A “Proof” That Does Not Prove

Another thing that reveals in this the taint of Egyptian character is that he pretends to prove the correctness of his counting by Brother Alonzo T. Jones. He says:—STSG 26.2

“I shall prove the correctness of my counting by Alonzo T. Jones, a leading Seventh-day Adventist.”STSG 26.3

He then quotes several expressions, on pages 78 and 79, from the writings of Brother Jones. Then, on page 80, he quotes, as from Brother Jones, a passage which is not only not Brother Jones’s at all, but is disputed by Brother Jones: and this in the very place, that is, on the very page, from which Mr. Gamble quotes it.STSG 26.4

In his book he spends several pages in addressing personally “Brother Jones.” And on this page 80 he says to him:—STSG 26.5

“Probably you have another definition of Pentecost, which will name those Sabbaths.STSG 26.6

“ ‘Pentecost is the fiftieth day after the Passover, which was called the Sabbath of weeks, consisting of seven times seven days, and the day after the completion of the seventh weekly Sabbath day,’ etc.”STSG 26.7

Then on page 86 he says:—STSG 27.1

“We have, by the aid of Brother Jones, located the day and date of the first Pentecost; that is, that it occurred on Sunday, Sivan 5, on the morrow after the seventh Saturday Sabbath after their deliverance from Egyptian bondage.”STSG 27.2

Now, as already stated, that first quotation he makes as from Brother Jones, and through the pages following attributes it definitely to Brother Jones, when, as already stated, Brother Jones not only never wrote a word of it, but, in the place from which Mr. Gamble quoted it, definitely wrote a note disavowing it.STSG 27.3

The reference which Mr. Gamble gives to that quotation is “Rome’s Challenge,” page 17. Mr. Gamble knows that Alonzo T. Jones did not write “Rome’s Challenge;” for, in a note on page 117 of his book, he says, “‘Rome’s Challenge’ was edited by Alonzo T. Jones from four articles by Senex.”STSG 27.4

Now this passage which he quotes as from “Brother Jones,” and for which he refers to “Rome’s Challenge,” page 17, is from the text, which he himself knows was written by Senex. In its original place the passage is in one sentence, and complete, and runs as follows:—STSG 27.5

“Pentecost is the fiftieth day after the Passover, which was called the Sabbath of weeks, consisting of seven times seven days; and the day after the completion of the seventh weekly Sabbath day was the chief day of the entire festival, necessarily Sunday.”STSG 27.6

Now at that very place, immediately after the word “passover” in the quotation, is the reference figure “1,” referring to a foot-note, written by the editor, and so signed “Ed.,” in which, with reference only to these very words and lines which Mr. Gamble has quoted, the following is written:—STSG 27.7

“Our Saviour ate the Passover with His disciples the night before His crucifixion, and He was crucified on Friday. Friday, therefore, was the first day of the feast of the Passover, or of unleavened bread. The morrow after that day was the day from which the fifty days to Pentecost were to be counted. Leviticus 23:6, 11, 15, 16. The morrow after that day being ‘the Sabbath according to the commandment’ (Luke 23:56), and the first day of the fifty, it is evident that the fiftieth day itself would be not Sunday, but Saturday. Anybody can demonstrate this for himself who will begin with ‘the morrow after’ any Friday, and count fifty. And, as the Passover was always the 14th day of the first month, without any reference whatever to any particular day of the week, it were impossible that the Pentecost should always be ‘necessarily Sunday,’ as stated. Of course, this note, true though it be, has no bearing upon this question between Catholics and Protestants, as both claim-the Catholics originally-that this very Pentecost was on Sunday. This note is inserted merely in the interests of accuracy, and not with the intention that it should have any bearing on the controversy in the text.”STSG 28.1

This demonstrates, therefore, that Mr. Gamble has deliberately quoted as from “Brother Jones” a passage which he knew was not written by Brother Jones, and which he knew, by the foot-note, that Brother Jones had definitely repudiated, declaring that what the text said was impossible, and that this note was inserted “in the interests of accuracy.”STSG 28.2

Mr. Gamble claims that Brother Jones, in editing “Rome’s Challenge,” and passing it on through the press, to be circulated, adopted it as thoroughly correct teaching, and that therefore he, Mr. Gamble, “is justifiable in quoting from it as the words of Alonzo T. Jones, or the teaching of Seventh-day Adventism.” This does not necessarily follow, even as to places where no notes are inserted disavowing the teaching; but, of all things, it is impossible to be true or correct in a passage concerning which a note is definitely inserted by the editor, disavowing the teaching in the sentence noted. And yet, in spite of a note inserted by Brother Jones definitely disavowing the teaching in a sentence which Mr. Gamble knows was written by another, Mr. Gamble, knowing all this, deliberately quotes and publishes, as from Brother Jones, a sentence which he knows was not written by Brother Jones, but entirely by another, and which, in the same place, was disallowed by Brother Jones, in a note written expressly for that purpose!STSG 29.1

It is evident that Mr. Gamble’s Egyptian Calendar is not the only Egyptian element that is in his book.STSG 29.2

Yet the dishonesty in this item of Mr. Gamble’s is not all that there is in the item: He starts with the declaration, “I shall prove the correctness of my counting by Alonzo T. Jones,” etc. Then in fulfilment of this declaration he quotes as his proof a passage with the production of which he knows that Alonzo T. Jones never had anything whatever to do; and which he knows that Alonzo T. Jones, in the interests of accuracy, positively disavowed as being “impossible.” Therefore, in the very thing which Mr. Gamble declares that he would prove, this leaves him absolutely without any proof at all. And the thing which he declares that he would prove by this which proves to be no proof at all, is “the correctness of my counting.” And upon the correctness of his counting hangs all the merit that there can be in his scheme of “fixed-date Sabbaths.” But, behold! his proof turns out to be simply no proof at all. Ah! but he declares that that is the proof of “the correctness of my counting.” Unquestionably that is so: the proof of the correctness of his counting is just no proof at all, but is only an absolute blank. Yet Bishop Fowler says that Mr. Gamble’s scheme is “a mathematical demonstration” “or nothing.” Now for the proof of the correctness of its counting no mathematical demonstration ever rested upon a blank, upon proof that is no proof at all. It is perfectly plain therefore that this thing is not in any sense a mathematical demonstration. And the alternative is very easy: it is plainly nothing.STSG 29.3