled down around this matter.

No matter how we interpret the term “hatamid,” we have to be aware that the term “sacrifice” is not in the Hebrew text. Going on from there we can do research and draw conclusions why it is not there. One might say it (sacrifice) is included in the term “hatamid,” based on the fact that “tamid” appears often in the context of the morning and evening sacrifice (! = this is the right order), and because later rabbinic writings used “hatamid” in that sense. Others say, since the Danielic use is different from the common OT-use that is why we exclude the OT-background of the term and interpret it from the NT. That is what the Millerites did, and that is why they came up with the Paganism view (2Thess 2). Someone else might say that Daniel had a purpose when leaving the word “sacrifice” away and just used “hatamid” in a substantive way. Why could he have done that? Because in his time “hatamid” was already used in this sense that it included the sacrifice part? Do we have proof for that? Or did people just start using it in this way in later times? (like Rev 1:10; the “day of the lord” for Sunday; 2nd and 3rd century, but not yet in the 1st century). Might it be that Daniel did not include a single noun (sacrifice, bread, light, etc.) because he wanted to refer to more than one item? How should we know? By this uncommon use? Already several chapters before, in the Aramaic part, he uses the Aramaic equivalent (Dan 6:16, 20; or 6:17, 21; depending on the version) for continual religious service/worship. Maybe Daniel wanted to give the hint here how to understand “hatamid” later in his book (as including all continual services and worship). That is the position of the “new” interpretation, and of modern Adventist scholarship.

That is why White’s statement is not wrong when she stated that the term “sacrifice” was supplied/added. Everywhere else in the Bible the term (when it is used in an adjective meaning) appears with another noun. When we believe that Daniel was written around 605 – 540 BC we can assume that 1st and 2nd Chronicles was written afterwards. But even there the word “sacrifice” appears together with “hatamid” to make clear that it is the continual sacrifice that is offered every morning and evening (e.g. 1Chron 16:40). Why do the writers/editors of Chronicles use the “haolah tamid laboquer w’laarev” when it was already (supposedly) already clear that “tamid” would refer to the daily sacrifice? Maybe because we cannot just infer that the way how the term was used several centuries later it was also used in biblical times?

Doing historical studies I realize again and again that people jump to quick conclusions. But often when I really dig into original sources I find things that show the bigger picture. We never have all the sources and all the details. That is why we can just try to get nearer to the truth. But too often people do a superficial work and draw conclusions. Others quote them and then it is printed and so on. It will probably not always be possible to solve every tricky and difficult thing. It might be that there are some mistakes. But I don’t like the thought to declare something as a mistake to quickly. And often I find that it was not, and that others have too quickly judged.

Before doing historical studies I was doing a lot of exegetical studies. My heart always yearns for it. Thus I suggest that in order to settle doctrines and interpretations we should do exegetical work. But it might be that we also here sometimes fail. That is possible. We are humans. We might overlook details; don’t have access to them; or just don’t see the logic behind certain arguments. But it is good that we can discuss things and get nearer to the truth.

Hi Florin,

I'm sorry. I need to revise a detail of my former statement. I referred to 1Chron 16:40 regarding the use of tamid with olah. Yet, here we have a different construction. Its actually haolah tamid. Thus tamid is not used as an adjective but as an adverb. Otherwise it would be olah hatamid. Therefore you can disregard this remark regarding 1Chron 16:40. Yet, it would be interesting to study how the term was used in biblical times in a chronological way. As far as I know Daniel is the only one who uses tamid in a substantive form. Further, it would be interested to see when this use of hatamid (as implying olah) came into use.

Blessings and Shabbat Shalom,
Denis

Florin, thank you for your last response. Regarding that the word "sacrifice" was not supplied, you insist that Ellen White's linguistic argument is not true; but I contend that it is true and that your position undermines the authority of God's end-time messenger. I don't deny that there are factual mistakes in either the Bible or the SOP. The question is: On what principles of interpretation do we draw the line between correctly recognizing an inconsequential factual mistake and wrongly labeling as a mistake a legitimate part of the inspired message? The reason I continue to take issue with you on the point of the supplied word "sacrifice" is because I believe you are saying that the very thing God's messenger tells us she "saw" was a mistake. This takes the seriousness of the "mistake" to a level I can't take it. I respect your position as your opinion, but I also respectfully suggest that there is more to learn about hatamid than what you have concluded.

