1) Ellen White revised the history in 1911, because parts needed correcting
The 1888 text of GC was edited into the 1911 edition under Ellen White’s supervision. In the 1911 Author’s Preface, she openly explains that she updated historical facts, added footnotes, and reworded disputed statements to achieve greater accuracy:
“As readers will observe, the book now contains some additional matter, and the statements of facts have been strengthened by the use of historical references. … In some cases where a historian has summarized a subject … his words have been quoted; in other cases a paraphrase has been used.”
The Ellen G. White Estate itself summarizes what changed: numerous historical details were corrected, quotations and citations were added, and places where historians differed were adjusted “for accuracy and clarity.” In plain English: the earlier edition wasn’t always right, and the 1911 team fixed it.
Why this matters: If GC’s historical claims were divinely guaranteed, they wouldn’t need later fact-checking and rewording.
2) GC borrowed heavily from prior historians—by design
The White Estate acknowledges that Ellen White leaned on historians for narrative and detail:
“The statements of facts have been strengthened by the use of historical references… in some cases the words of historians are quoted; in other cases paraphrased.” (1911 Preface)
Adventist reference articles and historians have long noted GC’s dependence on works like J. A. Wylie’s History of Protestantism and other 19th-century histories. The Estate’s own page on the 1911 revision explains that the aim was to document those dependencies with footnotes and to correct items where historians disagreed.
Why this matters: Literary dependence isn’t automatically wrong, but it contradicts the idea that GC’s historical content was independently revealed from God to Ellen White.
3) Adventist scholarship has documented large-scale literary dependence in EGW’s writings
While the famous Fred Veltman study focused on The Desire of Ages (not GC), it is the denomination’s own, decade-long research project, and showed substantial “literary dependency,”i.e., direct use of earlier authors without explicit credit in many places. Ministry Magazine published the official overview: Ellen White used sources widely, adapted them, and wove them into her narratives.
Why this matters: If EGW’s flagship books are stitched from prior authors (sometimes closely), claims that her narratives are uniquely “shown in vision” in their factual content become much harder to maintain.
4) The 1919 Bible Conference shows early leaders did not treat EGW or the Bible as verbally inerrant
When senior Adventist leaders and editors met for a month in 1919 to discuss prophecy, history, and inspiration, they admitted (behind closed doors) that:
-
Ellen White did not claim historical expertise (“Mother has never claimed to be an authority on history,” wrote W. C. White).
-
The movement had to reject verbal inspiration and inerrancy✱ categories for her and (for many present) for Scripture, favoring “thought inspiration.” The rediscovered transcripts (found in 1974 and first published in Spectrum in 1979) capture frank discussions about correcting her historical statements and the need to recalibrate claims about inspiration.
Why this matters: Within a generation of GC’s publication, Adventist leadership knew the facts didn’t fit a rigid, error-free theory of inspiration—so they adjusted the theory, not the facts.
5) Was there suppression? The record was “lost” for decades
Those same 1919 transcripts, crucial to understanding how Adventist leaders actually thought about EGW and inerrancy, were not publicly available for over fifty years. They were “found” in 1974 in GC headquarters packages and only published (in part) in 1979. Today, you can read the scans for yourself in official archives. (documents.adventistarchives.org)
Why this matters: The long absence of these frank conversations helped preserve a public myth about inerrancy that insiders were already questioning in 1919.
6) So, are there historical mistakes in The Great Controversy?
Yes—by the church’s own actions. The 1911 revision explicitly corrected historical statements, softened disputed claims, and updated citations. The Estate’s summary of the revision gives examples (e.g., standardizing dates, fixing attributions/quotations, resolving discrepancies where historians differed). That is the definition of recognizing error and correcting it.
Why this matters: An inspired message can be powerful without being a history textbook. But it cannot be defended as historically inerrant when it required this level of correction.
7) “Scientific” claims?—Adventists themselves avoid calling GC a science text
While GC is mainly historical-theological, Adventist scholars (and the Estate) consistently insist EGW was not a technical historian or scientist. The 1911 Preface frames GC as a moral-spiritual interpretation of history, not a primary-source monograph. That’s why they added references and aligned claims to external historians.
Why this matters: You can’t hold GC to an inerrant standard and excuse historical corrections and source-dependence by saying she wasn’t writing as a scholar.
8) “Plagiarism”?—Call it what you will; the dependency is real
Even setting aside the word “plagiarism,” the denomination’s own Ministry and official Estate materials concede that EGW:
-
Borrowed sentences/paragraphs and paraphrased them,
-
Often without explicit attribution in early printings,
-
And later added documentation and corrections (notably in 1911).
