A REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ON

THE CLEAR WORD BIBLE (OR PARAPHRASE)

Jayson Downer

April 27 at 2:31pm
Derrick Gillespie and Elce Thunder Lauriston is this true?

The SDA Clear Water Bible EXPOSED

The "Clear Word Bible," printed by the Seventh-Day Adventists, is of the Devil. It certainly is
NO Bible. The "Adventist Bible" is by far one of the most blasphemous undertakings ever
published. After much outrage by many people, the SDA Church is saying that the "book" is not
a "Bible" at all.
www.jesus-is-savior.com

Elce Thunder Lauriston As true as the air you breathe my friend.

Like Reply April 27 at 2:38pm

Derrick Gillespie The link above is ANOTHER falsehood or misrepresentation of the facts in
order to curse the people of God like Balaam. Air that we breathe can be noxious, and hence is
NOT ALWAYS illustrative of what is INTENDED to be true, since it can be a mixture of bad
and good. Why do I say so?
1. The Clear Word is a devotional Bible written by one person (his own personal project that he
chose to share). Its not a denominational Bible like the New World Translation of the Scriptures
(done by an official committee of Watchtower translators), where EVERY Jehovah's Witness is
*required to have one, study from it, teach and preach by way of it. As a matter of fact, most
SDAs don't even know what is the Clear Word Bible, have never seen one, don't own one, and

don't ever study from or teach/preach from one. I personally have never held one, read from it, or
studied from it. Its NOT a "denominational" Bible.
2. It is a self-declared paraphrase Bible similar to the other paraphrase Bible's done by
individuals... like the Scofield Bible [paraphrase], Eugene Petersons The Message [or
paraphrase], Kenneth Taylors The Living Bible [or paraphrase], et al...none of which are
deemed "cultic" because they were written by individuals from certain denominations. People
take them for what they are...a paraphrase; not a translation purporting to be the TRUE Bible!!
PROOF? The cover and title page of J. J. Blanco's The Clear Word clearly identify his work as
"an expanded paraphrase of the Bible." It is published in the author's name, not the name of the
SDA church. The first sentence of the preface reads, "This is not a new translation but an
interpretive paraphrase of the Scriptures."
CONCLUSION: Seventh-day Adventists have never produced their own version of the Bible. In
her lifetime, Ellen White made use of the various translations available.
Like Reply 2 2 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie I thank brother ElceThunder Lauriston so much for his ongoing tirade against
the SDA Church, which gives me real opportunity to share the real facts in response to his
charges. People are now more interested in hearing what would have otherwise not interested
them. Thanks once again!! Ever remember that the persecution of the people of God has always
been the "seeds" sown for generating more growth of the persecuted. Smile. smile emoticon
By the way, here is an example of what I mean about giving me the opportunity to share the
REAL facts in the face of false charges:
http://www.ellenwhiteanswers.org/.../pdf/Clear-Word-Ratz.pdf
Like Reply 1 April 27 at 3:48pm Edited

Derrick Gillespie And how about this for an OBJECTIVE source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clear_Word

The Clear Word - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org

Like Reply Remove Preview April 27 at 3:40pm

Stephan Currence The explanation of Deut 5:3 in the article is silly. The meaning is not changed
as they claim.
Like Reply April 27 at 4:22pm

Derrick Gillespie Actually, Stephan Currence, and Deut.5:2-3 makes mention of the Sinai
covenant made only between God and Israel, and not the patriarchs (fathers) before them. This
Scripture does not prove that God never made covenants with humans before (like with Noah or
Abraham), neither does it mean that Gods laws were unknown before Sinai (the Bible itself

proves otherwise), but it just simply means that God made a covenant FOR THE FIRST TIME
with a *NATION of people, and not just individuals (e.g. Noah, Abraham, etc). Israel at Sinai
was the first time God ever met a crowd of people and covenanted with a whole nation.
Gods moral laws, which he himself calls "the covenant" were known long before Sinai, and
were kept even by Abraham long before Sinai. SEE GENESIS 26:5 Abraham obeyed my
voice, and kept my charge [or direct and specific instructions], my commandments, my statutes,
and my laws.
That is pretty clear!! Abraham was not just guided by conscience, but was aware of SPECIFIC
laws and commandments of God (even if the record does not say when he was told these laws).
Also, Moses was able to teach Gods laws even before the Sinai experience in Exodus 20. Note
the reality BEFORE Sinai, as recorded chronologically/sequentially in Exodus 18:
EXODUS 18
13And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood
by Moses from the morning unto the evening. 14And when Moses father in law saw all that he
did to the people, he said, What is this thing that thou doest to the people? Why sittest thou
thyself alone, and all the people stand by thee from morning unto even? 15And Moses said unto
his father in law, because the people come unto me to enquire of God: 16When they have a
matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and *I do make them know the
statutes of God, and his laws [i.e. BEFORE SINAI].
Seems pretty clear that because of the forced slavery in Egypt the people had to be gradually
RETAUGHT the laws of God, since they were forced by circumstances away from those laws!!
All that happened on Sinai was a RESTATING of and expansion on the already known Law of
God, in glory and splendor, TO A WHOLE NATION FOR THE FIRST TIME, so that the effect
would be lasting on the people. See Rev. 11:19 (compared to 1 Kings 8:9) for where the Law of
God is *PERMANENTLY recorded; the ORIGINAL from which God announced it on Sinai in
Exodus 20.
Even in Egypt (before their departure, or exodus) God commanded Pharoah to allow His
people to go in the wilderness and keep a feast or holy day to Him. SEE EXODUS 5:1, 5-9