I cannot speak to the nuances of Hebrew since I've had no formal training in the language. What I understand is very basic. Regarding the word zera (seed) in Gal 3:16, it looks like it can be employed in reference to a single "seed" or to many; to one descendant or to many descendants. And as usual, the application must be determined by the context. In Gen 22:18 God tells Abraham, "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed." The "seed" here can only be in reference to the Messiah, as all the nations of the earth have not been blessed by Abraham's many descendants. The greatest event in Abraham's life was no doubt the promised miraculous birth of Isaac. Isaac was the promised "seed" (singular) of Abraham, and Isaac typified Christ. Paul's point in Gal 3:16 was that the context of the "seed" in Gen 22:18 was in the singular sense referring to the Messiah. So I don't see that Paul made a linguistic mistake here. But I may be missing something.

Regarding the chronology of the 430 years (Gal 3:17), I believe Paul is correct again. From "the promises" (v. 16) made to Abraham to "the law" (v. 17) given at Sinai was 430 years. Your contention that it was 430 years from Jacob's entrance into Egypt to the Exodus is contrary to our own Bible Commentary (1BC 314; 557 on Gen 15:13; Ex 12:40 and 6BC 957 on Gal 3:17). The problem seems to be in Ex 12:40 which says that the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. According to the Commentary, during this time period Canaan was regarded as being part of Egypt; thus, reference to Egypt in Ex 12:40 includes Canaan (this is why the LXX accurately supplied "and Canaan" in this verse). If you are focusing on the phrase "children of Israel" in Ex 12:40, the Commentary explains this as being a synonymous expression with "children of Abraham" (1BC 184). Moreover, the relevant generations in Egypt were Levi, Kohath, Amram, and Moses. Levi was about 43 years old when he went with Jacob to Egypt (and Kohath was probably already born), and Moses was 80 years old when the 430-year sojourn ended. There is no way to stretch these [essentially three] generations over a span of 430 years. There was 215 years from the call of Abraham to Jacob's move to Egypt, and there was 215 years from the move to Egypt to the Exodus.

I agree with you completely that it would have been better for all concerned if Ellen White had explained to Haskell and others the true context of her EW statement. But here is a quote from the SDA Encyclopedia: "When questioned, however, on the meaning of the 'daily,' Mrs. White 'usually said that she has no clear light on the subject, and that our brethren would have to study the matter for themselves'" (p. 369). Since the Lord did not reveal anything to her about the "daily" beyond the 1850 statement, and since she believed strongly at the time that this was not an important issue, I think she determined to follow her own advice and remain quiet on the subject. She did not want to say anything, even to Haskell who only wanted to defend her, that might be taken as evidence supporting either side of the "old view" and "new view" debate. For her at that time, "silence is eloquence," and she set the example. I think her silence also indicates that, for whatever reasons, it is God's will that on this subject we must not lean on the prophet and that we must study the matter for ourselves. This places a burden on all of us who currently take interest in this subject to wrestle through the difficulties without the apparent rancor and acrimony of those who have gone before us. At least this is what I personally want to strive for. Here is a quote I've just came across that I think is relevant:

"When God's Word is studied, comprehended, and obeyed, a bright light will be reflected to the world; new truths, received and acted upon, will bind us in strong bonds to Jesus. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying, 'It is written.' Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline." RH, 12-15-1885 (1SM 416).

Florin, thanks for the Bradford links. What I read I agree with. And again, I agree that there are historical and scientific mistakes in the inspired writings, or perhaps even other kinds. I just don't believe the EW statement regarding the word "sacrifice" was one of them. Best regards.