Why this matters: If a book’s facts and wording come from earlier writers and had to be fixed—then claiming, “Whatever she writes is from God,” is an overreach.
9) Why did some Adventists shift toward “limited inerrancy”
From the 1880s onward, Adventist leaders increasingly spoke of “thought inspiration” and rejected verbal inerrancy—in part because Ellen White’s own books (including GC) were revised and corrected. Scholarly treatments of Adventist views on inspiration document this shift and cite the 1919 Conference as a turning point in acknowledging the limits of inerrancy claims.
Bottom line: The facts forced a theory change, not vice-versa.
10) Historic Christianity still confesses the Bible’s inerrancy—not EGW’s
Classical Christianity affirms that Scripture is God-breathed and therefore true in all it affirms (see the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy for a standard articulation). That is not how Adventist leaders have treated GC, and their own revisions prove it.
Conclusion
If someone tells you, “Everything Ellen White wrote in The Great Controversy came straight from God,” the historical record doesn’t support that claim. The 1911 preface admits borrowing and corrections; Adventist archives preserve leaders’ own candid rejections of inerrancy for her writings; and official summaries explain the need to update historical details and document sources.
This doesn’t mean God can’t use a flawed book to bless readers. It does mean we should stop defending GC as if it were an error-free revelation. Only Scripture carries that weight in historic Christian faith.
✱Bible inerrancy is the belief that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is completely free from error. This means that everything it affirms, whether about God, history, morality, or creation, is entirely true and trustworthy.
Evangelicals often emphasize this doctrine as foundational, linking it to the character of God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and to the authority of Scripture itself (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Inerrancy is distinct from inspiration (God-breathed origin) and infallibility (incapable of failing), though all three work together to uphold the Bible’s divine reliability.
Sources
-
Author’s Preface, 1911 Great Controversy (White Estate page summarizing the revision and quoting the Preface).
-
Ministry Magazine coverage of the Veltman study (The Desire of Ages “Life of Christ Research Project”) on EGW’s literary dependence.
-
1919 Bible Conference: rediscovered transcripts, context, and publication history. (Andrews University, Adventist Archives)
-
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (for a baseline Christian view of Scripture’s truthfulness). (library.dts.edu)
Spot-the-Difference: 1888 vs. 1911 Great Controversy
-
Dating the fall of Jerusalem (precision fix)
-
1888: “For forty years after the doom of Jerusalem had been pronounced by Christ Himself…”
-
1911: “For nearly forty years after the doom of Jerusalem had been pronounced by Christ…” (1911, p. 27)
Why it changed: To avoid conflict with EGW’s own A.D. 31 crucifixion dating. (Ellen G. White Estate)
-
“Lord God the Pope” (documentation problem)
-
1888: “More than this, the pope has arrogated the very titles of Deity. He styles himself ‘Lord God the Pope,’ assumes infallibility, and demands that all men pay him homage.”
-
1911: “More than this, the pope has been given the very titles of Deity. He has been styled ‘Lord God the Pope,’ and has been declared infallible. He demands the homage of all men.” (Appendix note added)
Why it changed: Staff couldn’t find this phrasing in authoritative Catholic sources; wording was softened and referenced. (Ellen G. White Estate)
-
“Christians” too broad (scope narrowed)
-
1888: “While Christians continued to observe Sunday as a joyous festival…”
-
1911: “While Christians generally continued to observe Sunday as a joyous festival…”
-
1888: “But while Christians were gradually led to regard Sunday…”
-
1911: “But while many God-fearing Christians were gradually led to regard Sunday…”
Why it changed: To avoid over-generalizing historical practice. (Ellen G. White Estate)
-
“Only one point” left unexplained in Daniel 8 (overstatement toned down)
-
1888: “There was only one point in the vision of chapter eight… namely… the 2300 days.”
-
1911: “There was one important point… namely… the 2300 days.”
Why it changed: Prescott flagged the claim as too absolute. (Ellen G. White Estate)
-
Josiah Litch's prediction (day-specific claim corrected)
-
1888: Litch “specified not only the year but the very day” the Ottoman Empire would fall.
-
1911: Revised after checking Litch’s pamphlet, he first named August 1840 generally; specificity came after the fact.
Why it changed: Evidence didn’t match the stronger claim. (Ellen G. White Estate)
-
Luther quote cleaned up + sourced
-
1888: Luther called it “the numberless prodigies of the Romish dunghill of decretals.”