and EXODUS 10:9 BOTH TALKING OF A FEAST, i.e. THE FIRST FEAST, AND THE
PEOPLE WANTING TO REST FROM THEIR BURDENS, OR SABBATIZE, AND KEEP
A FEAST IN WHICH THEY WOULD REST FROM WORK AND OFFER SACRIFICES
TO GOD, BUT PHAROAH PREVENTED THEM. The only holy day or feast ever set up
by God long before Egypt was the Sabbath from Genesis 2. In Lev. 23: 1-3 the Sabbath is
DISTINCTLY called a feast day for holy convocations or gathering and assembly for
worship. In Egypt the Sabbath could have been the only feast already instituted that God
wanted them to be given one day in seven to keep (since all the other feast days came later).
Even before God pronouncing the Law in Exodus 20 He made mention of His LAW, His
LAWS and COMMANDMENTS (plural) in Exodus 16:4, 28, i.e. the very Law that the
Sabbath test was about. Slavery in Egypt Israel for many years simply made the people
accustomed to work without rest or keeping the Sabbath feast; thus the need for the test.
This (all the above) is all proof that the Sabbath (which originated from Genesis 2:1-3), and
Gods general laws were evidently known before Sinai (Ex. 20); despite no covenant yet existed
with a whole nation of people!!
Like Reply April 27 at 4:54pm Edited

Stephan Currence Great! But it is not really relevant to the topic. Nothing about how it was
rewritten detracts from or changes that message. Additionally it is the old covenant, Jesus
brought a new covenant.
Like Reply April 27 at 5:25pm

Derrick Gillespie Simply making key clarifications!!

Like Reply April 27 at 5:26pm

Kymar Harris Jayson Downer how can the Sabbath start in England and we here in Jamaica
working??? They are five hours ahead of us. If the Sabbath was for the entire world I am certain
the world would have a single time zone because that 24hrs period God rested on, blessed,
sanctified or hallowed would have to be universal. Every nation would have to have Sabbath the
time the same 24hrs period.
Like Reply April 27 at 6:02pm

Derrick Gillespie I am a Geography teacher, and what you said above relates to my area of
expertise. Well, if the above be true, Kymar Harris, does that mean that neither Sunday, nor
Christmas day, etc., can be observed by anybody at all, seeing that everyone cant all be
observing it/them at exactly the the same time? Does that mean that New Years day, or any other

important day of the calendar, like Mothers' day, or Fathers' Day, etc., is not applicable to anyone
simply because not all can experience it at the same time? By your own unreasoned attack
against the Sabbath being observed on a round earth that is what you seem to be saying!!
But let's now reason. So why then do YOU have no issues with the possibility of observing these
*man-made days around the globe, and yet the very God-blessed day which God set up from
Creation (Genesis 2:1-3), and which he said to BOTH Jews and Gentiles (Isaiah 56:1-8; Acts
13:42-44) that they should "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy" (Exodus 20:8-11), you
want to FORGET it on the grounds that because we live on a round earth it cant be kept by
everyone?? Don't you think God knew the earth was round from he made it and knew how time
and time zones would operate? The same way you share in the man-made days called Christmas,
or New Years day, and have no qualms with these days being celebrated hours ahead or behind
you in different parts of the globe, why not apply the same principle to God's HOLY day each
week? Hmmmmm. smile emoticon
P.S. And those, like brother Thunder, who believe that there is no answer/solution to the
'problem' in certain parts of the world where the sun never sets or rises for several months of the
year, I'm quite capable as a Geography teacher to explain how people overcome those 'problems'
for their man-made days like New Years, Christmas, Sunday, Mother's day, etc., and hence its
pretty much a straw man argument to use that as a hindrance to Sabbath observance around the
globe. Smile. smile emoticon
Like Reply 1 April 27 at 8:07pm Edited

Kymar Harris Am not saying one should observe Sunday. One should keep all days holy.
Worship is not about a day it's a lifestyle, holiness is a lifestyle not a day. Jesus is not concerned
about the day one chooses to come together as a unit in worship, He is concerned about the heart
of man. We should worship God everyday.
Like Reply April 27 at 8:50pm

Derrick Gillespie Kymar Harris NO ONE CAN KEEP ALL DAYS HOLY, since you would
never work!! And remember work for most of the week and then rest and worship on one day
which God himself called "HOLY" is a God-given principle; NOT a man-made one!! Your
opinion, while I grant you your freedom and right to hold it, lacks Biblical support. Anyway be
reminded that this discussion is not a Sabbath-related one, but one about the charges leveled
against SDAs about the Clear Word paraphrase. Get back on track. Smile smile emoticon
Like Reply Yesterday at 2:50am Edited

Kymar Harris My apologies for going off track, as it relates to the Clear word paraphrase I know
it's not a Bible and its not widely used by SDAs
Unlike Reply 2 Yesterday at 1:23am

Ryan O'Neil Seaton And if you ever fulfill your dream to be astronaut Kymar Harris, you can
keep the Sabbath according to your last launch location (Houston we have no problem. )
Like Reply April 27 at 8:15pm

Derrick Gillespie When you love your wife, really love her, Kymar Harris, you do not reach for
every conceivable excuse as to why you cant remember her birthday, or your anniversary, etc,
but you strive always to remember and observe days that are special to her. God says the same to
you. "If you love me keep my commandments", says God (in 1 John 5:3; John 14:15; John
15:10); you shouldn't be reaching for straw-man arguments to excuse yourself trying to forget
the only day God ever said "Remember"!!! If you really want to delve into a deep discussion and
studying out of the Sabbath-related issues, go to:
https://www.facebook.com/derrick.gillespie/posts/10203389980696534?stream_ref=10
Like Reply 1 18 hrs Edited