brothers in Christ,

I am a SDA member and I trully believe that our church has been chosed by God to take to the whole world the 3 angels message. I do believe that God had chosen EGW as His humble instrument to guide His denominated church in these last days. Those that fight against what she wrote they don't fight her but God himself since He directed her hand and the same Holy Spirit that inspired the other prophets and prophetess is the same one that inspired EWG. We are told in EW pg.229 about William Miller " God sent His angel to move upon the heart of a farmer who had not believed the Bible, to lead him to search the prophecies. Angels of God repeatedly visited that chosen one, to guide his mind and open to his understanding prophecies which had ever been dark to God's people. The commencement of the chain of truth was given to him, and he was led on to search for link after link, until he looked with wonder and admiration upon the Word of God. He saw there a perfect chain of truth." As good theologions you should know who the Angel of the Lord is. It is Gabriel.(Desire of Ages pg 99). So if the Angel of the Lord was sent to move upon William MIller now you are trying to demostrate that that was a mistake too? We understand that W.Miller the first prophecy that he understood was the 2520 then he discovered the 2300days then the daily(677bc, 457BC and 508AD). This is the chain of truth that EWG is talking about. You take one out you destroyed them all because they are linked together. Also I would like to point out that the interview that Daniels claims he had with EGW in 1910 about the daily. There is no record of such an interview in the log books of the White Estate. Daniells stated that Sister White endorsed Conradi's and his opinion that the "daily" symbolizes the work Christ is doing in the heavenly sanctuary-not paganism as the pioneers upheld. Fortunately we have a testimony of a brother by the name F.C. Gilberts(a converted Jew, and the champion of defending the pioneer position that identifies the "daily" as paganism in the book of Daniel) which had a interview in 1910 with Sister White concerning the "daily". HIs visit is recorded by the White Estate. That same year he recorded what he was told by the prophetess in the interview. Here is what he wrote: "Daniells and Prescott..would not give the older brethen in the cause any chance to say anything...Daniells was here to see me, and I would not see him...I would not have anything to say to him about anything. About the "daily" that they are trying to work up, there is nothing to it...When I was in Washington there seemed to be something that just encased their minds, and I could not seem to touch them. We are to have nothing to do with this subject of the "daily"...I knew they would work against my message, and then the people would not think there was anything to my message. I have written to him and told him that he was showing himself not fit to be president of the General Conference...not the man to keep the Presidency." "If this message of the "daily"were a testing message the Lord would have shown me. These people do not see the end from the beginning in this thing..I utterly refuse to see any of them who are engaged in this work. The light that was given me of God is that Brother DAniells has stood in the Presidency long enough...and I was told not to have any more conversation with him about any of these things. I would not see Daniells about the matter and I would not have one word with him. They pled with me to give him an interview, but I would not him any at all...I was told to warn our people not to have anything to do with this thing they are teaching...I was forbidden of the Lord to listen to it.I have expressed myself as not having a particle of confidence in it...This whole thing they are doing is a scheme of the devil." F.C. Gilbert's report of an interview given him by Ellen White on June 8,1910.
Strongs words wouldn't you say. There is also a letter written by EGW "MR No. 1425 - Errors and Dangers of Prescott and Daniells; The Cities to Be Worked

(A.G. Daniells was elected president of the General Conference in 1901. This suggests that this document was written in 1910, a time when Mrs. White was very concerned about Daniells' neglect of the cities and his involvement in the controversy over the "Daily.")


