Did Ellen White Know More than Bible Translators?
By and , last updated Jan.
One myth that is heard on occasion within Seventh-day Adventist [SDA] circles is that Ellen White had special, divine insight into the Scriptural text, and that she was able to perceive the meaning of the original languages better than the translators of the KJV Bible. Her Grandson, Arthur White, explains this supposed supernatural ability:
Careful students of the original Bible languages have often observed that the insights the visions gave to Ellen White led her again and again to catch meanings more in keeping with the original text than is reflected in the King James Version, which she constantly used. Her acceptance of the newer translations as they became available supports this point.1
Is this true? Did Mrs. White have a special ability to comprehend the meanings of the original Bible text better than the translators of the KJV Bible?
Significantly, Arthur provides no evidence to substantiate that Mrs. White had this supernatural ability. He does not provide a single verse to prove his point. Therefore, his argument has no evidence to support it. In fact, the following examples will illustrate that Ellen White had no more insight than the average reader of the KJV Bible.
1. Is Satan Named Lucifer?
According to Mrs. White, the name of Satan is Lucifer. A quick search of Ellen White's published writings on the White Estate's website reveals over 400 instances where Satan is referred to as Lucifer. In her writings Mrs. White frequently cites Isaiah 14:12 as evidence of Satan (Lucifer) being expelled from Heaven:
The prophet Isaiah, looking forward to the time of Satan's overthrow, exclaims: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!2
While Arthur White would have us believe his grandmother knew more than the translators of the KJV, Mrs. White was apparently unaware that the name Lucifer is not in the original Hebrew text of Isaiah 14:12. So where did the name "Lucifer" come from?
The Hebrew word translated as "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is heylel (hay-lale', Strong's #1966), and literally means "shining one", "morning star", "light bearer", etc. Isaiah 14:12 is the only place in scripture where this Hebrew word appears.
The use of "Lucifer" appears to have originated from the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate was produced by Jerome (c. 347-420) by translating available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts into Latin. ... Here's what the Vulgate says:
Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate) "quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes"It would seem that Jerome understood the meaning of the Hebrew word heylel, and translated it into "lucifer", the Latin word meaning "light bearer" (from the Latin lux "light" and ferre "to bear or bring."). Because many people thought this passage was referring to Satan, people began to think of the term of "lucifer" as a proper name "Lucifer". However, this is not what "lucifer" meant. "Lucifer", at the time of the Vulgate and even at the time of the KJV translation, meant "morning star" or "day star" in reference to Venus.3
The fact that Jerome never intended "lucifer" to be used as a proper name for Satan can be proven by his usage of the same word in Job 11:17 and 2 Peter 2:19, neither of which refers to Satan. In fact, 2 Peter 2:19 appears to be a reference to Christ:
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star [Vulgate: Lucifer] arise in your hearts.
Therefore, it is evident that lucifer was never intended to be used as a proper name for Satan. If Mrs. White had indeed been privy to supernatural knowledge regarding the original Bible text, then she should have been aware of this fact.
2. Isaiah 14 Never Mentions Satan—It Is Addressed to a Babylonian King
Mrs. White was apparently confused about the meaning of the entire passage of Isaiah 14. Not only is Lucifer not the name of Satan, but Isaiah 14 is a prophecy written about a Babylonian King, not about Satan. God specifically tells Isaiah that this prophecy is meant for the king of Babylon:
Thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon... (Isa. 14:4).
In verse 16, the object of this prophecy is called a "man."4 Satan is not a "man," so this passage could not be referring directly to Satan. Evidence indicates that Isaiah was actually rebuking the pagan gods of Babylon:
The ancient Babylonians had a large pantheon of gods. One of chief Gods was 'El', and his wife was 'Asherah'. According to the religion, El and Asherah had many children (about 70) who were gods themselves. ... Two more of El and Asherah's children were twins: Shahar and Shalim, brothers of Baal. In the Babylonian pantheon, Shahar was deemed god of the dawn, and his twin brother Shalim was god of the dusk. Shahar himself also had a son, Helel.