Jayson Downer Well Derrick Gillespie why assume that Kymar Harris and many others celebrate
Christmas and the other man made days? Quite frankly for me personally if these days aren't
celebrated its neither here nor there. I still don't think using this principle as a scape goat to
explain the observing of the sabbath plausible....just saying my brother..
Like Reply April 27 at 8:24pm

Derrick Gillespie I am just being illustrative, that's all, Jayson Downer, and the illustration works
matters not who do or don't celebrate whatever. Let's be objective and fair here.
Like Reply 1 18 hrs Edited

Jayson Downer OK....point taken

Unlike Reply 2 April 27 at 8:29pm

Derrick Gillespie Anyway folks, this thread is about the Clear Word Bible; not Sabbath.
REMEMBER? Lol. smile emoticon

Like Reply 2 April 27 at 8:30pm

Jayson Downer Lol..true....
Unlike Reply 1 April 27 at 8:31pm

Derrick Gillespie READ ALL MY RESPONSES ABOVE TO THE "CLEAR WORD BIBLE"
CHARGES, AND BE OBJECTIVE...DESPITE ITS HARD FOR SOME TO BE.
Like Reply April 27 at 9:29pm Edited

Jayson Downer I actually went to the link....so I understand its one mans interpretation for his
own benefit which also appeals to others of similar beliefs. Can't fight that as within the 'Sunday
Churches' there are similar texts used by believers...
Unlike Reply 2 April 27 at 8:34pm

Derrick Gillespie Objectivity is a sign of maturity and Christian LOVE, because it seeks to be
balanced and fair even when dealing with your enemies, Jayson Downer, or even when dealing
with those you oppose in doctrine!! Kudos to you!!
Like Reply 1 April 27 at 8:43pm Edited

Jayson Downer Big up ma brother Derrick Gillespie...

Derrick Gillespie EPILOGUE: For those genuinely ignorant about how a paraphrase of the Bible
works, re-read all my earlier responses, and also visit the following links, educate yourself and
try to be objective about all paraphrase Bibles (not just some):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Living_Bible
Like Reply April 27 at 9:22pm Edited

Derrick Gillespie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_%28Bible%29
The Message (Bible) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language was created and translated by Eugene H.
Peterson and published in segments from 1993 to 2002. It is an idiomatic translation of the
original languages of the Bible.[1]
en.wikipedia.org
Like Reply Remove Preview April 27 at 9:10pm

Derrick Gillespie Finally, for those who also don't know how Reference Bibles work, do some
studies on the Scofield Reference Bible and the Geneva Bible; both of which included
commentary notes within the text alongside the Scriptures, and yet no one cried "cultism" or
"blasphemy" when these Reference Bibles are reviewed by Bible scholars. People need to be
objective, and stop 'hating' on SDAs while giving others a 'free pass' doing the same thing they
castigate SDAs over. All this hate for SDAs and lack of objectivity when dealing with SDAs is
kinda telling. All who will live Godly will suffer persecution!!
Like Reply 1 18 hrs Edited

Lovey Maize Derrick Gillespie. I want to ask a straight forward question. Is there anything in
your opinion wrong with the clear word bible? If so mention an error there. If not, would you
encourage the church leadership to endorse it as representing a correct paraphrase of the texts of
scripture to counter other paraphrases like you have mentioned?
Like Reply 1 19 hrs

Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize, read all I posted above, and you'll get my answer. But, suffice it
to say, if even translations of the Bible, like the KJV, etc., has translation errors and weaknesses,
then OF COURSE a personal paraphrase like the Clear Word (by J. Blanco) would NOT be the
best study Bible to use. That's why I do not use it, neither is it the "denominational" Bible for
SDAs, but it can be endorsed as a devotional reading paraphrase among SDAs; once one
understands it is NOT a bonafide translation, and hence would have weaknesses of varying
sorts!!
Like Reply 1 19 hrs Edited

Jayson Downer What is the denominational Bible for the SDA?

Like Reply 19 hrs

Derrick Gillespie None!! There are preferences like the KJV, NIV, RV, etc, but no one
translation is deemed THE denominational preference across the board for all.
Lovey Maize Do you personally think, that it represents a correct understanding of what the bible
teaches? Not for sda but for the world? In short an correct biblical understanding? That is the
question. The rest is semantics and politics.
Like Reply 19 hrs

Derrick Gillespie I have NOT read it, so I cant say it is correct or not correct in all its
teachings...it would be disingenuous for me to make that judgment without reading it. It may or
may not be, I cant say definitively from my own personal reading of it. But because it is simply a
paraphrase and one man's personal devotional that he has chosen to share, one SHOULDN'T
misrepresent the facts just to 'demonize' SDAs over it. That's my real polemic here, Lovey
Maize.
Like Reply 1 18 hrs Edited