-
1911: “the monstrous fables that form part of the Roman dunghill of decretals.” (with footnote)
Why it changed: To correct the wording and provide a proper source. (Ellen G. White Estate)
-
“Abolition” of the papacy in 1798 (historical overreach softened)
-
1888: “The deadly wound points to the abolition of the papacy in 1798.”
-
1911: “…points to the downfall of the papacy in 1798.”
Why it changed: The papacy plainly continued to exist; terminology adjusted for accuracy. (Ellen G. White Estate)
-
Council of Nicaea II (documentation supplied)
-
1888: Claimed a general council “finally established” image veneration; only a brief footnote (“Second Council of Nice, A.D. 787”).
-
1911: Extensive Appendix note added with documentary backing (pp. 679–680).
Why it changed: To substantiate a serious historical charge with sources. (Ellen G. White Estate)
-
“Divinity” → “Deity” of Christ (theological precision)
-
1888: “Another dangerous error… denies the divinity of Christ…”
-
1911: “…denies the deity of Christ…”
Why it changed: Sharper, more standard theological wording. (Ellen G. White Estate)
-
Starfall citation (source clarified)
-
1888: Cites Henry Dana Ward’s remark on the 1833 meteor shower.
-
1911: Places the remark within the New York Journal of Commerce (Nov. 14, 1833), giving a concrete publication context.
Why it changed: To ground the quotation in a verifiable source. (Ellen G. White Estate)
Why these edits matter
-
They show historical claims were reviewed, corrected, and sourced decades after the original text, sometimes softening assertions when documentation didn’t exist. That’s normal editorial practice, but it undercuts the idea that every historical sentence was dictated infallibly. The White Estate itself explains that assistants helped locate historians and fix references in 1911. (Ellen G. White Estate)
-
Even pro-Adventist scholarship acknowledges extensive literary borrowing in Great Controversy (Wylie, D’Aubigné, etc.), again pointing to a human literary process (compilation/condensation), not verbatim heavenly dictation. (Andrews University)
-
For a broader critique of the parallels and borrowing claims, see Walter Rea’s collation work (controversial, yes, but it prints the side-by-side texts). (ia601201.us.archive.org)
| # | 1888 Edition (Original Wording) | 1911 Edition (Revised Wording) | Reason for Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | “For forty years after the doom of Jerusalem had been pronounced…” (p. 27) | “For nearly forty years…” | Math error: EGW claimed Christ died in 31 A.D., Jerusalem fell in 70 A.D. = 39 years, not 40. |
| 2 | “The pope has styled himself ‘Lord God the Pope.’” | “He has been styled ‘Lord God the Pope’…” | No Catholic source verified the claim. Revision softened the assertion. |
| 3 | “Josiah Litch specified not only the year but the very day…” | “…Litch named only the year and month (August 1840).” | Correction: Litch never predicted an exact day; SDA apologetic embellishment removed. |
| 4 | “The deadly wound points to the abolition of the papacy in 1798.” | “…points to the downfall of the papacy…” | Papacy was wounded, not abolished. Change aligns with history. |
| 5 | “…Wycliffe was the Morning Star of the Reformation.” (p. 80) | “…Wycliffe was the Herald of Reform.” | Avoids borrowing the exact phrase from Protestant historian D’Aubigné. |
| 6 | “Luther… stood alone, confronting the world’s greatest powers.” | “Luther… was not wholly alone; princes and scholars supported him.” | Historically inaccurate heroization of Luther corrected. |
| 7 | “The Waldenses… in the dark ages preserved the truth pure.” | “The Waldenses… faithfully handed down some truths.” | Corrected exaggeration: Waldenses did not preserve all doctrines in purity. |
| 8 | “The Reformation was checked for a time by the emperor’s edict…” | “The Reformation was checked for a time by imperial opposition.” | More accurate: not only edicts, but multiple political forces were involved. |
| 9 | “The papal power is the man of sin foretold in prophecy.” | “The papal power is identified with characteristics of the man of sin.” | Softened to avoid direct inflammatory accusations. |
| 10 | “The Bible was burned by papal decree.” | “The Bible was suppressed and kept from the people.” | No proof of systematic burning decrees; revision reflects historical correction. |
The Great Controversy was not an infallible prophecy but a fallible historical compilation. If it were God’s Word, no corrections would have been necessary. Instead, EGW’s editors quietly cleaned up mistakes sometimes to soften attacks, other times to fix factual errors.
Former Adventists Philippines
“Freed by the Gospel. Firm in the Word.”
For more inquiries, contact us:
Email: formeradventist.ph@gmail.com
Website: formeradventistph.blogspot.com
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/formeradventistph
No comments:
Post a Comment