SDAs CAN TRUST THE CLAIMS OF E.G. WHITEA Refutation of Dr. Andre Hills Thesis!!

By Derrick Gillespie (February, 2014)

INTRODUCTION: Mid-way in the year 2013, former Seventh-day Adventist member from Jamaica, Dr. Andre Hill (see above picture), published a document entitled: Can Seventh-day Adventists Trust the Claim of Prophetess Ellen G. White? This document was published by him to probably coincide with his 2013 appearance on Jamaican national television (TVJ), in which he sought to undermine the ministry of E.G. White as an inspired prophet, as believed by SD Adventists (see a picture of Mrs. White below). As a writer and SDA apologist/evangelist, I have already publicly responded (in 2013) to Dr. Hills two-part appearance on Jamaicas national television; rebutting his views in a timely response, both by way of my own subsequent appearance on Television Jamaica (TVJ), as well as in my writing a series of articles now available on Facebook and Scribd.com (separate and apart from personal email correspondences between Dr. Hill and myself). These earlier public responses can be viewed/reviewed (downloaded too) at the following links online: My Television Response: Click HERE or HERE My Facebook Response: Click HERE or HERE

What am about to do in this newly written 2014 presentation is respond to Dr. Hills written 2013 thesis which he titled: Can Seventh-day Adventists Trust the Claim of Prophetess Ellen G. White? In that document Dr. Hill launched an attack against Mrs. Whites ministry under the following headings:

1. Do We Need a Prophet? 2. Sexual Union Between Humans and Beasts 3. Masturbation and Diseases 4. Predictions About Jesus Second Coming 5. A Prophetess Contradicts Herself 6. A Prophetess Plagiarizes the Writings of Others 7. God Told Her He Had Rejected All the Wicked World As I said in my television appearances, as well as in my Facebook series of articles, THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS AS THEY APPEAR, and so I will openly and respectfully address the SEEMINGLY formidable points raised by Dr. Hill in his written thesis before his departure from the SDA Church. Objectivity demands that we hear out both sides of an issue before arriving at a conclusion, but most importantly, Mrs. White herself counseled the SDA Church this way, as it concerns her ministry being attacked:

Should We Keep Silent?

"Those who have chosen to follow their own way, have begun to publish the discrepancies and contradictions, so-called, that they claim to find in connection with the Testimonies [i.e. the E.G. White writings]; and they are misstating some matters by using their own words instead of the words found in my writings. These charges will have to be met, that truth may take the place of falsehood". -- E.G. White, Letter 162, 1906. (Selected Messages, Vol. 3, pg. 349) "When man assails his fellow men, and presents in a ridiculous light those whom God has appointed to do work for him, we would not be doing justice to the accusers, or to those who are misled by their accusations should we keep silent This [accusative] work, arising in our very midst, and resembling the work of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, is an offence to God, and should be metEvery charge should be carefully investigated; it should not be left in any uncertain way, the people should not be left to think that it may be or it may not be.This should be done in the case of every church. And when there is a servant of God [E.G. White alluding to herself indirectly], whom He has appointed to do a certain work, and who for half a century has been an accepted worker, laboring for the people of our faith, and before God's workers as one whom the Lord has appointed; when for some reason one of the brethren .begins to work against the truth, and make his disaffection public, declaring things untrue which are true, these things must be met. The people must not be left to believe a lie. They must be undeceived. The filthy garments with which the servant of God has been clothed must be removed." --E.G. White, Letter 98a, 1897. (Selected Messages, Vol. 3, pgs. 348-9)

That is precisely what this document from me is setting out to do, and I encourage you, dear reader, to not put it down until you fully expose yourself to its findings by reading it to the very end. Mrs. E.G. White, while elsewhere in her writings cautioned against a love for debates just for debate sakes, yet she also counseled the SDA church to "meet" all "charges" against the Church with well-reasoned answers, and not leave questions unanswered, and brethren in doubt about issues, and WORST of all, have the watching world we are aiming to reach left resistant to or suspicious of our Message because we fail to give an answer to GENUINE questions raised about our Movement. "He that winneth souls must be wise" (said Jesus in the Bible). So dear reader, happy reading, and I pray the Holy Spirit will be your guide as you draw your own conclusions!

1. DO WE NEED A PROPHET?
Dr. Hill started his written thesis against Mrs. Whites prophetic ministry by saying (in part):

if any Adventist argues that we need her [i.e. Mrs. Whites prophetic ministry], then we would have the Bible PLUS Ellen White, which would mean that the Bible (sola scriptura) is not our confession.- pg. 1
Dr. Hill further quoted the OPINION of one SDA writer/theologian, Clifford Goldstein, who said:

I usually don't get apologetic about Ellen White; theres no need to. Her ministry speaks for itself I don't need her. I know what I need to know to be an Adventist Christian from my Bible" - Clifford Goldstein, Graffiti in the Holy of Holies, 2003, pg. 152.

Dr. Hill then indirectly gave the impression that this one SDA writers opinion should have weight enough to stand for the whole SDA Church, seeing that, of course, it was Dr. Hills own view that we dont need Mrs. Whites prophetic ministry along with The Bible.

RESPONSE:
FROM THE BIBLICAL STANDPOINT, IT IS *UNBIBLICAL TO REJECT THE NEED FOR A PROPHET IN THE LAST DAYS, SEEING IT IS THE VERY BIBLE WHICH C0MMANDS IN 1 THESS.5:19, 20 TO "DESPISE NOT PROPHESYING" AND FURTHER STATES THAT (ACCORDING TO JOEL 2:27-32) IN THE "LAST DAYS" GOD'S SPIRIT WILL CAUSE BOTH SONS AND DAUGHTERS (WOMEN AND MEN) TO "PROPHESY". MALACHI 4:1, 4-6 INDICATES THAT IN THE LAST DAYS, OR JUST BEFORE THE FIERY JUDGMENT DAY, GOD WILL NOT JUST BE CALLING PEOPLE BACK TO KEEPING ALL HIS TEN COMMANDMENTS, BUT ALSO WILL SEND THE PROPHETIC SPIRIT OF ELIJAH TO PREPARE AND UNITE GODS PEOPLE; A CLEAR INDICATION THAT WORK OF GODS LAST DAY PEOPLE WILL BE ACCOMPANIED WITH THE SPIRIT OF OR MINISTRY OF THE PROPHETS (SEE REV. 12:17; REV. 19:10; REV. 22:8, 9). IN ADDITION, THE VERY BIBLE ITSELF MAKES PLAIN THAT ONE OF THE ENDURING GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE CHURCH (ACCORDING TO EPH. 4: 8, 10-14) IS THAT OF "PROPHETS" SO THAT THE CHURCH MAY GROW UP INTO MATURITY. PROPHETS ARE ALSO FOR THE "EDIFYING" OF THE CHURCH. ALL THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE SCRIPTURES ALREADY GIVEN. SO THEN, HOW CAN THE BIBLE SAY ALL THIS, AND IT BE "UNBIBLICAL" TO ACCEPT PROPHETS IN THE CHURCH IN ADDITION TO THE BIBLE? NOT AT ALL. DR. HILL IS VERY MISGIDED ON THIS ONE!! SOLA SCRIPTURA OR THE BIBLE ONLY OBLIGATES CHRISTIANS TO ACCEPT THE PLACE OF THE GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT, AND TO OBEY THE COMMANDS TO DESPITE NOT PROPHESYINGS, TO PROVE ALL THINGS AND TO HOLD FAST TO THAT WHICH IS GOOD!!

Only if the Church ended with the apostles of the New Testament, and only if the Church attained the full perfection EPHESIANS 4:10-14 spoke of, would there be no more need for the gifts of the Spirit. God is not partial or discriminatory. Once the Church remains in place today then the gifts are still relevant, and once the Bible does not change its prophecy FOR THE LASTS DAYS in Joel 2:27-32 and Mal. 4:1,4-6, then we can expect prophets (and healers, preachers, teachers, etc.) to still remain with the Church. WE ARE TO "TRY THE SPIRITS" AND BEWARE OF "FALSE PROPHETS" THE BIBLE MAKES PLAIN...ALL INDICATING THAT BOTH THE REAL/TRUE AND FALSE PROPHETS WILL BE IN THE CHURCH TILL THE END OF TIME!! PERIOD!! After "proving" the prophetic utterances, then we are further commanded to "hold fast to that which is good" ...in other words, preserve, respect and abide by the counsels and insights made available via the prophetic gift once it passes the Biblical test!! Too many who claim to believe and hold to the tenets of the Bible (as the sole/final rule of faith for the Christian) tend to reject the notion that genuine prophets can be in the Church, yet, apart from what was BIBLICALLY shown above, it does appear strongly FROM THE BIBLE ITSELF that one of the identifying marks of the TRUE people of God in the last days is for them to be blessed with the spirit of prophecy or the spirit of the prophets, even as they are identified as being obedient to the commandments of God (see Rev. 12:17 and Rev. 19:10 with Rev. 22: 8, 9). It does appear too that those blessed with the spirit of prophecy or the spirit of the prophets, and are obedient to the commandments, would suffer much wrath from the Devil working though his human agents. Is it any wonder that Mrs. Whites ministry among commandment keeping SDAs is undergoing so much INTENSIFYING opposition like that from Dr. Hill and all the critics he persistently PARROTS? I am not in the least surprised. The most striking thing however is the delusion that Dr. Hill is laboring under that sola scriptura negates the prophetic gift in addition to the Bible. The Bible itself proves him to be so wrong; just as he is in all the other issues he raised in order to undermine the prophetic ministry of Mrs. White in SD Adventism!! That I will give the evidence to prove, as you shall see for yourself, dear reader!