The Babylonians believed that the planet Venus, when it appeared as a star in the morning, literally was Helel, the son of Shahar, and grandson of El. They worshipped Helel the morning star and considered him one of the more important gods.
Isaiah 14:12 (KJV with Hebrew) 'How art thou fallen from heaven, O Helel, son of Shahar! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!'
Remember, Helel was the morning star, and his father Shahar was god of the dawn. Isaiah, talking to the Babylonian King, is comparing him to (and speaking against!) one of the prominent Babylonian gods!5
Therefore, rather than being a passage about the fall of Satan from Heaven, Isaiah 14 is a rebuke addressed to a "man"—the Babylonian King. It is a denunciation of the pagan Babylonian gods he trusted—Helel and Shahar. If Mrs. White's visions did indeed give her divine insight into the Biblical text, as some would have us believe, shouldn't she have known the true meaning of this passage from which she so often quoted?
3. Who Founded Nineveh?
The first Biblical information we have about Babylon and Assyria can be found in Genesis. Even before the account of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11), Genesis 10 contains a table of nations where some of the exploits of the three sons of Noah and his descendants are told. Speaking of the Ham and his descendants, the KJV has the following account:
And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, 12 And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.
Notice that according to this version, Asshur went out of the land of Shinar and built the city of Nineveh, among others. This notion is confirmed by Ellen G. White with these words, which add to the Bible narrative,
This is the special message that God bade his servant Jonah bear in the ancient and populous city founded by Asshur, the son of Shem, who 'went forth' from 'the land of Shinar' about the time of the dispersion from Babel, 'and builded Nineveh' along the fertile bank of the Tigris, over two hundred miles to the northward from Babylon."6
Mrs White is right that Asshur was Shem's son, because that is attested by Gen. 10:22. But it is curious that she should inform us that, apparently, he had migrated from the area around Ararat to Babylon, only to return northward and found Nineveh. In her 1890 story of the scattering of people after the flood, Ellen White stated that
For a time the descendants of Noah continued to dwell among the mountains where the ark had rested. As their numbers increased, apostasy soon led to division. Those who desired to forget their Creator and to cast off the restraint of His law felt a constant annoyance from the teaching and example of their God-fearing associates, and after a time they decided to separate from the worshipers of God. Accordingly they journeyed to the plain of Shinar, on the banks of the river Euphrates. They were attracted by the beauty of the situation and the fertility of the soil, and upon this plain they determined to make their home.7
Following Mrs White's insight, if Asshur, Noah's grandson, ever lived in the land of Shinar, he must have been among the increased number of apostates who set themselves apart from their Creator and cast off the restraints of his law. All right, let us assume for a moment that is correct. Mrs White added another priceless bit of information in her story of Asshur's return to the north. She claims the return happened "about the time of the dispersion from Babel." Now, according to the consensus of Bible interpreters, the dispersion from Babel is to be dated in the days of Peleg (Gen 10:25). Now Peleg, whose name means "division," was one of the sons of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Arphaxad (Gen. 10:24). Arphaxad was one of Shem's sons, and a brother of Asshur's (Gen. 10:22). Therefore, Asshur and Shelah were cousins. So, according to Mrs White, Asshur left Babylon in the days of his cousin's grandson and he founded several cities. Impressive! One could wonder how he managed to populate so many cities. Perhaps he had a lot of grandchildren and great grandchildren!
This attribution of the founding of Nineveh and other Assyrian cities to Asshur creates a problem. Micah 5:6 calls Assyria "the land of Nimrod," which would seem to indicate that the KJV for Gen. 10:11 is wrong. The NIV has the correct translation, "From that land he went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah". The person who Gen. 10:11 says went to Assyria is, of course, Nimrod who is mentioned in the preceding verses. Contrary to Asshur, who was a Shemite, Nimrod was a Hamite, since he was the son of Cush, the son of Ham. So, it would appear that Mrs White's inspiration was no better than that of the translators of the King James Version. Her notion that Asshur founded Nineveh is not a complementary revelation, but a blunder caused by the KJV translators that she was unable to detect.
