Authorized or Unauthorized Translations

In our exposition of the eighth chapter of Daniel, we have used the text of the American Standard Revised Version, which in substance is the same as the English Revised Version, Leeser’s Jewish Translation, and some of the latest and best foreign translations. These translations are based upon the best modern scholarship, and have commanded the respect of all Biblical scholars. In the effort, however, to maintain that the “daily” means paganism, and that it was taken away in a. d. 508, the writers of these two leaflets have presented special translations made by themselves for the purpose of sustaining their own views, and have attempted to make these translations overthrow our view of this prophecy. We do not deem it necessary to answer at length the arguments based upon these unauthorized translations, and we respectfully submit that we do not have among us Hebrew scholars of such a reputation as warrants us in discrediting the standard translations of the Bible, and in substituting others of quite different meaning, and especially when such translations have been made for the express purpose of sustaining the theological views of the translators. To follow such a course as this would certainly give some ground for the charge that Seventh-day Adventists require a Bible of their own in order to prove their doctrines. We think we are fully warranted in rejecting any such private translations and insisting upon the use of such versions of the Scripture as are based upon accredited scholarship.THD 16.1

In view of the fact that there is just as much difference of opinion as to the meaning of the passage quoted from “Early Writings” as there is concerning the meaning of the Scripture text, the question of the correct interpretation of this prophecy can not be settled offhand either by a private translation of the text, or by a private interpretation of an extract from the spirit of prophecy taken out of its proper connection.THD 16.2