2. SEXUAL UNION BETWEEN MAN AND BEASTS

Dr. Hill said (in part) about Mrs. Whites writings:

she taught the amalgamation of man and beast as may be seen in certain races of men (Spirit of Prophecy vol 1:69, 78). It is obvious from the context that she meant the sexual union of man and animals, which she said, resulted in offspring that were supposedly half human and half animal and which could be seen in certain races, though the church today, contrary to the church in Ellen White's day, say she did not mean that...- ibid, pg. 2
I must say here, having taken the time myself to personally do a thorough and exhaustive research on the issue, I can confidently say that Dr. Hill is, again, quite misguided on this issue, despite I will freely admit that I can easily see why he and the critics would/could arrive at the conclusion they have; a popular conclusion which is easy to arrive at in the issue under consideration!! But again I say, THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS AS THEY APPEAR!! Without delving into too much detail in this general response to Dr. Hills written thesis---seeing I have already addressed this issue in-depth by itself (see these two links HERE and HERE for a free/downloadable copy of my potent and enlightening two-part presentation on the matter)--- let me make a couple of quick salient points hereafter.

1. In response to Dr. Hill further saying the following:

church leader and friend of Ellen White, Uriah Smith, identified certain African races as being products of the amalgamation of man and beast, which Ellen White spoke of (The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White by Uriah Smith 1868:103).

A 1924 letter archived by the EG White Estate shows Mrs. White's own son and A PRIMARY WITNESS TO THE HISTORICAL EVENTS, William C. White, responding to the issues about his mother's utterances on the amalgamation issue, and he pointed out a few things as a direct witness to the historical happenings in the pioneering SDA Church. First, he emphatically states that EG White did not teach that the African races were the result of amalgamation; second, that she did not endorse Uriah Smiths interpretation who thought she meant to say that was the case; third, that her LATER omission of the passage was due, at least in part, to persons making racial attacks based on their assumptions about her statements; fourth, that none of the SDA ministers taught what Uriah Smith misinterpreted his mother to saying about the Hottentots (Negroes) and Digger Indians resulting from the amalgamation of man and beast. SEE PROOF IN THE FOLLOWING PHOCOPIED PORTIONS OF THE LETTER (SEE ON THE NEXT PAGE):

2. Reading the written text from Mrs. White herself on the amalgamation of man and beast issue, and looking closely at her own word usage, her own context clues, and her own general teaching throughout the years about race, and especially her positive utterances on the Negroes, it is plain to this writer that both the critics (like Dr. Hill, and those he PARROTS) and certain early SDA pioneers are/were wrong about what Mrs. White meant to communicate in her controversial amalgamation of man and beast statement of the 1860s (and as reprinted in the 1870s).

3. If even the utterances of prophets in the Old Testament, in some instances, could have been misrepresented/misunderstood by the very people of Israel to whom they were given (e.g. the nature of the Messiah, and the nature of the Godhead) then it is not strange that a similar reality can and did happen too among early Adventists (in the formative years of the Church), i.e. as it concerns interpreting certain aspects of Mrs. Whites writings with the amalgamation of man and beast statement being among the prime examples. 4. With the foregoing as explained under consideration, no wonder Mrs. White herself altered and deleted the AMBIGUOUS amalgamation of man and beast statement by the 1880s (i.e. after publishing it in the 1860s and 1870s); and she did this even while some of the SDA brethren, admittedly, were explaining it in the bestiality context, and even while they sought support for their bestiality interpretation by appealing to the underdeveloped scientific and social views about race as existing in America at the time. She altered and deleted the statement even before Genetics arose as a science in the 1900s to inform, through concrete evidence, that bestiality could not produce offspring; indicating clearly that Genetics was not the reason she altered and deleted her statement that was, admittedly, AMBIGUOUS in nature, and therefore could lead one to the wrong conclusion.

5. Mrs. White made plain, both in the initial context of her writings, and in subsequent years, that what she meant was that the godly spiritual race of the sons of God uniting with the ungodly spiritual race of ungodly men (with its sad spiritual results), as well as the human-induced hybridization or cross-breeding of animal species--- practices both forbidden by God--- they were the main reason for the Flood being sent. She also meant to say that since the Flood humans still continue to practice these two forbidden things, and examples or instances of them can be seen. This interpretation is quite provable in the writings and general teachings of Mrs. White herself (not by appealing to the utterances of certain early pioneers who evidently got it wrong before and after she deleted/altered her own AMBIGUOUS statement as a signal they had it wrong). And so I recommend my two-part presentation that I referenced earlier; which delves seriously and candidly into the issues (see these two links HERE and HERE). You will find these two presentations quite eye-opening and compelling, and you owe it to yourself to see them for yourself, dear reader! Once through reading them you will see why I believe SDAs CAN TRUST THE CLAIMS OF E.G. WHITE!

3. MASTURBATION AND DISEASES

As it concerns Mrs. Whites utterances on masturbation and diseases, Dr. Hill said (in part): she taught that masturbation causes various diseases such as catarrh, dropsy, headache, loss of memory and sight, great weakness in the back and loins, affections of the spine, the head often decays inwardly. Cancerous humor, which would lie dormant in the system their lifetime, is inflamed and commences its eating destructive work. The mind is often utterly ruined, and insanity takes place (Testimonies on Sexual Behavior: 122).This was part of what God told her, she said, in her 1863 health reform vision. But medical and psychological research proves that Ellen White was wrong, though she said she was shown these ideas in visionInterestingly, Adventist Health books indirectly state that Ellen White was wrong. Note Dr. Felix Cortes' statement in his book published in 2007, which is sold in Adventist book Centres: In the past, masturbation was thought to be the cause of serious diseases that young people feared and so felt guilty when they masturbated. The old warnings that 'the solitary vice'(masturbation) destroys the brain or can cause blindness or other terrible diseases can no longer be supported (Sex with Love: 132).- ibid, pg. 2

RESPONSE:
Dr. Hill is a trained scientist in the field of psychology, and, as one who specializes in science SHOULD know, science is ever growing in its body of knowledge, and so what may be deemed "unscientific" now, may just turn out to be otherwise later; ONCE FURTHER RESEARCH IS DONE!! I will admit that the masturbation issue is highly controversial in scientific/medical circles, and hence opinions of 'experts' differ (with certain medical personnel IN ADVENTISM TODAY, like Dr. Felix Cortez, and others, believing E.G. White was misguided on the matter, even while, ironically, several non-SDA medical personnel believe and are expressing quite the opposite, i.e. in support of her). It is therefore advisable to tread softly on the matter, even while reviewing all research findings so far; not just what one PREFERS to countenance. After all, isnt established science also opposed to the creation principle in the Bible itself, and isnt established science quite opposed to the notion that the Flood of Noah actually occurred, even while other scientists (even if in the minority) accept the Biblical teachings on these things, and have evidence to rebut the more popular scientific viewpoints? Popular science is not always right! Now let me hasten to say this. New scientific finding (since fifty years ago) about zinc deficiency in the body----and also that zinc in body fluids is most concentrated in human semen and female vaginal/ejaculatory fluid more than anywhere else in the human body, and that if lost through excessive masturbation, and not replaced quickly enough in the diet, that it can lead to a weakened immune and nervous system--- all this explains much about the much debated pronouncements of E.G. White on the dangers of masturbation, as it concerns the masturbation potentially causing several diseases related to a weakened nervous and immune system. Research continues, and much is left to be revealed!! Never be too quick to jump to conclusions, I always say! Here are some PROVEN facts about zinc worth knowing: -About 50 years ago, zinc was first recognized as an essential micronutrient for human health by Dr. Ananda Prasad, a nutrition chemist at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan.