Lovey Maize Derrick Gillespie good answer. Since you have not read it. Fair enough. Could it
also be fair for you to not comment on those who have read it or portions of it and find it
dangerous? They could be right. The bible has been advertised in ABC, was published by the
official publishing company of the church etc. In short it is supplied to members to use freely as
a paraphrase. Yet let's not hide in semantics. There is a reality of things. When people read the
"paraphrase" they take it as correctly illustrating what the biblical authors were saying. In short,
it's like Blanco was inspired to make the bible very clear hence the title. No protestant should
endorse that at all. The church should distance itself from such an endeavor. It's dangerous and
we are not even to defend Blanco for the error he did. LEAVE THE BIBLE AS IT IS THE
WORD THAT SHOULD BE SENT TO BLANCO AND NOT CONGRATULATE HIM FOR
HIS ENDEAVOUR. If he wants to write a book let him do so but let him not so what he did to
the clear word. The path of the just is as a light. The moment someone claims to have it all, that
person leaves no room for growth. Becomes stunted and becomes exclusive. A dangerous
position. So. No. Blanco errored and he ought to have been corrected. Removed the word bible
from his title and named it something like "B lancos paraphrase" not " the clear word
bible"...dangerous and you should be straight and say so. But since you have not read it, I guess
you are ok.
Like Reply 18 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize, RE-READ all that was presented by me above, including the
objective links and see that all your concerns are already addressed. I encourage you to do so.
Like Reply 17 hrs

Derrick Gillespie This is just for you, Lovey Miaze:

http://www.ellenwhiteanswers.org/.../pdf/Clear-Word-Ratz.pdf
Like Reply 17 hrs

Derrick Gillespie By the way, Lovey Maize, do you prefer using the KJV or the NIV? Which
version/translation of the Bible do you think really present the Bible as it really was? Am curious
to know your view.
Like Reply 17 hrs

Derrick Gillespie P.S. Lovey Maize, please indicate SPECIFICALLY aspects of the Clear Word
paraphrase which you deem unbiblical teaching, as coming from those who read it, and let's test
the charges (since you claim Blanco was in error). I'll be happy to do so along with you. Time to
"prove all things" with specifics; not just using blanket statements!!
Like Reply 17 hrs
Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize ????? What say you to the above questions I asked you?
Like Reply 15 hrs
Lovey Maize The production and promotion of The Clear Word belongs to the Review and
Herald Publishing Association, not the world Seventh-day Adventist Church. I must
acknowledge at the outset that the present aggressive advertising campaign of the different
versions of The Clear Word can be interpreted to mean that this paraphrase holds some official
status in the SDA Church. While it is true that the Review and Herald represents the church in
general, it does not necessarily represent it in every particular advertisement. For example, the
promotion of The Clear Word does not point out its interpretive nature or explain the difference
between an expanded paraphrase and more literal translations. Neither does the promotion
emphasize the importance of having a solid translation for serious study of the Bible. This is an
issue Jack Blanco and I have discussed at length, and he has presented our concern to the Review
and Herald. They have acknowledged the misunderstanding created by their advertising
campaign and are willing to make changes. When the publisher does make changes in its
promotion of The Clear Word, it will do so of its own accord, without any pressure from the
General Conference one way or the other. Stay tuned for an update when the changes occur.
end of quote
Like Reply 13 hrs

Lovey Maize This is thiier first "excuse"...firstly I ask you...are you an absolutely honest
person???? If not we have no point discussing further for this is where the issues stand from.
Being true and honest. Even when it does not suit you. That's the issue I all these issues which
have confused not only Elce Thunder Lauriston or me or others. The church says this in one
corner of its mouth and then acts out quite the opposite. That is f reemasonry philosophy of
deception. Consistency is important. If wrong a consistent person will point out the wrong and
repent and make changes.
So here they say, the change will happen. Blanco is promoted by the RH and the GCSays it's not
responsible. What a lot of nonsense. Of course it is. If the editor published an article that
supports say speaking in Pentecostal tongues of course they shall sort him out. Come on! But
because the "bible" would promote adventists understand g of it, they have no issues forgetting
the root reason why such an endeavour is dangerous. So you think what blanko did is dangerous?
I do. That's the point. I do. They don't. But pretend that they do and put the blame I Blanco.
Nonsense.
Like Reply 1 13 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize, you have NOT answered what I asked you specifically. When
you ask a question I answer it specifically. Why not pay me the same courtesy? Read again my
last two questions quoted below and answer. OK!!
1. "do you prefer using the KJV or the NIV? Which version/translation of the Bible do you think
really present the Bible as it really was? Am curious to know your view."
2. "please indicate SPECIFICALLY aspects of the Clear Word paraphrase which you deem
unbiblical teaching, as coming from those who read it, and let's test the charges (since you claim
Blanco was in error). I'll be happy to do so along with you. Time to "prove all things" with
specifics; not just using blanket statements!!"
Like Reply 13 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize, READ the *whole document you quoted from above, and when
you are at the end let me know. Also when you answer my earlier questions asked of you, then
we can proceed. Its pointless just posting opinions statements and not getting into specifics!!
Getting into specifics is actually the best way forward to PROVE a number of things; do not just
throw around words!!
Like Reply 2 hrs Edited

Lovey Maize Point 2. They say "The Clear Word goes beyond a paraphrase. Blanco injects his
own interpretations into the text: sometimes he adds, sometimes he deletes, sometimes he
supplies comments based on the writings of Ellen White, sometimes he brings in ideas from
other passages of the Bible, sometimes he simply slants the text to make it say what he wants it
to say. The Clear Word is a combination of paraphrase plus commentary. In no sense can it be
considered an accurate translation of Scripture per se. It was unfortunate that the first edition of

Blancos work was released as The Clear Word Bible. This book is not a Bible, but a devotional
commentary on the Bible. The second edition remedied the error by deleting the word Bible
and adding interpretive paraphrase which is accurate (For Devotional Use Only: The Clear
Word, Adventist Review, April 1995, 14)."
Like what Johnson said. He knows the implications as he was in that John ankerberg show and
was embarassed by the honest inquiry. Why would someone feel so confident as to place the
writings of Ellen white in there. Every a who has read that bible knows that obviously it's
blankos so called "understanding" but deep down the heart that know BLANKO GIVES THE
VIEWS AS EXPLAINED BY ELLEN WHITE. THAT'S WHY THEY CAN'T POINT OUT AN
ERROR. I dare you, point one error in which the clear word fails. You do that, Ellen white goes
down. It's her interpretation as understood by blanko.
Like Reply 13 hrs