At this stage of our experience we are not to have our minds drawn away from the special light given [us] to consider at the important gathering of our conference. And there was Brother Daniells, whose mind the enemy was working; and your mind and Elder Prescott's mind were being worked by the angels that were expelled from heaven. Satan's work was to divert your minds that jots and tittles should be brought in which the Lord did not inspire you to bring in.... Your loud proclamation was not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I was instructed to say to you that your picking flaws in the writings of men that have been led of God is not inspired of God. And if this is the wisdom that Elder Daniells would give to the people, by no means give him an official position, for he cannot reason from cause to effect.... I have been instructed that such hasty movements should not have [been] made [such] as selecting you as president of the conference even another year. But the Lord forbids any more such hasty transactions until the matter is brought before the Lord in prayer; and as you have had the message come to you that the work of the Lord resting upon the president is a most solemn responsibility, you had no moral right to blaze out as you did upon the subject of the "Daily" and suppose your influence would decide the question... Christ is not dead. He will never suffer His work to be carried on in this strange way. Let the books alone. If any change is essential, God will have the harmony in that change consistent, but when a message has been entrusted to men with the large responsibilities involved, [God] demands faithfulness that will work by love and purify the soul. Elders Daniells and Prescott both need reconversion. A strange work has come in, and it is not in harmony with the work Christ came to our world to do; and all who are truly converted will work the works of Christ. {20MR 20.2}
We are every one [to] work out the work which shall glorify the Father. We have come to the crisis--either to conform to the character of Jesus Christ right in this preparatory time or not attempt [it]. Elder Daniells, [you are not] to feel at liberty to let your voice be heard on high as you have done under similar circumstances. And understand, the president of a conference is not a ruler. He works in connection with the wise men who occupy the position as presidents whom God has accepted. He has not liberty to meddle with the writings in printed books from the pens that God has accepted. They are no longer to bear sway unless they show less of the ruling, dominating power. The crisis has come, for God will be dishonored.... I was given representations of John Kellogg. A very attractive personage was representing the ideas of the specious arguments that he was presenting, sentiments different from the genuine Bible truth. And those who are hungering and thirsting after something new were advancing ideas [so specious] that Elder Prescott was in great danger. Elder Daniells was in great danger [of] becoming wrapped in a delusion that if these sentiments could be spoken everywhere it would be as a new world. {20MR 21.2}
Yes, it would, but while their minds were thus absorbed I was shown that Brother Daniells and Brother Prescott were weaving into their experience sentiments of a spiritualistic appearance and drawing our people to beautiful sentiments that would deceive, if possible, the very elect. I have to trace with my pen [the fact] that these brethren would see defects in their delusive ideas that would place the truth in an uncertainty; and [yet] they [would] stand out as [if they had] great spiritual discernment. Now I am to tell them [that] when I was shown this matter, when Elder Daniells was lifting up his voice like a trumpet in advocating his ideas of the "Daily," the after results were presented. Our people were becoming confused. I saw the result, and then there were given me cautions that if Elder Daniells without respect to the outcome should thus be impressed and let himself believe he was under the inspiration of God, skepticism would be sown among our ranks everywhere, and we should be where Satan would carry his messages. Set unbelief and skepticism would be sown in human minds, and crops of evil would take the place of truth.--Ms 67, 1910, pp. 1-8.
Strong words would you say? I only put parts of the letter but you all can read the rest in the EGW-Cd-rom. We also know from pen of inspiration that both the 1843 chart and the 1850 chart was a fulfilment of prophecy of Habakkuk two. " I saw that the truth should be made plain upon tables, that the earth and the fullness thereof is the Lord's, and that necessary means should not be spared to make it plain. I saw that the old chart was directed by the Lord, and that not a figure of it should be altered except by inspiration. I saw that the figures of the chart were as God would have them, and that His hand was over and hid a mistake in some of the figures, so that none should see it till His hand was removed. {SpM 1.3}This one is talking about the 1843 chart. Then we have the 1850 chart:"I saw that God was in the publishment of the chart by Brother Nichols. I saw that there was a prophecy of this chart in the Bible, and if this chart is designed for God's people, if it [is] sufficient for one it is for another, and if one needed a new chart painted on a larger scale, all need it just as much. {13MR 359.1}" I saw that the charts ordered by God struck the mind favorably, even without an explanation. There is something light, lovely, and heavenly in the representation of the angels on the charts. The mind is almost imperceptibly led to God and heaven." The chart is being executed in Boston. God is in it. {15MR 213.1} Bro. Nichols has the charge of it."`Also in the GC says:" It is not enough to have good intentions; it is not enough to do what a man thinks is right or what the minister tells him is right. His soul's salvation is at stake, and he should search the Scriptures for himself. However strong may be his convictions, however confident he may be that the minister knows what is truth, this is not his foundation. He has a chart pointing out every waymark on the heavenward journey, and he ought not to guess at anything. {GC 598.1} Brother JN Andrews says:"The great land-marks which stand along our pathway are here distinctly noticed, and thus we have given to us by the God of Heaven, an accurate chart of the great pathway which leads onward to the kingdom of God.. {May 19, 1851 JWe, ARSH 81.2}
What am I trying to proove with all these quotations? God is leading His people, those that are willing to humble themselves and become as little children to be taught by God, not by some theologians that are not even aware that they are fighting God. We are told to ask for the Mind of Christ to be given unto us the we may be able to understand the truth for our time. Those who wants to keep their minds they may do so but I will reassure them that they will not be able to receive the Mind of Christ as long as they keep hanging on to theirs. And it does not end there. The seal of God will be place upon those who have the Mind of Christ and those who don't, the Mark of the Beast will be there. Scarry thoughts my brothers. The word "daily" -"paganism" all that it means is "self-exaltation" something that God hates very much. It is something that Lucifer developed and because of it it was thrown out of heaven. WE must put away all our own self exaltation(daily or paganism) from our lives so we may receive the Seal of God upon us. May God help us all to be faithfull and rely only upon "Thus Said the Lord" in all our teaching and understanding and we must always have 2 testimonies or more in order to establish something from the word of God.
By the way, my name is Tania and I am from Romania, but now live in USA. I am not a theologion but just a simple person, that sincerily wants to know the LOrd more and more each day and waits for the return of Her Lord Jesus Christ.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About

Memory, Meaning & Faith is a blog covering Christian history in light of contemporary issues.

Search

Lijit Search