-Human zinc deficiency was not described until 1963, and it took an additional 10 years before it was confirmed and accepted that zinc is an important nutrient for humans."Nutrition: Recommended Intakes of Nutrients: Inorganic Elements," Britannica CD, 1999 Standard Ed. -The brain requires zinc to function properly and to prevent neurological diseases, according to a study performed at the University of Shizuoka, JapanZinc deficiency results in brain dysfunctions! -The hippocampus, described in the University of Shizuoka study as a zinc-enriched region of the brain, is responsible for emotions and for converting information into memory. The hippocampus is important to understanding diseases such as epilepsy, Alzheimer's and some mental illnesses - Zinc is essential to most cell systems involved in the immune function and its deficiency can diminish immunocompetence and resistance to infections. Zinc poor status impairs the activity of natural killer cells, some neutrophil functions and phagocytosis. Its deficiency also leads to an enlarged prostate, making it susceptible to cancer!! -According to Ananda S. Prasad, MD, PhD, at Wayne State Universityknown causes of zinc deficiency in man include surgery, malabsorbtion syndrome, being an athlete, frequent ejaculation (most often by homosexuals), excessive alcohol intake, fasting, institutional diets, illegal drug use, chronic diseases

(including sickle cell anemia, Wilson's disease, renal and liver diseases), lack of zinc in food crops grown in zinc depleted soils, a poor diet, etc. - According to Ananda S. Prasad, MD, PhD, at Wayne State University Continued increase in zinc deficiency may be dangerous to humanity because dietary zinc deficiency -- dependent upon severity and other factors -- can result in: (a) primary T-cell lymphocyte immune system dysfunction (failure to terminate incipient malignancies, viral and fungal infections), (b) inability to protect cell membranes from viruses, toxins, complement, and venoms, (c) poor appetite (particularly in the young and aged), (d) mental lethargy, (e) abnormal neurosensory changes, (f) chronic diarrhea, (g) growth failure (dwarfism), (h) vision problems, (i) fertility problems (including hypogonads, failure of sexual maturity, benign prostatitis in men, and menstrual cramping and bloating in women), (j) essential hypertension, (k) angina pectoris, (l) ischemia of effort, (m) delayed wound healing, (n) free radical damage, (o) frequent opportunistic infections, (p) scleroderma, (q) systemic scleroderma (including lethal pulmonary hypertension), (r) respiratory and skin allergies, (s) asthma, (t) premature aging, (u) loss of hair color, (v) anemia, (w) striae (stretch marks), (x) joint pain, (y) loss of taste, and (z) birth defects. It is probable that each of these disorders will respond to, be prevented by, or be cured by daily therapeutic doses of zinc -There might be therapeutic implications about giving supplemental zinc in a strategic manner to help improve some people with certain conditionstaking zinc supplements at the start of a cold seems to ease the effects of the illness researchers suggestZinc helps fight infections by balancing the immune system's response, according to the study led by Daren Knoell, a professor of pharmacy and internal medicine at Ohio State University. -Oysters, which have 76.7 mg of zinc per serving, have the highest per-serving level of zinc among all foods, and this was the reason for doctors in the 19th century prescribing oysters as a medicine to combat illness (explaining why Mrs. White consumed oysters after 1863 as medicine to combat illness)!!
THESE FINDINGS REVEAL MUCH ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF ZINC DEFICIENCY (AS FROM VARIOUS CAUSES, INCLUDING ITS RAPID LOSS IN MASTURBATION) ULTIMATELY RESULTING IN VARIOUS DISEASES!!

Check out these recent scholarly findings (written since the year 2000) to further consider the issue: http://www.extranet.elsevier.com/.../Zinc%20Deficiency... http://george-eby-research.com/html/warning.html http://drlwilson.com/ARTICLES/MASTURBATION.htm

CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE TWO *RECENT (2007) SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FINDINGS:

"The concentration of zinc in the male genital organs and human semen is *extremely high relative to those of other body fluids and tissues..... *High levels of zinc found in maturing spermatozoa are believed to exercise some influence on oxygen consumption by the spermatozoa, chromatin stabilization and acrosin activity." - Jerome Nriagu , School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Zinc Deficiency in Human Health, 2007, pg. 5

"As a consequence of the large number of zinc-dependent metabolic functions, the clinical morbidities associated with zinc deficiency are considerable. The crosstalk between the metabolic cycles of zinc and other essential micronutrites allows zinc deficiency to achieve a domino effect that affects most organ systems in adverse manner. It is not surprising that some people associate zinc deficiency with chronic fatigue syndrome....Zinc is essential to most cell systems involved in the immune function and its deficiency can diminish immuno-competence and resistance to infections" -- Jerome Nriagu , School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Zinc Deficiency in Human Health, 2007, pgs. 4-6
NO WONDER OTHER MEDICAL EXPERTS HAD DECLARED:

"The amount of zinc in semen is such that one ejaculation may get rid of all the zinc that can be absorbed from the intestines in one day. This has a number of consequences. Unless the amount lost is replaced by an increased dietary intake, repeated ejaculation may lead to a real zinc deficiency with various problems developing, including impotence....It is even possible, given the importance of zinc for the brain, that 19th century moralists were correct when they said that repeated masturbation could make one mad!" Dr. David Horrobin M.D., Oxford University, Zinc (Vitabooks: St. Albans, Vermont, 1981), p. 8.

"We hate to say it, but in a zinc-deficient adolescent, sexual excitement and excessive masturbation might precipitate insanity." Carl C. Pfeiffer, Ph.D., M.D, Zinc and Other Micro-nutrients (Keats: New Canaan, Conn., 1978), p. 45.

IT IS PLAIN THAT IF ZINC AND SEMEN ARE SO CONNECTED, AND IF ZINC DEFICIENCY AND THE IMMUNE AND NERVOUS SYSTEMS ARE SO CONNECTED, THEN MRS. WHITE'S PRONOUNCEMENTS ABOUT THE *POSSIBLE DISEASES THAT CAN RESULT IN SOMEONE AFFLICTED WITH A CHRONIC MASTURBATION SYNDROME IS MORE THAN PLAUSIBLE AND IS SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRABLE. THIS REALITY WE HAVE ONLY JUST BEGUN TO SEE THROUGH SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS SINCE THE 1960s!! AND REMEMBER RESEARCH IS ONLY JUST BEGINNING AS IT CONCERNS ZINC DEFICIENCY. AMAZING, ISN'T IT? SO THOSE WHO BELIEVE (EVEN SOME MISGUIDED SDA WRITERS) THAT THE EARLIER E.G. WHITE PRONOUNCEMENTS ABOUT MASTURBATION AND ITS POSSIBLE HEALTH EFFECTS, THAT THEY "CAN NO LONGER BE SUPPORTED", THEY BETTER WAIT BEFORE SPEAKING TOO SOON.

I will now quote an online webpage below, which addresses the issue with some amount of reasonableness [INSERTS IN BRACKETS MINE]. "Masturbation Few topics have generated more ridicule from critics than Ellen Whites statements regarding selfabuse, solitary vice, self-indulgence, secret vice, moral pollution, etc. Ellen White never used the term masturbation. Her first reference to this subject appeared in a 64-page pamphlet, An Appeal to Mothers, April 1864, nine months after her first comprehensive health vision. Primarily devoted to masturbation, pages 5 to 34 were from her own pen; the remainder consisted of quotations from medical authorities [OF THE DAY]. Ellen White did not say that all, or even most, of the potentially serious consequences of masturbation would happen to any one individual. Nor did she say that the worst possible degree of a serious consequence would happen to most indulgers. Modern research indicates that Ellen Whites strong statements can be supported when she is properly understood. The general view today [WHILE REMAINING CONTROVERSIAL], however, is that masturbation is

normal and healthy and thus should be free from guilt feelings [THE SAME VIEW IS GROWING AMONG SCIENTISTS REGARDING HOMOSEXUALITY, AND HENCE WILL REMAIN CONTROVERSIAL]. Two medical specialists have suggested that in a zinc-deficient adolescent, sexual excitement and excessive masturbation might precipitate insanity, and it is even possible, given the importance of zinc for the brain, that 18th century moralists were correct when they said that repeated masturbation could make one mad. ......some may be embarrassed by Ellen Whites strong statements regarding masturbation. However, many of Mrs. Whites other statements also seemed unrealistic and exaggerated before science corroborated them, for example, cancer being caused by a virus, the dangers of smoking, overeating, and the overuse of fats, sugar, and salt, to name a few. . . . It seems worthwhile to remind ourselves that medical knowledge at any point is not perfect. Quoted from: http://www.whiteestate.org/books/mol/Chapt43.html...
IN CLOSING ON THIS ISSUE, I MUST SAY THAT IF DR. HILL HAD NOT BEEN ALREADY PREJUDICED AGAINST E.G. WHITE HE WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT FURTHER RESEARCH MIGHT JUST IRREFUTABLY PROVE HER TO HAVE BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG ABOUT THE QUESTIONABLE/CONTROVERSIAL PRACTICE OF MASTURBATION AND ITS POSSIBLE RESULTS WHEN INDULGED TO EXCESS. HE APPEALS TO THE MORE POPULAR VIEWS ABOUT MASTURBATION AMONG SCIENTISTS, AND SEES AS OUT-DATED AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE THE OTHER SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH FINDINGS THAT WOULD VINDICATE MRS. WHITE. YET DR. HILL WOULD NOT DO/SAY THE SAME AS IT CONCERNS HIS OWN UNPOPULAR CHRISTIAN VIEWS AS IT CONCERNS HIS CREATION SCIENCE TYPE WORLDVIEW CONCERNING CREATION, OR THE FLOOD, OR HOMOSEXUALITY BEING A SEXUAL ABERRATION, AND THUS HE IS PROVED TO BE BIASED IN HIS APPROACH TO THE ISSUE OF MASTURBATION THAT IS LIKEWISE CONTROVERSIAL AMONG SCIENTISTS. AS FOR MORE RECENT EXPERT OPINION WHICH WOULD REFUTE DR. HILLS VIEWS, SEE AGAIN AND CONSIDER THIS 2013 NON-SDA SOURCE REFERRED TO EARLIER:

http://drlwilson.com/ARTICLES/MASTURBATION.htm After reading it through (and considering all I said so far on the issue) you will see why I still believe that SDAs CAN TRUST THE CLAIMS OF E.G. WHITE!