Lovey Maize They say "in no way should it be considered an accurate translation of the bible....
My question is what are the errors it propagates which are inaccurate. Where has it gone wrong.
That's the substance not politicking around. Where is the error blanko has made. If he has
inserted words here and there, please do tell whrer are the errors??? Why should it not be used
publi
Like Reply 13 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize, you have descended into running a monologue, and if you refuse
to engage me in an interactive conversation, where you answer what I ask, and vice versa, then
the conversation has died a natural death. Can you appreciate that? And so I repeat:
"Lovey Maize, you have NOT answered what I asked you specifically. When you ask a question
I answer it specifically. Why not pay me the same courtesy? Read again my last two questions
quoted below and answer. OK!!
1. "do you prefer using the KJV or the NIV? Which version/translation of the Bible do you think
really present the Bible as it really was? Am curious to know your view."
2. "please indicate SPECIFICALLY aspects of the Clear Word paraphrase which you deem
unbiblical teaching, as coming from those who read it, and let's test the charges (since you claim
Blanco was in error). I'll be happy to do so along with you. Time to "prove all things" with
specifics; not just using blanket statements!!"
Like Reply 13 hrs Edited

Lovey Maize Point 3. The author says basically that the clear word should not be used for public
use but private de votion? Why? That's a lot of nonsense. Right there is why I "smell a rat".
Like Reply 12 hrs

Lovey Maize All in all... in the remaining points in that article, the author distances the sda from
the clear word bible and advised that it be used for private usage.
This is a deception. The author fails to go to the real issues. The errors.. if at all they are there.
That is THE POINT!! IF there are errors in there, they ought to be pointed out and blanko
corrected completely. So the article is evasive as to the real issue.
Now to answer your question...
Like Reply 12 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize You agreed (in private; via inbox messaging) to answer my
questions FIRST before returning to the article which you have not read through to the end yet.
Honor your word, man!! Smile. smile emoticon
Like Reply 12 hrs Edited

Lovey Maize Derrick Gillespie. Which version do I prefer?

I personally love the new king James version. The king James version seems from what I have
heard to be better than the other versions I terms of the nitty gritty issues. I however don't mind
using other versions and comparing them. I certaily never ever use the watchtowers translation as
it is done for the ssole purpose of uplifting it's doctrine.
Unlike Reply 1 12 hrs

Derrick Gillespie OK, Lovey Maize. Answer the next question you have not yet answered, and
when we have exchanged back and forth at length on those issues (since I have a reason why I
asked them), then we can do a critique of the article you are still reading.
"please indicate SPECIFICALLY aspects of the Clear Word paraphrase which you deem
unbiblical teaching, as coming from those who read it, and let's test the charges (since you claim
Blanco was in error). I'll be happy to do so along with you. Time to "prove all things" with
specifics; not just using blanket statements!!"
Like Reply 12 hrs Edited

Lovey Maize Ok. I 'll start off with the one issue I have with the sanctuary. He tried to weave it
in very subtly. Let's compare the two verses...
Hebrews 9.24
Thats why Christ, who is the better Sacrifice, did not stay here to minister in the man-made
Sanctuary on earth, which is only a copy of the true one in heaven , but entered heaven itself to
appear in the presence of God on our behalf, who is not confined to the Most Holy Place.
ERV

For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into
heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us:
KJV
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true;
but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:
Like Reply 11 hrs

Lovey Maize He made reference to "not confined" ...

Deceptively weaving in the thought that when Christ entered the heavenly sanctuary, he went to
the holy place and then in 1844 moved to the most holy place. Thus by saying "not confined" he
subtly tries to say "God was in the holy place too...not confined"
Deception.
Like Reply 11 hrs Edited

Lovey Maize In Daniel 8:13,14 it says.

Dan. 8.13 The Holy One said something to my angel who asked Him, How long will the little
horn be allowed to transgress so rebelliously and pervert the truth about God and the heavenly
Sanctuary? How long will all these things go on and the little horns power last? Dan. 8.14 He
answered, After two thousand, three hundred prophetic days (which represent actual years),
God will restore the truth about the heavenly Sanctuary to its rightful place. Then the process of
judgment will begin of which the yearly cleansing of the earthly Sanctuary was a type, and God
will vindicate His people.
KJV says
Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How
long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give
both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? note note
14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be
cleansed.
Like Reply 11 hrs

Derrick Gillespie Of course, Lovey Maize, I can show you in bonafide translations that your first
"exhibit" from the CW paraphrase is not in error at all. But if you wish me to do that, you need to
either pause posting other exhibits and lets deal with your first "exhibit". Or let me know how
many "exhibits" you will be posting so I can know when to start addressing all your responses to
my two earlier questions. Are you willing to do that?
Like Reply 10 hrs Edited

Lovey Maize There is a question in verse 13. There is an answer in verse 14.
The question is asked how long this power, little born, will do these atrocities. The answer is
2300days.
Blanko says prophetic days.
Questions for him.
1. What in the world is he talking about????
The verse when read on its context is pretty clear. There is a power.a little horn. He persecuted
the saints etc and the saint in wonder turns to the other saint. How long willl this continue. He
answers 2300days then the sanctuary will be restored. Cleansed. Cleaned.
But blanko, because of his own theology, weaves in the investigative judgement. And talks about
the saints being vindicated through them, the saints, being judged.
Deception.
Like Reply 10 hrs

