Have We Followed Cunningly Devised Fables? — Robert J. Wieland Ellen White's 1851 statement |
"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." 30 Proponents of Conradi's view say this is an "imperfect statement" inasmuch as the author's intent was to uphold the "time." However, could the Lord have had a deeper purpose in giving her apparently irrelevant details of this vision inorder to safeguard the interpretation against the Antiochus Epiphanes view and the consequent abandonment of 1844 and the sanctuary doctrine? If so, the statement is hardly "imperfect." "The past fifty years [written, 1905] have not dimmed one jot or principle of our faith. … Not a word is changed or denied. That which the Holy Spirit testified to as truth after the passing of time, in our great disappointment, is the solid foundation of truth … [that] made us what we are—Seventh-day Adventists." 31 Could this be a comment on "the daily"?
Does the statement (a) comment on the activity implied in Daniel's use of rum in 8:11, and (b) the taking away or replacement of the political, military power of paganism by the papacy in Daniel's use of sur in 11:31? If so, we have here firm support for the pioneer's view and an unintended demonstration of remarkable consistency in Ellen White's extensive writings over half a century from Early Writings (1850) to The Great Controversy (1911). Notes: |