4. A PROPHETESS CONTRADICTS HERSELF

On this aspect of his presentation Dr. Hill wrote (in part): Ellen White contradicted herself in many instances. Here is one example: Men need to understand that Deity suffered and sank under the agonies of cavalry(Manuscrip44,1898,quoted in SDABC,vol 7:907).And the contrast: The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of cavalry(Letter 32,1899,quoted in SDABC,vol 5:1129).Tell me, which statement is inspired and correct? Which one should Adventists accept? Clearly one of the statements above is heretical, as both cannot be true... Significantly, Robert Olson, former secretary of the White Estate, said this of Ellen White's writings: There are instances in her writings in which she differed with herself. I have to say I just don't have an explanation for that kind of thing. And further: ...I don't like to talk about mistakes in inspired writings...But to answer your question, there are some discrepancies there (Olson Discusses the Veltman Study, Ministry Dec,1990:16,17). ibid, pgs. 3,4

RESPONSE:
Dr. Hill missed the harmony between the two quotations that he claimed is contradictory simply because he failed to read carefully, failed to consider all background issues, failed to consider the context clues involved, and failed to take everything into account before drawing a conclusion. And I must say that any other examples of so-called "contradictions" in other places in her writings that he and the critics, and others (whether inside and outside of Adventism) may present, it may just be that these above mentioned shortcomings on his/their part exist as well. Let me address this matter of SEEMING contradictions by using the foregoing example Dr. Hill cited in his writings, as well as using another example he cited on Jamaican national television when he appeared in 2013. CASE No. 1: Contradictions? QUOTATION 1: Men need to understand that Deity [i.e. a divine being] suffered and sank under the agonies of cavalry (Manuscript 44, 1898, quoted in SDABC, vol 7: 907). WHATS THE CONTEXT? Simply put, Mrs. White was speaking here of a divine being (Deity) truly dying by way of becoming human so he could have, since divinity in itself cannot die. She herself said elsewhere in her writings: "In him [Jesus] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9). Men need to understand that Deity [a divine being] suffered and sank under the agonies of Calvary. Yet Jesus Christ, whom God gave for the ransom of the world, purchased the church with His own blood. The Majesty of heaven was made to suffer at the hands of religious zealots In the second quote under consideration she used the word Deity in another context by adding the word the BEFORE the word. Lets now see this truth that Dr. Hill missed. QUOTATION 2: The Deity did not sink under the agonizing torture of cavalry (Letter 32, 1899, in SDABC, vol 5:1129) WHATS THE CONTEXT? In this instance she is identifying the person of God the Father who is THE Deity, and is making plain (just as she said in the very sentence before) that he is not the one who died, but rather the one representative of Him (i.e. Jesus); who is one with him as a divine being (or Deity). If Jesus is ever called the Deity in other places within Mrs. Whites writings it is simply because God was IN Christ (2 Cor. 5:19), or Jesus was the divine Representative Agent through whom the Father operates; not that he is the Father Himself in person. Dr. Hill personally subscribes to the doctrine of the Trinity (or so he says for now) and hence should have known this was what Mrs. White meant (a Trinitarian herself). She made it plain in her writings this way: There is no one who can explain the mystery of the incarnation of Christ. Yet we know that He came to this earth and lived as a man among men. The man Christ Jesus was not [the person of] the Lord God Almighty [i.e. the Father], yet Christ and the Father are one. The Deity [i.e. the person of God the Father] did not sink under the agonizing torture of Calvary, yet it is nonetheless true that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." FURTHER PROOF? She elsewhere made plain: The Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, is truly God in infinity [i.e. he is Deity], but not in personality [i.e. he is not the person of God the Father who is the Deity]. The Upward Look (1982 Morning Watch Commentary), pg. 367 CONCLUSION? NO CONTRADICTION IS INVOLVED IN THE STATEMENTS!! PERIOD!!

CASE No. 2: Contradictions? Dr. Hill also arrives at the unfortunate conclusion, when he appeared on television, that Mrs. White gave so-called "contradictory" accounts regarding how the door to Noah's ark was closed before the Flood. He points out that in one instance, E.G. White accounts that an angel was seen descending and closing the door to the ark, while in another account she describes the scene as a flashing light descending and closing the door to the ark by way of "unseen hands". Dr. Hill claimed there is a "contradiction" in the two extra-biblical accounts from E.G. White, and that there is a "difficulty" to reconcile the two accounts. Now, you know, dear reader, Proverbs 18:17 makes plain in more modern translations that: "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him" (English Standard Version). I took the time out to READ CAREFULLY the two accounts Dr. Hill contends are "contradictory", and, lo and behold, I see no such "contradiction"!! No wonder we are counseled to "prove all things", and not just run with the views of others; no matter how compelling they may sound, or even if they come from insiders like Robert Olson, who too can genuinely miss the harmony in certain statements.
IN BOTH ACCOUNTS E.G. WHITE DESCRIBED THE AGENT WHO ARRIVED AT THE SCENE TO EXECUTE THE CLOSING OF THE DOOR TO NOAH'S ARK---AN *ANGEL. BUT IN THE LATER ACCOUNT SHE GAVE THE *METHOD BY WHICH THE ANGEL DID THE CLOSING OF THE DOOR. THE ANGEL "HOVERED" ABOVE THE ARK (AFTER ARRIVING AS A FLASH OF LIGHT) AND THEN THE DOOR WAS CLOSED BY "UNSEEN HANDS"!! NOTICE, BY "UNSEEN HANDS"; SHE DID NOT SAY BY AN UNSEEN ANGEL. SO WHO SAYS THE ANGEL DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CLOSE THE DOOR FROM THE POSITION THAT HE "HOVERED", AND BY THE POWER OF TELEKINETICS THAT ANGELS DO HAVE, i.e. TO CLOSE THAT DOOR WITHOUT TOUCHING IT...HENCE BY "UNSEEN HANDS"? NOTHING CAN DISCOUNT THAT REALITY, AND IT IS PLAIN THAT DR HILL, WITH ALL HIS APPEARANCE OF ERUDITION, FAILED TO SEE THAT POSSIBILITY. THUS, WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A CONTRADICTION WAS ACTUALLY AMPLIFICATION, AND THE GIVING OF FURTHER DETAILS (AS SEEN IN VISION).

See the two separate accounts quoted below, and judge for yourself, dear reader: QUOTATION 1: "Everything was now ready for the closing of the ark, which could not have been done by Noah from within. An *ANGEL is seen by the scoffing multitude descending from Heaven, clothed with brightness like the lightning. He closes that massive outer door [NO MENTION HERE HOW THE DOOR WAS CLOSED; JUST BY WHOM], and then takes his course upward to Heaven again." - E.G. White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, pg. 68 QUOTATION 2: "Noah and his household were within the ark, and the Lord shut him in. A flash of dazzling light was seen, and a cloud of glory more vivid than the lightning descended from heaven and HOVERED before the entrance of the ark. The massive door, which it was impossible for those within to close, was slowly swung to its place by unseen hands [IT DOES NOT HERE SAY BY AN UNSEEN ANGEL, BUT DESCIBED HOW THE DOOR WAS CLOSEDBY *TELEKINETICS]. Noah was shut in, and the rejecters of Gods mercy were shut out. The seal of Heaven was on that door; God had shut it, and God alone could open it....Notwithstanding the solemn scenes which they had witnessed [i.e. SAW]---the beasts and the birds entering the ark, and THE *ANGEL OF GOD CLOSING THE DOOR--they [i.e. THE "REJECTERS OF GOD'S MERCY"] still continued their sport and revelry, even making a jest of these signal manifestations of God's power" - E.G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890, pgs. 98-99
NOTICE THE SECOND STATEMENT *ALSO SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY OF AN ANGEL BEING PRESENT (DESPITE DR HILL INSISTED NONE WAS MENTIONED):

"Notwithstanding the solemn scenes which they had witnessed [i.e. SAW]---the beasts and the birds entering the ark, and THE *ANGEL OF GOD CLOSING THE DOOR--they [i.e. THE "REJECTERS OF GOD'S MERCY"] still continued their sport and revelry, even making a jest of these signal manifestations of God's power" E.G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890,pg. 99
NOTICE TOO THAT BOTH ACCOUNTS HARMONIZE BECAUSE WHAT ANGELS DO ON GOD'S BEHALF ARE REPRESENTED EVEN IN THE BIBLE ITSELF AS GOD DOING IT (e.g. THE APPEARANCE TO MOSES IN THE BURNING BUSH, JACOB WRESTLING WITH AN ANGEL, AND THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS). THE SECOND ACCOUNT QUOTED ABOVE TELLS *HOW THE ANGEL CLOSED THE DOOR...BY HOVERING AND CLOSING IT WITH "UNSEEN HANDS" (OBVIOUSLY BY CLOSING IT FROM A DISTANCE WITHOUT TOUCHING IT)!! AND THE SECOND ACCOUNT MAKES PLAIN IT WAS REPRESENTED AS IF GOD HIMSELF DID IT. THAT'S NOT CONTRADICTORY.

