Is the comparison between the use of literary sources in the Bible and Ellen White’s literary borrowing really valid? ^{40The White Lie, pp. 46, 139.}

Yes, if one recognizes what issue is involved. Borrowing by Biblical authors has no direct bearing on the ethical propriety of literary borrowing in the nineteenth century, for concepts of literary property were different in biblical times. However, literary borrowing in the Bible speaks to the question of inspiration. In other words, if the question is whether genuinely inspired writers can employ uninspired literary sources, then we can look to the Bible for an answer to that question. When we do, we discover that Biblical writers used sources while writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. ^{41See The S.D.A. Bible Commentary 7:706, 708; Robert W. Olson, One Hundred and One Questions on the Sanctuary and on Ellen White, pp. 105-107.}TAWL 5.1

The White Lie argues invalidly that if the Gospel writers had borrowed as much as Ellen White did they would have had to borrow every verse. This argument is based on the fact that the reader will find “more than four hundred references to eighty-eight authors in The Great Controversy.” ^{42The White Lie, p. 139.} When W. C. White gave these statistics, he was discussing the 1911 revision of The Great Controversy. At that time, Ellen White instructed her literary assistants to go through the book and supply specific references for the quotations. In doing so, the literary assistants did not attempt to specify where Ellen White originally found the quotation, but where the modern reader could most readily find it. In fact, Mrs. White drew from far fewer authors than the number of references would seem to suggest, for, in many cases, a single author from whom she originally drew quoted from several prior sources himself. ^{43See W. C. White, “The Great Controversy—1911 Edition,” in Ellen G. White, Selected Messages 3:433-440; Ron Graybill, “How Did Mrs. White Choose and Use Her Historical Sources,” Spectrum, Summer, 1972, pp. 49-53.}TAWL 5.2