Lovey Maize Exhibits stopped. Start with the first please. Here to learn and unlearn. Trust me.
Like Reply 10 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie P.S. Do you have an actual copy of the CWB in front of you quoting from? I
dont. Is it a hard copy or a soft copy like a pdf file you have with you? I am trying to get a copy
to validate your quotes. Gimme a little time to do so...by now and over the weekend. While I
certainly can address the issues you raised re the IJ, Daniel 8:13, 14, et al, but I am the type of
scholar where I love to be able to see FOR MYSELF what anyone quotes, before I address the
issues raised. Are you patient enough to give me a day or two to get back to you?
Like Reply 9 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie Or if you have a soft copy as a pdf file of the CWB could you send me a copy
of it? Is there a link online where I can read the CWB in full text?
Like Reply 10 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize ?????

Like Reply 10 hrs

Lovey Maize I tried to search for it hence the delay...but only managed to buy one on my kindle.
It's about 9 dollars.
Like Reply 10 hrs

Lovey Maize You can ask the verses you want posted and I can copy and paste them.
Like Reply 10 hrs
Derrick Gillespie OH DEAR. I had so hoped you had a pdf file of the full text. Are you willing
to wait a day or two for my responses? Or are you too anxious to hear my responses, so you cant
wait that long?
Like Reply 10 hrs Edited

Lovey Maize Thats funny!

Like Reply 10 hrs

Derrick Gillespie I woulld love if you could post all of Daniel 8 from the CWB verbatim...as a
starter, if you wish to go that route
Like Reply 10 hrs

Derrick Gillespie What's funny?

Like Reply 10 hrs

Derrick Gillespie I am game. Post the verbatim of Danial 8 from the CWB and we will proceed
Like Reply 10 hrs

Derrick Gillespie Am waiting...

Like Reply 10 hrs
Lovey Maize What's funny is you saying "or you are too anxious for my reply " I like you!
Like Reply 10 hrs

Derrick Gillespie Happy to amuse. Smile. smile emoticon Post all of Daniel 8 (verbatim) and lets
proceed.
Like Reply 10 hrs

Derrick Gillespie Lovey Maize ?????? Daniel 8 (verbatim) from the CWB?
Like Reply 10 hrs

Lovey Maize DANIEL 8 Vision of a Ram and a Goat Dan. 8.1 Two years later, in the third year
of Belshazzar, I had another vision which included more details than the first one. Dan. 8.2 I had
this vision while on business for the king at his other palace in Susa, in the province of Elam. It
happened as I was standing by the banks of the Ulai River. Dan. 8.3 I saw a ram standing beside
the river . It had two large horns , but one was higher than the other. The higher one was newer
and obviously had come up last. Dan. 8.4 I saw the ram charge west, then north, and then south.
No other animal could stand in its way or dared to challenge its power. The ram did as it pleased
and grew to be very strong andcruel. Dan. 8.5 As I was thinking about what I was seeing ,
suddenly a male goat came charging from the west so fast that his feet didnt even touch the
ground. It had a huge horn sticking out between its eyes. Dan. 8.6 It was heading straight for the
ram that I had seen standing by the river and charged it with savage fury. Dan. 8.7 The closer he
got to the ram the more furious he became. He hit it head-on, shattering its two horns. The ram
was powerless to stand up against it. The goat knocked the ram down and trampled on it. No one
was able to rescue it from the goat. Dan. 8.8 Then the goat grew stronger and more arrogant. But
at the height of his power the huge horn broke off, and in its place four little horns came up, each
one pointing in the direction of thefour winds. Dan. 8.9 Then the wind from the west blew
stronger, and out of it came a little horn which soon grew bigger and stronger than the other four
horns combined. And as it grew it first pointed south, then east and finally toward the Promised
Land. Dan. 8.10 It grew so strong that it challenged the power of heaven and trampled on the
people of God. Dan. 8.11 It got to the place where it even stood up against the Prince of heaven,
putting an end to the daily sacrifices and later destroying the Temple. Dan. 8.12 Because of their
sins, the people of God were given over to this power , and the services of the Temple ceased.
Then I saw the little horn change its appearance and attack the truth about the daily intercession.
The little horn practiced and prospered.The Holy One said something to my angel who asked
Him, How long will the little horn be allowed to transgress so rebelliously and pervert the truth
about God and the heavenly Sanctuary? How long will all these things go on and the little horns
power last? Dan. 8.14 He answered, After two thousand, three hundred prophetic days (which
represent actual years), God will restore the truth about the heavenly Sanctuary to its rightful
place. Then the process of judgment will begin of which the yearly cleansing of the earthly
Sanctuary was a type, and God will vindicate His people. Gabriel Explains the Vision Dan. 8.15
But I wanted to understand more of what I had seen and to know what it meant. So the One
standing on the other side of the Ulai River said to my angel,Gabriel, explain the vision to
Daniel and help him understand it. Then I realized that the Holy One who spoke was the Son of
Man. Dan. 8.17 So Gabriel came over to where I was standing, and when he came close, I was so
terrified that I fell to my knees, my face on the ground. He said, Daniel, though you dont
understand everything , all you need to know for now is that the vision extends to the time of the
end. Dan. 8.18 This conversation took place while I was still in vision in a trance. Then he
touched me and stood me on my feet. Dan. 8.19 He continued, First, I want you to understand
what will happen in the future. Behind and above all the fury and passions of nations, God is still
in control. But the last part of the vision applies to the time of the end, and you dont have to
concern yourselfabout it. Dan. 8.20 As far as the near future is concerned, the ram you saw with
the two horns represents the joint kingdom of the Medes and Persians. Dan. 8.21 The goat
represents the kingdom of Greece that is yet to come. The great horn between its eyes represents
its first king. Dan. 8.22 After its first king dies, the kingdom will be divided. Following a
struggle among his commanders, it will be governed by four lesser kings, but they will not rule
the kingdom with the same power. Dan. 8.23 As their kingdom weakens, another kingdom will

slowly arise and conquer many kingdoms . After this, a very bold little king will come and take
over, who is full of intrigue, even claiming to understand divine mysteries. Dan. 8.24 The power
of this bold littleking will grow stronger and stronger. He will control mighty nations who will
wield the sword for him . Through them he will successfully destroy other kings and attack
Gods people. Dan. 8.25 He will use cunning and deceit to achieve his ends and will succeed in
whatever he does. In his own mind he will consider himself great. Without warning he will
attack and destroy. He will stand up against the Prince of princes by making claims that belong
only to Him. The kingdom of this bold little king will be destroyed, though not by human hands.
Dan. 8.26 The vision having to do with the three-and-a-half years, each day representing a year,
is true . But for now, you dont need to understand more than what I have told you because it
applies to the time of the end, far in the future.I was so overcome by what I had seen that for
days afterward I felt sick. Finally, I went back to work to carry on the kings business. But I
continued to be amazed at what I had seen in vision and wanted desperately to know more of
what it meant.
Like Reply 10 hrs

Derrick Gillespie Thanks, Lovey Maize. My replies to your two answers above will follow
shortly...
Like Reply 9 hrs Edited

Lovey Maize Dont rush. I am not in a hurry. Got to run now...

Like Reply 10 hrs

Derrick Gillespie You will see my responses by the morning. Am reading through Daniel 8 from
the CWB for the first time ever.
Like Reply 10 hrs Edited
Derrick Gillespie RESPONSES to Lovey Maize:
1. I too have a preference for the KJV, including the NKJV, despite it does have its own fair
share of weaknesses, but I agree its among the better if not the best translations available, despite
those of the seminaries would disagree with us (those who prefer the often misleading and
'problematic' but popular NIV). Now that I know your preference, Lovey Maize, I will use that
translation when dealing with doctrinal issues we are discussing. Smile. smile emoticon
2. Now that I have had for the first time, in all my over 40 years being an SDA, been able to
actually read an entire chapter (i.e. Daniel 8 which you copied and posted for me; and not just
Daniel 8:13, 14 which you earlier quoted from the CWB), I can now say the following with all
honesty:
a] I fully endorse those both without the SDA Church and within the who reject CW paraphrase
as a proper translation. It is indeed a paraphrase, but, just reading Daniel 8 alone, a rather

sloppily done one by J. Blanco, with it being a mixture of faulty translation and awkward
paraphrasing all in one.
b] I can see why leading pastors and scholars in the SDA Church have gone on record since 1994
to say, for instance (I now supply three quotes):
"To minimize the potential for confusing The Clear Word with an actual Bible we recommend
that it not be used for preaching from the pulpit or in teaching Sabbath school"
---GC Comments on Clear Word Bible, Record, October 29, 1994
"The Clear Word goes beyond a paraphrase. Blanco injects his own
interpretations into the text: sometimes he adds, sometimes he deletes, sometimes he supplies
comments based on the writings of Ellen White, sometimes he brings in ideas from other
passages of the Bible, sometimes he simply slants the text to make it say what he wants it to say.
The Clear Word is a combination of paraphrase plus commentary. In no sense can it be
considered an accurate translation of Scripture per se. It was unfortunate that the first edition of
Blancos work was released as The Clear Word Bible. This book is not a Bible, but a devotional
commentary on the Bible. The second edition remedied the error by deleting the word Bible
and adding interpretive paraphrase which is accurate" ---For Devotional Use Only: The Clear
Word, Adventist Review, April 1995, 14.
In an interview with author Jack Blanco shortly after The Clear Word Bible [paraphrase] was
released, he was asked, Do we now have an Adventist Bible? He responded in the following
way:
"No! That certainly wasnt the intention. And if anybody said this is
an Adventist Bible, I would feel most hurt" ---Bruce Manners, Do
We Now Have an Adventist Bible? Record, October 15, 1994.
I Derrick Gillespie can now go on record and say with so many 'problems' connected with it, I
personally have no use for it, but will defend the right of anyone to read a paraphrase of the Bible
and accept or reject what it says!! That's what reading other paraphrases like the non-SDA
Scofield Bible, The Message, The Living Bible, The Easy to Read Version, etc., should mean to
anyone who is trying to be a scholar in the Word.
But in all honesty, for the SDA leaders to know that the CW paraphrase is shackled by all its
drawbacks, they should really be *limiting its promotion via the Review and Herald and doing
their best to point out its specific weaknesses for the reading public, even though Blanco has the
personal right to his personal paraphrase!!
With the above now CANDIDLY submitted, Lovey Maize, let me say that if you wish for us to
have a separate conversation on the standard SDA teaching on Daniel 8:13, 14 from the NKJV
which we both use as a true BIBLE TRANSLATION, I am also game. I am quite ready to show
you, using bonafide TRANSLATIONS, why, correct me if I am mistaken here, the Desmond
Ford interpretation which you seem to countenance as an SDA, Lovey Maize, has inherent flaws.

Say the word if you wish us to go there together, and I am game.

Over to you now....
Like Reply 1 2 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie P.S. From my own personal experience just yesterday I can see why it is
indeed true that the CW paraphrase is in no way a "denominational" or "Adventist Bible"
because it was solidly proven by the fact that neither you nor I had it until you rushed out...See
More
Like Reply 1 2 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie Meric Dale Walker, Damian Chambers, Venton Duncan, Thomas Rose, Deneil
Clarke, Dean Thompson, Gary Thompson, Northern Caribbean University, West Jamaica
Conference, Leon Wellington, Balvin Braham, Charles Evans, Wentworth Kelly, Ryan O'Neil
Seaton, Paul White, Elcando Citeron, Billy Mirander, Nigel Coke, Edgar Bennett, Oneil A
Blake, Sriya Yulissa, Christopher Alphanso Thorpe, Bertram Bromfield, Martin Hanna
Like Reply 2 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie P.S. From my own personal experience just yesterday I can see why it is
indeed true that the CW paraphrase is in no way a "denominational" or "Adventist Bible"
because it was solidly proven by the fact that neither you nor I had it, until you rushed out to buy
one on your kindle just for the purpose of this discussion (and others I checked with, including
pastors, had a hard time locating one)... plus its never quoted in our doctrinal books, or
quarterlies, et al. smile emoticon
Like Reply 3 hrs

Lovey Maize Phew! There is an honest dude! Right there! Thank you!
The money they RH was to get from the CWB clearly blinded them. The church should have
categorically refused that translation and forced blanko to name it as blankos paraphrase. The
problem I have seen is they start to "defend" AFTER critics arise and then twist around etc. Pure
human stuff. Nothing surprising. It's humanity. But it should not be in Christians. Especially
those who call others babylon and fallen. Jesus said it. Remove the log in your eyes befor
removing a small stick in your friends.
Like Reply 3 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie Hmmmm. Got where you are coming from, Lovey Maize, but my expressed
sentiments above still stand. Now can we move to your issues with Daniel 8:13, 14, et al?

Like Reply 3 hrs

Lovey Maize And I spent 9 dollars in that thing...but then when I looked at proverbs it's kinda
ok. So since I have bought it I 'll keep it. And highlight the evils in it.
Unlike Reply 1 2 hrs

Derrick Gillespie As you have the RIGHT/OBLIGATION to do with a paraphrase, Lovey

Maize, and all other paraphrases like the Scofield Bible, The Message, The Living Bible, et al.
Like Reply 2 hrs Edited

Derrick Gillespie As you have the RIGHT/OBLIGATION to do with a paraphrase, Lovey

Maize, and all other paraphrases like the Scofield Bible, The Message, The Living Bible, et al.
Like Reply 1 2 hrs

Lovey Maize Agreed.

Unlike Reply 1 2 hrs

Derrick Gillespie Now can we move to your issues with Daniel 8:13, 14, et al?
Like Reply 2 hrs

Lovey Maize To the issues involved in Daniel i have another proposal. You wish to start from
Daniel 8. I know there, the sanctuary being talked about is explained as the heavenly sanctuary
according to historic interpretation. Maybe we look at what the sanctuary meant. I suggest we
use the one book dedicated to explaining the sanctuary. Hebrews. If we understand what the
services meant, then of course we can give proper place to all other issues. Is that a fair deal? If
you agree, allow me to start another post on Elce Thunder Lauriston wall and you can comment
there. Is it ok elce?
I just hope to get to the root cause and it's not about who wins. Trust me I am not interested I
such kind of an attitude. smile
Like Reply 2 hrs
Derrick Gillespie I am game...all for the glory of the TRUTH of God's Word being known and
preached!!
Like Reply 2 hrs

Derrick Gillespie Start a separate thread and invite me. I am ever ready to engage in a noncombative way!!
Like Reply 1 2 hrs

Lovey Maize Like you!!!

Unlike Reply 1 2 hrs

Lovey Maize Accept my friend request them I can tag you. There is a request.
Like Reply 2 hrs

Derrick Gillespie I am fully read and versed in the Scriptures concerned with the Sanctuary, so,
over to you to start that much needed separate discussion!!
Like Reply 1 2 hrs

Derrick Gillespie Will do...

Like Reply 2 hrs

Derrick Gillespie P.S. (Final epilogue):

I REPEAT: "For those who also don't know how Reference Bibles work, do some studies on the
Scofield Reference Bible and the Geneva Bible; both of which included commentary notes
within the text alongside the Scriptures, and yet no one cried "cultism" or "blasphemy" when
these Reference Bibles are reviewed by Bible scholars. People need to be objective, and stop
'hating' on SDAs while giving others a 'free pass' doing the same thing they castigate SDAs over.
All this hate for SDAs and lack of objectivity when dealing with SDAs is kinda telling. All who
will live Godly will suffer persecution!!"
And, yes, even the much loved KJV Bible initially had the faulty apocrypha inserted within it,
yet we never reject the KJV Bible on that account. And God's people the Jews of old did have
weaknesses and failings as a people, yet we never castigate them as being an anti-God "cult", but
all Christians proudly deem them their predecessors, despite they practiced or often indulged in
polygamy, slavery, idolatry, denial of certain truths in their own inspired Scriptures, et al. There's
an objective lesson in there somewhere about how Christian outsiders to Adventism relate to
SDAs, and how some SDAs relate to their own SDA people. Let God guide you to discover what
I mean. His Spirit can reach the conscience more than I ever could!! I am only God's humble
servant ever ready to share his Word and let him do the rest!!
Like Reply 2 hrs Edited