CONCLUSION? NO CONTRADICTION IS INVOLVED IN THE STATEMENTS!! PERIOD!!

So much for the PRETENDED superiority of Dr. Hill to recognize a so-called "contradiction"!! Again I say that Dr. Hill missed the harmony because he failed to read the full description in the second account (i.e. both pages 98 and 99), failed to consider all background issues, failed to consider the context clues involved, and failed to take everything into account before drawing a conclusion. With the foregoing in mind I say again, to close on this issue, if even the utterances of prophets in the Old Testament, in some instances, could have been misrepresented/misunderstood by the very people of Israel to whom they were given then it is not strange that a similar reality can, did, and still does happen too among Adventists concerning CERTAIN prophetic utterances (even among persons entrusted with guarding her writings at the White Estate, like Robert Olson), i.e. as it concerns interpreting CERTAIN aspects of Mrs. Whites writings. No wonder we are all commanded to prove all things for ourselves; not just run with the views of others. If we are careful to always do this we will find that even in the face of so-called contradictions in CERTAIN aspects of Mrs. Whites writings, it will be proven to be the case that SDAs CAN TRUST THE CLAIMS OF E.G. WHITE!!!

5. A PROPHETESS PLAGIARIZES THE WRITINGS OF OTHERS

In this aspect of Dr. Hills presentation he had much to say, and made multiple charges against Mrs. Whites books, and her writing ministry, and I will hereafter address each of the major charges, but his overall charge goes like this (quoting him in part): Ellen White plagiarized extensively from the writings of others and denied doing so. For example, she asserted: I do not write one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision-the precious rays of light shining from the throneYet the White Estate, contrary to Ellen Whites claims, admits today that she in fact copied extensively from other people's writings ibid, pg. 4

RESPONSE:
Dr. Hills tirade against Adventism's co-founder, Mrs. White, as it concerns *REPORTING the views of SOME that she was guilty of "plagiarism" is built upon suppositions; NOT built upon PROOF!! Such a charge of plagiarism demanded LEGAL proof; not just *REPORTING on the opinions of those not LEGALLY qualified to so determine!! Let me now address this issue Dr. Hill is unfortunately MISGUIDED over as well. Was Ellen White a plagiarist (i.e. one who copied unaltered works of others without due acknowledgement, or copied/borrowed outside of "fair use" rules in operation in her era), and did she deny ever borrowing? Dr. Hill presented his plagiarism charge against Mrs. White both in his television appearance on Television Jamaicas (TVJs) "Religious Hardtalk", as well as in his written thesis that I am here responding to, yet in both instances he either disregarded or downplayed certain crucial considerations. While admitting on television that the SDA Church engaged the services of an independent legal expert (Vincent L. Ramik) on the matter of plagiarism, to CANDIDLY determine, both LEGALLY and OBJECTIVELY, if the charges leveled against Mrs. White's writings were with merit, yet Dr. Hill (as seen often among the critics) IGNORED/DOWNPLAYED the validity of the EXPERT legal findings (see the LEGAL Ramik Report HERE; click link) which exonerated her (found her blameless) on LEGAL grounds. Dr. Hill then sought to still charge her with "moral and ethical" guilt connected to plagiarism. But I find that to be unfair, and I also find Dr. Hills multi-faceted plagiarism charges to be groundless for the following reasons: 1. THE LEGAL EXPERT FOUND AND REPORTED: Based upon our [i.e. his law firms expert] review of the facts and legal precedents . . Ellen White was not a plagiarist, and her works did not constitute copyright infringement/piracy. Vincent Ramik, page 27. Plagiarism is a LEGAL matter, and someone is not guilty of it outside of the arena of LEGAL considerations, and so if a leading LEGAL expert [and his law firm] on patents, copyright and plagiarism issues in the United States did extensive research on the issue, and objectively and LEGALLY determined that mere copying or "borrowing" IN A CERTAIN WAY from secondary sources by Mrs. White does not LEGALLY constitute plagiarism, then it is inconsequential to be then charging her with THE SAME accusation of plagiarism, as well as with "moral and ethical" guilt on that same issue...and doing so merely by expressing an OPINION NOT GROUNDED IN
LEGAL EXPERTISE ON THE MATTER!! ONE CAN ALWAYS EXPRESS AN OPINION, OR A PERSPECTIVE ON ANY CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE, BUT PLAGIARISM IS A MATTER OF PERSPECTIVE WHICH MUST BE PROVEN *LEGALLY; NOT JUST BY OPINION. PERIOD!

2. Mrs. White never once wrote I have never copied ideas from other authors. Never!! The SDA has DENIED she plagiarized in the LEGAL sense, and that is a matter that must be proven LEGALLY before she can be deemed culpable of "moral and ethical" guilt. So to simply bring to the table evidence of SEEMING similarity between her writings and the expressions of others is also inconsequential, since the legal expert on plagiarism ALREADY LEGALLY expressed that this would not in itself constitute what plagiarism really is. If borrowing or copying certain aspects of the writings of others to better express what one wants to say, but, as Mrs. White did, one ALTERS THE ORIGINAL so that no copy and paste principle is involved, if this presents "moral and ethical" guilt, then how come the Bible writers would be considered free of this guilt by the Bible believing Dr. Hill and many of the Bible believing critics he PARROTS, in light of the fact that they also copied/borrowed from other writers (even pagan authors) to express what the Bible now deems to be "inspired"? If the Bible declared that ALL Scripture is given by the inspiration of God, yet proper research proved that inspired Bible writers borrowed from the

expressions of others, even from pagan authors and from even aspects of the Apocrypha, then I guess Dr. Hill and the other Bible believing critics probably never understood the true nature of inspiration, and how Mrs. Whites own inspiration patterned that of Bible writers who claimed that All Scripture is given by inspiration. In addition, proper research shows that literary borrowing by Mrs. White (not the same as plagiarism, mind you) is well below the percentage that Dr. Hill calls extensive, and in fact it is NOT true that the E.G. White Estate confirms she borrowed extensively, but rather quite the opposite is reported from the research done. See the official White estate report for yourself HERE (click link). Less than 10% of seeming similarities between E.G. White expressions and that of other authors is what the White Estate reported for the most part after careful and honest research. The vast majority of seeming similarities are less than 1% and very few of the books even go above 10%. If Dr. Hill (while parroting the critic Walter Rea) calls that percentage extensive copying (just like Walter Rea exaggerated that it was 80-90%) then what can I say about a critic who bears false witness against his neighbor. God will be the final Judge!!

3. Despite man-made copyright laws never became established until the early 18th century--- if Bible writers like John borrowed the concept of God or divinity expressed as the "Logos" or "the Word" from pagan Greek writers like Plato, if Solomon searched out the proverbs of the near Eastern literature and documented many of them in the inspired book of Proverbs (see Eccl. 12:9,10), if Bible writers like Paul borrowed literary expressions from pagan writers like Epimenides (among others), if New Testament Bible writers expressed Biblical concepts like the grave, by using pagan Greek concepts like "Hades" (see "Hades" in Greek mythology), and if Bible writers like Jude even used and quoted aspects of the uninspired writings of the Apocrypha (probably the book of Enoch)--- how is mere copying and borrowing (even from pagan and uninspired sources) "morally" and "ethically" wrong while one is claiming inspiration? If it is, then the Bible itself would likewise be 'guilty' of copying and borrowing, despite it saying "ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY THE INSPIRATION OF GOD" (even the expressions borrowed)!! But Dr. Hill would not be willing to say the Bible and its writers are so guilty (at least for the moment it does appear so), but yet still continue to ignore all those realities and level charges of impropriety against Ms. White for doing what many Bible writers themselves did under inspiration. 4. Truth be told? By the very Bible itself it is demonstrated that mere borrowing and copying is not problematic in itself, and even Bible writers gleaned gems of worthwhile expressions from not just their own religious colleagues in a religious community, but even from pagan writers, and some even used questionable sources like the Apocrypha to color their expressions...expressions that the Bible itself NOW consider as "inspired", i.e. as it was finally expressed by the Bible writers but through 'helps' from other writers and their copied expressions. Mrs. White herself went as far as admitting she at times used the expressions of others to give an account, despite she expressed that her work contained instructions not of human production (i.e. inspired instruction; she was obviously not saying that her books were not made by humans). In the Introduction to one of her most popular books, The Great Controversy, she wrote: "In some cases where a historian has so grouped together events as to afford, in brief, a comprehensive view of the subject, or has summarized details in a convenient manner, his words have been quoted; but in some instances no specific credit has been given, since the quotations are not given for the purpose of citing that writer as authority, but because his statement affords a ready and forcible presentation of the subject. In narrating the experience and views of those carrying forward the work of reform in our own time, similar use has been made of their published works" (The Great Controversy, p. xii).