4. Wrong about Mary
In Desire of Ages Mrs. White writes:
But now in His own familiar voice Jesus said to her, 'Mary.' Now she knew that it was not a stranger who was addressing her, and turning she saw before her the living Christ. In her joy she forgot that He had been crucified. Springing toward Him, as if to embrace His feet, she said, 'Rabboni.' But Christ raised His hand, saying, Detain Me not; 'for I am not yet ascended to My Father: but go to My brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to My God, and your God.' And Mary went her way to the disciples with the joyful message.8
In this quote Mrs. White is saying that Mary never touched Jesus. She moved toward Christ as if to embrace Him, but Jesus halted her with uplifted hand. While this is consistent with events as described in the KJV of John 20:17, it contradicts the original Greek. The Greek literally says that Jesus said, "stop clinging to me."9 Modern versions give a more accurate rendering of the Greek:
NASB: "Jesus said to her, 'Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father...'"
NKJV: "Jesus said to her, 'Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father...'"
NLT: "'Don't cling to me,' Jesus said, 'for I haven't yet ascended to the Father..."
NIV: "Jesus said, 'Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father...'"
ESV: "Jesus said to her, 'Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father...'"
5. Wrong Understanding of the Word "After"
In Patriarchs and Prophets, Ellen White quotes 2 Thessalonians 2:9 and interprets the KJV word "after" in a temporal sense, as relating to a point in time after the arrival of spiritualism:
Paul, in his second letter to the Thessalonians, points to the special working of Satan in spiritualism as an event to take place immediately before the second advent of Christ. Speaking of Christ's second coming, he declares that it is "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders." 2 Thessalonians 2:9.10
The Greek word for "after" is kata, which does not convey time, but rather means "according to."11 Modern translations render it correctly:
NKJV: The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders...
RSV: The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders...
NIV: The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders...
6. Unicorn or Rhino?
In 1880, Mrs. White wrote about Balaam's prophecy:
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath, as it were, the strength of a unicorn." The rhinoceros is one of the most powerful of animals, and Balaam uses this creature as a figure to show how vain it is for any earthly power to array itself against the Most High. God had accomplished his will in bringing Israel from bondage and idolatry in Egypt, notwithstanding the opposition of Pharaoh and his hosts. It would be safer for lesser animals to attack the powerful unicorn, than for finite man to seek to turn aside the purposes of the Infinite One.12
Mrs. White is quoting from the KJV, which uses "unicorn" in Numbers 23:22, 24:8.13 The Hebrew word (re'em) refers to a now-extinct wild ox, likely the aurochs—a powerful bovine that went extinct in 1627. This animal, common in the Near East during the time of Moses, was viewed as a symbol of power in that culture. The eminent Hebrew scholar Robert Alter translates it as "wild ox."14 Most modern translations, such as the ESV, NIV, NASB, and NRSV also use "wild ox."
Ellen White makes a double mistake here. The KJV's "unicorn" was already a mistranslation, but she compounds this by claiming it refers specifically to a rhinoceros. The re'em (aurochs) was native to the Middle East. However, rhinoceroses are not native to Israel/Palestine and would have been unknown to the biblical authors in this context. Thus, she made an incorrect translation even worse, demonstrating a profound lack of supernatural "insight."
7. Mark was Barnabas' Nephew
In the KJV Bible, Paul refers to John-Mark as "sister's son to Barnabas" (Col. 4:10). Mrs. White wrongly assumed this meant that Mark was the nephew of Barnabas. In her writings, Mrs. White repeatedly follows the KJV nomenclature and refers to Mark as the nephew of Barnabas. For example, in 1911 she wrote in the Review:
Barnabas himself was “of the country of Cyprus;” and now he and his fellow worker, Paul, accompanied by John Mark, a nephew of Barnabas, visited this island field.15
The relationship between Mark and Barnabas is defined in the Greek text of Colossians 4:10 by the term anepsios. While the King James Version (1611) famously translated this as "sister's son" (nephew), modern scholarship and linguistic consensus have clarified that the relationship was actually that of cousins.
In Koine Greek, the distinction is technically precise. If Paul had intended to describe a nephew, he likely would have used a compound phrase like huios tes adelphes ("son of the sister") or the specific term adelphidous. The choice of anepsios specifically denotes a cousin—a fact reflected in nearly all modern translations, including the RSV, NKJV, ESV, NIV, and NASB. The Greek Lexicon clarifies this:
anepsios... a cousin. In the NT, it specifically refers to a first cousin (Col 4:10). The term is well-attested in documentary papyri and the Septuagint to distinguish cousins from other close kin.16
Once again, this proves Ellen White had no supernatural or divine insight into the Biblical text but relied upon a faulty KJV translation.
8. Colossians 2:14: The Record of Debt, Not the Ceremonial Law
In several instances Mrs. White used Colossians 2:14 to argue that the ceremonial law was nailed to the cross. For example:
This ritual law, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be performed by the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings were to cease. It is this law that Christ "took ... out of the way, nailing it to His cross." Colossians 2:1417
But there is a law which was abolished, which Christ "took out of the way, nailing it to his cross." Paul calls it "the law of commandments contained in ordinances." This ceremonial law, given by God through Moses, with its sacrifices and ordinances, was to be binding upon the Hebrews until type met antitype in the death of Christ as the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world. Then all the sacrificial offerings and services were to be abolished.18
These passages make clear that Ellen White believed the "handwriting of ordinances" in Colossians 2:14 referred to the ceremonial or ritual law. While there is no argument that the ceremonial system has ended, a careful examination of this verse reveals that it speaks of something quite different—namely, the record of sins.
The Greek Term Cheirographon
The critical word in this passage is the Greek cheirographon, which appears only once in the entire New Testament. This term does not mean "law" but rather "handwritten document" or "certificate of debt." In extra-biblical Greek literature and legal documents, cheirographon was consistently used to denote a promissory note, a record of indebtedness, or a signed acknowledgment of obligation.19 Significantly, the word for "law" (nomos) never appears anywhere in the book of Colossians, suggesting that Paul's focus is not on the abolition of any legal code but on the cancellation of human sin debt before God.
The Scholarly Consensus
Leading New Testament scholars consistently interpret Colossians 2:14 as referring to the record of sins, not to the Mosaic law. James D. G. Dunn, in his commentary on Colossians and Philemon, states:
The expunging of the record confirms that none of these transgressions is any longer held 'against us.' This does not mean, however, that the underlying decrees or regulations cease to have force, that is that the law no longer functions as God's yardstick of right and judgment; there is no contradiction here with Rom. 2:12-16. It is simply that the record of the transgression has been erased—another way of saying, 'he forgave us all our transgressions'... Once again we should just note that it is not the law which is thought of as thus destroyed, but rather its particular condemnation of transgressions, absorbed in the sacrificial death of the Christ.20
Peter T. O'Brien, in the Word Biblical Commentary, emphasizes that what was nailed to the cross was not the law that defined right and wrong, but the certificate of debt we incurred by violating that law.21
Douglas J. Moo, writing in the Pillar New Testament Commentary, reinforces this interpretation: "Paul imagines God taking the statement of debts and nailing it to the cross of Christ... In causing him to be nailed to the cross, God (the subject of the verb) has provided for the full cancellation of the debt of sin that we have incurred."22 Moo's analysis highlights that the cross dealt with our guilt, not with God's moral standards.
Context and Meaning
The immediate context of Colossians 2:14 confirms this interpretation. Verse 13 states:
When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions.
The subject at hand is forgiveness of sins—the removal of guilt—not the abolition of divine law. Verse 14 then explains how this forgiveness was accomplished: by canceling the record of our offenses and nailing it to the cross.
The verb "having canceled out" (exaleipsas) means to wipe away or erase completely, as one would erase writing from a document. Ancient documents were written on papyrus or vellum with ink that sat on the surface and could be wiped clean. The metaphor is powerful: God has completely erased our record of sins. As SDA scholar Samuele Bacchiocchi notes, "What was nailed to the Cross was not the 'law—nomos' but the cheirographon... what God destroyed on the Cross was not the legal ground (law) for our entanglement in sin, but the written record of our sins."23
Ellen White's interpretation of Colossians 2:14 as referring to the ceremonial law does not align with the Greek terminology, the immediate context of the passage, or the consensus of biblical scholarship. If Mrs. White possessed supernatural insight into the Greek text, she would have recognized that cheirographon does not mean "ceremonial law" but "certificate of debt"—the record of our sins that Christ canceled at Calvary.
Accepted New Translations Because of Supernatural Insight?
Arthur White's statement at the top of this page suggests Mrs. White accepted newer translations of the Bible because they more accurately matched the "light" that had been revealed to her in vision. Is this true? There is no evidence Ellen White accepted or approved of newer versions because they more closely matched what she saw in vision. In fact, in an article Arthur wrote earlier on the subject of versions of the Bible, he provides evidence showing Mrs. White chose to use new versions because the English in them was easier for people to read and understand. For example, W.C. White relates one instance where Mrs. White chose to use the Revised Version:
Sister White's attention was called from time to time by myself and Sister Marian Davis, to the fact that she was using texts which were much more clearly translated in the Revised Version. Sister White studied each one carefully, and in some cases she instructed us to use the Revised Version.24
This shows that Sister White's book-writing staff encouraged her to use the newer versions because they were more readable. A second example from W.C. White provides the same reason:
When Testimonies for the Church, vol. 8, was printed and it seemed desirable to make some lengthy quotations from the Psalms, it was pointed out to Sister White that the Revised Version of these Psalms was preferable, and that by using the form of blank verse the passages were more readable. Sister White gave the matter deliberate consideration, and instructed us to use the Revised Version.25
Thus, it seems Mrs. White's decision to use other versions was more due to readability than to them more accurately matching what she had seen in vision.
Conclusion: The Collapse of a Myth
The foregoing examples demonstrate that Mrs. White did not possess supernatural knowledge of the original biblical languages. In case after case, her interpretations mirror the errors, ambiguities, and translation choices of the King James Version—often getting it wrong precisely where the KJV got it wrong, and missing critical insights that even basic Greek or Hebrew literacy would have provided.
Arthur White's claim that his grandmother had divine insight "beyond the Biblical text" collapses under the weight of the evidence.
Arthur White explains that Mrs. White used "the English Revised Version and the American Standard Revision when it became available in 1901,"26 and that she "used the Revised Version renderings, also the marginal reading of texts, in nearly all of her books published after 1885."27 Far from defending his grandmother's mythical ability, this admission demolishes it. If Ellen White required more modern and accurate English translations to improve her understanding of Scripture, then she was doing exactly what any Bible student would do—reading better translations to gain better understanding. This is not supernatural revelation; it is ordinary human learning.
At no point does she demonstrate knowledge that transcends the available English texts. At no point does she correct the English translations from a position of superior knowledge of Greek or Hebrew. At no point does she say, "The English versions render this passage thus, but the original Greek actually means something different."
The implications are inescapable. If Ellen White possessed the "spirit of prophecy" in the biblical sense—if she truly had supernatural knowledge of God's Word—we would expect to find evidence of insight that transcends mere access to good English translations. We would expect her to occasionally correct translator errors, to shed light on difficult passages through superior understanding of the original languages, to offer interpretations that align with the Greek and Hebrew even when the English is misleading. Instead, we find the opposite: a pattern of dependence on English translations, adoption of their errors where they err, and improvement only when better English translations become available.
Arthur White has not proven his myth about Mrs. White having supernatural insights beyond the biblical text. The evidence points emphatically in the opposite direction. What is documented here is not a few isolated mistakes or minor misunderstandings—it is a systematic pattern of dependence on English translations and their inherent limitations. The myth of Ellen White's supernatural linguistic knowledge is precisely that: a myth.