The various authors quoted in this book are found at the back of the book The Great Controversy, and so no secretive copying was involved.

On another point that Dr. Hill made much of. If Mrs. White first admitted that she never knew much about copyright principles of operation (and initially left the issues up to her literary assistants), but then, upon being strongly alerted about the newly emerging issues of copyright in her time, she later demonstrated she was then made aware of it, this offers no real problems for me. Since copyright principles were relatively recent inventions of the law in the Western world (see Wikipedia encyclopedia online regarding "Copyright"), and was just being established in Mrs. White's time in America, it is conceivable she never at first fully understood all the LEGAL principles involved with a newly emerging legal principle just being established in her time. The critics that Dr. Hill PARROTS would certainly give no allowance for this reality. But I can understand when a critic wants to go for the jugular, in order to discredit someone, being reasonable and giving someone the benefit of the doubt normally goes out the window. But what's really new? Dr. Hill also made the unfortunate charge that Mrs. White promoted the Apocrypha (while copying it in her writings), when he said of her:

Even more concerning is what she said God told her about the Apocrypha. She said: I saw (in vision) that the Apocrypha was the hidden book and that the wise of these last days should understand it (Manuscript 4, 1850).I do not know the extent to which Adventists believe this inspired utterance of Ellen White, as in all my more than 15 years in the church, I have never heard or seen anyone reading the Apocrypha in church or in their home. In fact, I have never heard any of our leaders read this inspired utterance of Ellen White from the pulpit to the members. ibid, pg. COMMENTS: 1. Dr. Hill is misguided to think that each time Mrs. White said I saw this always meant she was in vision. It is foolhardy to think so, when it is an expression that can also mean I fully understand by divine guidance, or I am Spirit led to see, etc.

2. Here again he totally misses the CONTEXT of Mrs. Whites words regarding the Apocrypha being the hidden book and that the wise of the last days would understand it. First he failed to see that the very word apocrypha literally means hidden book or obscure writings and this is what Mrs. White meant to say that she saw or simply understood; with her literally playing upon the actual root meaning of apocrypha. Also Dr. Hill failed to see that Mrs. White could simply mean that the it that would be understood by the wise of the last days is not the Apocryphal books themselves, but rather the fact that these books are indeed hidden books. So the it is with reference to the understanding of this fact about them, and NOT a studying out of the books themselves to understand them. No wonder the SDA Church has never engaged in any large scale effort to study out and understand these books (as Dr. Hill himself observed, and expressed it unwittingly), simply because the Church fully understood that Mrs. White never gave any instruction to so do.

3. Mrs. White made direct reference to the Apocrypha by name only two times in all her writings, and in both cases she was contrasting the SURE Word of God [the Bible] to be studied, understood and obeyed, with the obscure and doubtful Apocrypha that is not authoritative for the Christian: " The apocraphy [apocrypha] of the New Testament attempts to supply the silence of the Scriptures [the Bible] in reference to the early life of Christ, by giving a fancy sketch of his childhood years. These writers relate wonderful incidents and miracles, which characterized his childhood, and distinguished him from other children. They relate fictitious tales, and frivolous miracles, which they say he wrought, attributing to Christ the senseless and needless display of his divine power, and falsifying his character by attributing to him acts of revenge, and deeds of mischief, which were cruel and ridiculous. In what marked contrast is the history of Christ, as recorded by the evangelists [i.e. in the Bible], which is beautiful in its natural simplicity, with these unmeaning stories, and fictitious tales. They are not at all in harmony with his character. They are more after the order of the novels that are written, which have no foundation in truth; but the characters delineated are of fancy creating. E.G. White Youth Instructor, April 1, 1872 par. 2 the word of God [the Bible] pure and unadulteratedwe must answer for the way we received the truth proclaimed from that word. I saw that it had been a hammer to break the flinty heart in pieces, and a fire to consume the dross and tin, that the heart might be pure and holy. I saw that the Apocrypha [in contrast] was the hidden book, and that the wise of these last days should understand it [i.e. understand that it is the hidden book and not authoritative]. I saw that the Bible was the standard book [i.e. in contrast to the hidden book], that will judge us at the last day. I saw that heaven would be cheap enough, and that nothing was too dear to sacrifice for Jesus, and that we must give all to enter the kingdom." --Manuscript 4, 1850

ITS A PITY DR. HILL NEVER TOOK THE TIME TO STUDY OUT THE CONTEXT OF MRS. WHITES WORDS ABOUT THE APOCRYPHA WITHIN MRS. WHITES OWN WORDS THEMSELVES, BUT INSTEAD SOUGHT TO PARROT THE MISGUIDED CRITICS ON THIS ISSUE.

Finally, as it concerns Dr. Hills charge that Mrs. White plagiarized and copied much of her writings and teachings, he also charged that certain aspects Mrs. Whites health teachings were not unique to her but she apparently copied her health message from contemporaries like L.B. Coles and others who had similar health-related ideas at the time or even before she did. Dr. Hill declared: What may shock most Adventists who are passionate about the Health Reform Message Ellen White said she received in visions from God in 1863 is that she apparently copied the ideas from other 19th century American health enthusiasts; particularly, one L.B. Coles, who wrote out his views about health more than ten years before Ellen White said God told her in vision ! - ibid, pg. 6 As said earlier, and shown with Biblical examples, inspiration does not mean one under inspiration cannot be a researcher and cannot compile certain good/valuable ideas and pertinent facts from others, and those same researched ideas/facts be deemed an inspired compilation. If that was case then the Bible itself would have to be rejected by Dr. Hill. The same way Luke (the physician) researched the life of Jesus from reports and eyewitness accounts (see Luke 1:1-4), and the same way Solomon researched

many of the proverbs (Eccl. 12:8, 9), and yet their final utterances and or accounts could be deemed as given by the inspiration of God, so is this Biblical principle of inspiration applicable to E.G. Whites ministry. It is evident she got a sweeping health message in broad terms in the 1863 vision, but was inspired to also gather and compile the best health principles known in her time for the benefit of the Churchand Gods stamp of approval would undoubtedly be on it, since it is Gods desire that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth. (3 John 1:2). And just like Solomon compiling the best proverbs available in the near eastern literature of the time, with God then placing a stamp of approval of inspiration on his final compilation, and God did the same with the final written report of Luke, i.e. subsequent to his research on the life of Christ from reports and eyewitness accounts, so too aspects of Mrs. Whites inspired health message may have come about. The possibility that some of the health principles she incorporated in her health message may be that of taking some of the best health and medical ideas existing in her time is in no way a problem; except in the misguided mind of the critics like Dr. Hill. In the end, the plagiarism charge does not fly, and despite the efforts of Dr. Hill to vilify Mrs. E.G. White, yet the charge refuses to really stickunless one is going to also reject the nature of the inspiration experienced by Bible writers too. Even in the matter of inspiration and literary borrowing it must again be said that SDAs CAN TRUST THE CLAIMS OF E.G. WHITE!!!

6. PREDICTIONS ABOUT JESUS SECOND COMING

Dr. Hill charged Mrs. White for falsely predicting a time frame for Jesus second coming, when he said: she predicted that Jesus would have returned before the people present at a certain conference in 1856 would die. Note her words: I was shown the company present at the conference. Said the angel: Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus (Testimonies to the Church vol1:159-1856). And in another place she stated: The hour will come; it is not far distant, and some of us who now believe (in 1888) will be alive upon the earth, and shall see the prediction verified, and hear the voice of the archangel and the trump of God echo from mountain and plain and sea to the uttermost parts of the earth (Review and Herald July 31, 1888). Needless to say, everyone who was alive when Ellen White made these predictions is dead, including Ellen White herself. The Adventist Church tries to excuse her by saying these were conditional prophecies, but I can find no conditions in either prediction. The explanation the church gives is that if the saints had lived righteous lives and had preached the gospel to the world, the prophecies of Ellen White would have come to pass (Ellen White and Her Critics by F.D.Nichol). Thus that would mean that we who are alive today are mistakes and would never have been born if the Adventist Church had done what it was supposed to do, thus ushering Jesus second coming in Ellen Whites lifetime.... Ellen White's remarks contradict Jesus' statement in Matt 24:36: Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. ibid, pgs. 3-4

RESPONSE:
Here, again, Dr. Hill levels multi-faceted accusations against Mrs. White, even while holding to the Bible and its utterances and predictions about Jesus second coming, and yet failing to recognize a number of things. He fails to recognize that he is called upon to explain certain difficulties with the Bibles own

predictions about Jesus second coming, and he should be able to do so without being seen as a believer in falsehood and prophecies failing to come true in the time frame presented by the very Bible itself. How does he account for the Christian religion proclaiming for hundreds of years, yeah, nearly two thousand years now, that Jesus is coming "soon" and is coming "quickly" or "in a little while"? See Rev. 22:12, 20, and Heb. 10:37, for instance. New Testament writers even wrote that the "end of the world" would be in their time, nearly 2000 years ago. See Heb. 9:26, 1 Cor. 10:11, and 1 John 2:18. How does he defend the Bible itself, and the Christian religion, against the view that a time span of 2000 years (viewed naturally from the human standpoint) cannot be easily explained to mean Jesus returning/coming "soon" and or returning/coming "quickly"? There are many who doubt Christianity by asking how could 2000 years of waiting be deemed a return of Jesus being fulfilled "quickly" or "soon" since he left the earth? How would he answer with being accused of being "obscurantist"? How does he further account for the following seeming difficulties with the Bible itself, and Jesus' own words, the founder of Christianity, without dabbling in "obscurantism (as he accused SDA apologists on Jamaican television when he appeared in 2013)? Look at what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 16:28 (compare Mark 9:1). Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. Well, didn't they all taste of death, and have died for nearly two thousand years now? And would Dr. Hill, present these "difficulties" as evidence for not believing either in the Bible or Jesus himself? I point Dr. Hill, a fellow Bible believer, to these questions regarding Jesus and the disciples predicting the second coming to happen "soon" and "quickly", and "in a little while" (IN RELATION TO THE FIRST CENTURY; Heb. 10:37), and in light of the fact that they indicated "the end of the world" to be in or near their time (Heb. 9:26, 1 Cor. 10:11, and 1 John 2:18). Some Bible critics do argue that "soon", "in a little while", and "quickly" are all terms/expressions THAT CAN ONLY BE LEGITIMATELY USED relative to *knowing, at least in general terms, of how NEAR the predicted event would have been! Yet, the critics point out, "no man knows the day nor the hour"!! WHAT OF JESUS PREDICTING THAT SOME ALIVE IN HIS TIME WOULD NEVER "TASTE DEATH" TILL THEY *SEE THE SON COMING INTO HIS KINGDOM, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WITH GLORY, WITH HIS *REWARDS FOR ALL, AND WITH HIS *ANGELS; see Matthew 16:26-28 with Luke 9:25-27, and Mark 8:36-38 to Mark 9:1)? Yet it has been nearly 2000 years since, and Jesus did not VISIBLY return to His kingdom with glory, with his angels and with his rewards for all; only spiritually (as most explain) via the Holy Spirit's descent on the day of Pentecost, or symbolically (as some explain) in his transfiguration on the Mount. Would Dr. Hill charge Jesus and the New Testament writers with false prophecy TOO because they are SEEMINGLY wrong to have predicted it to happen "soon" and "quickly", when it did not happen within the last 2000 years? Shouldn't he also ask Jesus and the New Testament writers how come they could predict the event as being slated to happen "soon" or "quickly" (i.e. a general time frame) if "no man knows the day nor the hour"; NOT EVEN JESUS WHILE ON EARTH AT THE TIME? See Mark 13:32. Shouldn't he also ask the Bible writers how come they could definitively STATE (not just expectantly anticipate) that the time remaining is "short" (1 Cor. 7:29-31), and that the "end of all things is at hand" or NEAR (1 Peter 4:7) if NO MAN KNOWS THE DAY NOR THE HOUR? Were they falsely prophesying of the "shortness" of the time remaining (NEARLY 2000 YEARS AGO), when they shouldn't have known how near or far the day would be in the first place? Clearly Dr. Hill has bigger questions to answer from the Bible itself (as a practicing Christian), and any

proper answer he gives in defense of Jesus and the New Testament writers on this matter (and in fact there is a proper answer that is needed) this would be an equally applicable defense of E.G. White, who likewise never gave any specific date for the second coming, but always urged the imminent return of Jesus, as all Christians have been doing since the first century. Period!!

Having carefully looked at what the Bible predicts about Jesus second coming, and what was the nature of Mrs. Whites own prophecies, a number of things are absolutely clear to me: 1. Mrs. Whites second coming prophecies, like the Bible ones, never gave any specific date (i.e. neither the day nor the hour was ever given; I cant say the same for the predictions of Harold Camping, the Watchtower, or H.W. Armstrong, for instance), but, just like the Bible, she presented Jesus second coming as imminent and to happen shortly, as if it could happen tomorrow or in the very near future. 2. If the Bible writers and apostles of the New Testament would not be deemed false prophets by Dr. Hill for predicting a short wait for the return of Jesus (unless he rejects the validity of the Bibles inspiration too), despite the fact that, in relation to the first century, it has not been, from the human standpoint, a short waiting time nor an event coming to pass in a little while (unless 2000 years does mean a short time or a little while to Dr. Hill), then there must be an explanation for the seeming discrepancy.notice I said SEEMING discrepancy!! It is plain too that if there is a proper explanation for this SEEMING discrepancy then we who are alive today are not mistakes and it cannot be said we should never have been born since the New Testament writers had predicted a quick return of Jesus nearly 2000 years ago. What, then, is the explanation for these SEEMING discrepancies? I have dealt with this subject indepth at this link (click link), but its crucial to note the following summary points. Once the overall teaching of the Bible is taken into account, and proper contextual analysis is made of the so-called "bothersome" Bible texts, it will be seen that (as it concerns the Second Coming or Advent) no false prophecy was involved on the part of Jesus, and or his apostles who wrote aspects of the New Testament.. Why do I say so? Well, lets candidly examine the various issues of contention. a] Jesus made plain that "no man knows the day nor the hour" of his second coming, but urged his followers to ALWAYS "watch" for it, for "in an hour when they think not" then "the Son of man cometh" or would return. In others words, if they do not constantly watch for the "signs", forever expect his coming to be at any time then they would be caught off guard, and in fact were to be constantly keeping this picture of its *suddenness and *unexpectedness forever in/before the minds of Christians. This therefore gave the disciples, including the Bible writers, the freedom to speak of the second Coming as possibly happening at any time including in the very nearest future. Thus when the disciples spoke of the "nearness" of the Coming and "shortness" of the time they were simply following the urgings of their Lord to expect/preach that it could be even tomorrow. Thus, without having knowledge of when, but commissioned to preach always of its imminency, they therefore never spoke falsely when they presented the coming as if it could be tomorrow....once they never set any fixed date for it!! While it is true Jesus did hint at a possible "delay" in his coming (i.e. from the human standpoint), and while it is true Paul (in the book/letter of Thessalonians) urged the first century Christians to expect the "falling away" of certain Christians and the "man of sin" (an anti-Christ Power arising) to first be fulfilled BEFORE

Jesus returned, yet he himself (not knowing how long the time prophecies would take to unfold) equally urged Christians of the nearness of the second coming during his time. This all make sense when we consider the full teaching of the Bible on the issue. b] Despite Jesus made plain that he would return "quickly", yet upon closer examination of the Greek word he used we will discover he never prophesied falsely (or contradicted himself either) when he hinted at a seeming "delay" or "tarrying" of the Bridegroom (i.e. Himself returning to his Bride, the Church). The Greek word translated "quickly" is "tachu", and interestingly one of its meanings, is that of *SUDDENNESS, *UNEXPECTEDNESS or having the nature of being a *SURPRISE; NOT ONLY meaning speed or shortness of time frame involved. With that secondary meaning attached, then all SEEMING "difficulties" with Jesus' utterances in Rev. 22:12 disappears. Context is key!! Jesus was a genius in keeping back the knowledge of WHEN he would return, so that his followers would always live in earnest readiness and expectancy (a factor which would impact on how they lived their lives), even while using a word that equally meant SUDDENNESS or UNEXPECTEDNESS regarding how his second coming would take place. Thus, when that second meaning of the word translated as "quickly" (from "tachu" in Greek) is taken into consideration we do realize the divine wisdom of Jesus in his choice or words...words which can indeed apply even nearly 2000 years since. HIS COMING WILL STILL BE *SUDDEN AND CONTAIN THE ELEMENT OF *SURPRISE IN TERMS OF EXACTLY WHEN IT WOULD OCCUR!! But what of Jesus' Matthew 16 utterances, about some of disciples "never tasting of death" till they see him coming in his Kingdom? That too has an easy explanation once the context is considered, and the Bible's full teaching is appealed to. [c] When Jesus said to his disciples (in Matthew 16:25-28) that *SOME who heard him would not "taste of death" till they see him coming in his kingdom (i.e. in glory, attended by his angels, and bringing rewards for all) it is now evident (at least to me it is) that this was not ultimately fulfilled on the mount of transfiguration, neither on the day of Pentecost, neither at the destruction of Jerusalem (the traditional explanations given by most Christians, in order to account for the time lapse of nearly 2000 years since those utterances were made). I put it to you, dear reader, that a more reasonable explanation can be given which takes care of all the 'loose ends' of the traditional weak explanations mentioned above. I believe it is simply this: Even if two thousand years, maybe even three thousand years, should elapse between then (when Jesus spoke this prophecy) and when Jesus actually returns, his words would still apply to any of his disciples that he spoke to (Matthew 16:13, 20-21), i.e. those that would eventually be saved in his kingdom ultimately!! Why? If we recall, NOT all of the disciples Jesus initially had remained faithful to him (see why in John 6:66-71), and so ONLY *SOME would actually be ultimately saved, and "never taste of death" till they see Jesus actually fulfilling his words of finally coming into his kingdom *with rewards for all, *with glory, *with all his angels. But you may ask, How is this possible?, considering all the disciples of the first century are long dead!! Actually, all the TRUE disciples who will be saved are NOT DEAD because they *"will never die" (in the context Jesus obviously meant). All over the book of John Jesus made plain that even if any true disciple of his die, yet: John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me,

hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Joh 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: Joh 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." IT NOW APPEARS FROM THESE SCRIPTURES THAT *SOME OF DISCIPLES OF CHRIST WHO HEARD HIM MAKE THE MATTHEW 16:25-28 PROPHECY (THE TRUE ONES WHO KEPT HIS WORDS, AND DID NOT TURN BACK) WOULD "NEVER DIE" IN THE ULTIMATE SENSE, SINCE THEY HAVE ALREADY "PASSED FROM DEATH UNTO LIFE, AND SO EVEN THOUGH NOW DEAD (THE FIRST DEATH), THEY ARE SO ASSURED OF THE RESURRECTION THAT, TO JESUS AND TO GOD, THEY ARE NOT DEAD (i.e. THEY NEVER REALLY DIED), BUT WILL SEE JESUS COMING IN HIS KINGDOM (WHENEVER IT WILL HAPPEN) HAVING ALREADY PASSED FROM DEATH UNTO LIFE!! Further proof? Matthew 22:31 "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, Mat 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Luke 20:37 "Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Luk 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him." No wonder the Bible says that resurrected saints will NOT taste the "second" or ultimate death: Revelation 2:11 "...He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. Revelation 20:6 "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power..." The second death is the ultimate death all of the lost will experience, but NOT the saints!! "Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" Once Jesus' words about "not tasting of death" is taken in its true context, then we see that no TRUE saint has really died, but continues to forever live IN THE EYES OF GOD, who has so assured them of eternal life, even in the face of the 'first death'!! It is so sure that it is as if it is already fulfilled, and, remember, God speaks of things not yet as if they already are!! So of a truth *SOME of Jesus' first century disciples continue to live forever since he spoke those words

in Matthew 16:25-28. THESE WILL CONTINUE TO LIVE (THOUGH DEAD) TILL THEY SEE JESUS COMING IN HIS KINGDOM!! While those who turned back (like Judas and those in John 6:66) will never "see life" but will experience both deaths! If the foregoing Biblical principle can apply to Jesus TRUE disciples spoken to 2000 years ago, it can certainly apply to TRUE believers waiting for just over 120 years since Mrs. White spoke. This same principle could apply to E.G. White saying: The hour will come; it is not far distant, and some of us who now believe [in 1888] will be alive upon the earth, and shall see the prediction verified, and hear the voice of the archangel and the trump of God echo from mountain and plain and sea to the uttermost parts of the earth. Or it could simply mean there were conditions to be met but they were not. And I say Amen!

CONCLUSION: Seeing that none of the SECOND ADVENT "prophecies" of either E.G. White or the Bible writers ever gave any FIXED date for the second coming of Jesus, it does appear that ALL of these prophecies--- indicating, on the one hand, the NEARNESS of the second Advent and certain events to occur, as well as, on the other hand, some believers never dying before seeing the Second Advent--they can be interpreted in two ways: 1. Either these prophecies are/were CONDITIONAL to certain unfolding events that may explain what is a seeming "delay" in Jesus' final return 2. Or the utterances are all allowed within the context of the freedom Jesus gave his disciples and apostles to speak of the second coming as always imminent...as if it can take place tomorrow or in the very near future. This is allowed, ONCE NO SPECIFIC OR FIXED DATE IS GIVEN!! In addition, to speak of certain/some Christians never dying till they see the return of Jesus, this can be interpreted in the sense of them (those who remain faithful) never dying the ultimate or second death, or never seeing death in the sense of all true believers having the full assurance of possessing eternal life even here and now, right up until Jesus actually returns, and, of course, into eternity.

With all the foregoing considered (and considering the issues addressed at this link ) it is plain why I still believe SDAs CAN TRUST THE CLAIMS OF E.G. WHITE, even as it concerns her predictions regarding the second coming of Jesus.

7. GOD TOLD HER HE HAD REJECTED ALL THE WICKED WORLD

This final accusation from Dr. Hill is somewhat related to his charge I previously dealt with, about Mrs. Whites predictions about the nearness of Jesus Second Coming or the perceived shortness of the time. That is why I have left it for last and dealt with it directly after that charge. Dr. Hills charge is simply this (despite he engaged in lot of verbiage on the issue): Ellen White had a vision which taught the shut door, or end of probation for the world, in 1844. Though our [SDA] church denies it today, the evidence is unmistakeable. ibid, pg. 9

Dr. Hill then proceeded in his written thesis to detail so-called evidence that Mrs. White did teach this in the early years of Adventism. I find that this one of the easiest charge to deal with, and it does not demand much verbiage from me to declare the following. Mrs. White is often accused of claiming divine revelation for the no-mercy doctrine, or the shut door of mercy to the then world. This she denied, but admitted freely her own blunder as a fallible human: "With my brethren and sisters, after the time passed in forty-four [i.e. in the 1844 Disappointment] I did believe no more sinners would be converted. But I never had a vision that no more sinners would be converted. . . . I was shown that there was a great work to be done in the world for those who had not had the light and rejected it. Our brethren could not understand this with our faith in the immediate appearing of Christ" E.G. White, Letter 2, 1874, in Selected Messages, book 1, p. 74. Truth is, Mrs. White did the honorable thing and confessed her early misguided views; that she personally thought in the few early years of the Advent Movement that the shut door vision that she got earlier had meant that mans probation was closed, and no more mercy would be extended to the wicked. However, subsequent to that she realized her personal views on the matter (along with that of the earliest Adventists) were not correct, and admitted it (as seen in the quote above). What she learned subsequent to those early years was that the shut door vision meant something entirely different than what even she herself had initially thought. You can see the real meaning of that vision dealt with here (click link).

Seeing that Mrs. White also freely admitted that she was NOT infallible as a human being, it is quite understandable that she made plain her personal views were not always correct, and she herself would grow in knowledge about divine themes just like the other SDA brethren. Even the Disciples of Christ who, under inspiration, wrote aspects of the Bible, they too showed this human tendency to misunderstand the things of God being gradually revealed to them. They too (like the rest of their Jewish brethren at the time) initially felt Jesus first coming was meant to immediately establish the kingdom of glory. They too felt Jesus was the military-type Messiah who would overthrow the Romans at his appearing. They too (exemplified by Peter) felt the Gentiles were not part of the household of Israel, and they too could not see their Messiah as a Suffering Servant destined to die upon his first coming. Suffice it to say they were all wrong, and it took time for these mistaken ideas of the Disciples of Christ to be abandoned. Why should we hold Mrs. White to a higher standard of humanity compared to what we would not even demand of the Bible writers and those who were closest to Jesus Himself in terms of daily personal association? Dr. Hill and the critics he PARROTS would seek to do so, but again the charge/accusation does not fly, neither does it really stickunless Dr. Hill is going to also undermine the validity/inspiration of the Disciples who became Bible writers, simply because they had early mistaken ideas about certain aspects of divine revelation already given. I find that even in this matter of Mrs. Whites honest admission to her fallibility and humanness as a Messenger, this kind of candidness on her part indicates clearly that SDAs CAN TRUST THE CLAIMS OF E.G. WHITE!!

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

At the end of Dr. Hills written thesis he alluded to the so-called dilemma of Adventism, and proceeded to ask: With all the issues that have been highlighted in this [i.e. his] article, Adventists in Jamaica and around the world are confronted with an important number of questions: Can we trust the prophetic claims of Ellen G. White, who said that she was the Lords Messenger? Do we need her or do we not? Is the Bible sufficient as our spiritual guide?- ibid, pg. 10

I can simply respond this way. Dr. Hills thesis involving his 7-point attack has been found to be groundless, and so there is no dilemma that Adventists in Jamaica and around the world are really confronted with, seeing that THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS AS THEY APPEAR!! Dr. Hill has been more than adequately rebutted and answered, I feel, and so all that is left for me to say is, as repeated affirmed before: SDAs CAN TRUST THE CLAIMS OF E.G. WHITE!! You, dear reader, are free to form your own judgment, but I have done what is requiredthat of giving you the other side of the story, and I pray you will allow good sense to prevail, but, more importantly, allow the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth. Thanks for reading this presentation, and may it provide enough stimulation for you to study out the issues presented for yourself. Finally, always remember (despite Dr. Hill erroneously thinks otherwise, i.e. that we cannot have Bible and prophetic ministry working together):

1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Yours in Christ Derrick Gillespie
------------------------------------------------------------

Derrick Gillespie is a trained teacher in the Social Sciences, History, and Geography, and remains a member of the SDA Church in Jamaica and remains a lay evangelist for SDAs. (Contact ddgillespie@live.com; https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie)