The Clear Word Bible/paraphrase has sparked controversy since its inception.  Initially sold as a Bible, after much protest from Adventists and non-Adventists, the book was re-branded as a paraphrase in the same vein as Eugene Peterson’s “The Message.” The problem is, instead of simply paraphrasing the Bible with modern language, Adventist doctrines with already tenuous biblical support are inserted into the text, effectively making the book a basis for supporting Adventist teachings on doctrines such as the seventh-day Sabbath and the investigative judgment.  For example, Daniel 8:14 is rendered in the Clear Word as “He said to him, ‘After two thousand three hundred prophetic days (or two thousand three hundred years), God will step in, proclaim the truth about Himself and restore the ministry of the Sanctuary in heaven to its rightful place. This is when the judgment will begin, of which the cleansing of the earthy sanctuary was a type.’” Clearly, the original text has been fundamentally altered in this Adventist Bible now marketed as a paraphrase.

Ron Corson, a Seventh-day Adventist who hosts the blog “Adventist Media Response and Conversation,” has posted his thoughts on a debate over the newest iteration of the Clear Word: The Clear Word for Kids.  Corson makes some important observations based on an exchange between former Adventist Dale Ratzlaff and Adventist apologist Jud Lake.

In asking a rhetorical question about whether inserting passages designed to strengthen unique Adventist doctrines into a Bible paraphrase is wrong, Corson says, “Is that wrong? I think so. At one time we as a church would say do not add to or take away from the words of the Bible. Clearly we don’t live by that point of view anymore. In fact if it were applied to Ellen White the Adventist church would have condemned her long ago. Saying one thing and doing another has always been a problem in the SDA church. The church should not be surprised when, as has been the case for over a hundred years when people call the church on such activity.”

Please read the whole post here.  Corson’s Adventist voice deserves to be heard on this issue.  One wonders how long the Adventist church can continue to repackage doctrines such as the investigative judgment in modern publications without the support of a real Bible, and how long Adventists will continue to tolerate it.

Paraphrases are good for individual devotion but I wouldn’t want to use them for exegetical Bible study.

Though the Clear Word’s take on Daniel 8:14 is over doing it a bit, most paraphrases infuse traditional thought into texts that cannot be supported exegetically. I have seen ambiguous texts that could be explained different ways unequivocally skewed in the favor of tradtional thought.  In this regard, the Clear Word shouldn’t be singled out over any other paraphrase. Unfortunately, it usually is simply because it is SDA associated and nothing more.

It bothers me when anti-SDAs claim “The SDA church has their own Bible!” To try and use this as throwing stones like so many do merely shows ignorance.

It is no wonder that so many won’t change their stance on traditional doctrines no matter how flimsy. There is a desire to hold on to tradition and slam that which differs from the norm simply because it differs. It doesn’t matter how much biblical support there is for it, or that there are many other areas in Christianity that can be compared to it.

guibox,

Thanks for your comments.  I did not intend to convey that Adventists have their own exclusive Bible similar to that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  I simply wanted to convey the point that the Clear Word was initially marketed as a Bible, but after objections arose, was repackaged as a paraphrase.  I fully realize that many Adventists use versions other than the Clear Word.

What I am primarily concerned about is the numerous problematic texts in the Clear Word that infuse the inspired words of Scripture with doctrines foreign to the original manuscripts.  I find this disturbing because it plants ideas into people’s heads that God never intended to convey.  The doctrines surrounding the Great Disappointment of 1844 are an excellent example of this, but there are several more and we can review them in this thread if anyone is interested.

The Clear Word is fundamentally different than paraphrases like “The Message” and “God’s Word,” because they convey a denominational bias, reinforcing doctrines that cannot be supported by Bible study alone.  To continue to promote the Clear Word as an excellent paraphrase and to market it for children is a tragedy, because the errors contained in it are propagated to the next generation.

I don’t understand the point you were making in your last paragraph...can you re-state it?

Greg

My point is that there is a strong link to such ignorant asusmptions like many use to berate or discredit the SDA church and their insistence to hold on to orthodox teachings at all costs.

Those that accuse the SDA church so willy-nilly show their method of discussion, debate and biblical study. It is no wonder that trying to convince them on the strong biblical evidence of annihilation and resurrection instead of eternal torment and immortality of the soul is met with derision and a stubborn insistence on berating differing views to cling to their own no matter how much contradiction, assumption and redundancy it may hold.

I’m not saying that all who criticize the SDA church do so willy nilly or have faulty hermenutics. But in my debating with many over these issues and seeing their opinion on the SDA church has shown me over and over that there is a correlation for poor exegetical study and that orthodoxy rules over biblical study.

Frankly, I don’t know what I’m saying...I think I just confused myself.

guibox,

Your point is well taken that if people focus purely on the negative just for the sake of winning an argument or gratuitously denouncing Adventism, their arguments begin to sound well-worn and empty.

The problem with comparing the Clear Word to other paraphrases is that the Clear Word is unlikely to ever find support outside Adventism because of its obvious bias and eisegesis, whereas the Message, the Living Bible and God’s Word (all paraphrases) were not designed to reinforce any particular denominational view.

Leaving the debate over annihilationism aside for this thread , are you willing to concede that the Clear Word expands upon unique Adventist doctrines not found in accurate Bible translations and the original manuscripts?

Greg

I would agree with that. However, we must take into account the reasons behind Blanco making this. If it was for devotional purposes, then it is likely that one might turn it to their bias.

It is unfortunate that this venture is now becoming bigger or of different intent then it was originally meant to be. I would think that even if it agrees with SDA theology, that most SDAs would still protest it for the same reasons why other paraphrases are frowned upon. Disagreeing with the concept of something until it works in your favor smacks of elitist thinking and Catholic methodology

Guibox,

Even very creditable and thoughtful scholars within Adventism decry this horrible Clear Word paraphrase. I will need to find the exact problems, but when the deity of Christ is clearly diminished by some statements of Blanco, then this gets into serious problems.

Also Deuteronomy 5 is totally twisted to say the exact opposite of what the text is saying “It was not with our forefathers that this covenant was made, but with us. Blanco says the exact opposite to make it look like the entire Decalogue including the Sabbath is binding on Christians. The Decalogue has timeless principles, but the Sabbath was uniquely given to Israel, and the Jews, themselves admit this.

Many SDAs in leadership are actually quite embarrassed by this Clear Word fiasco.

Stan

For me, the problem with the Clear Word boils down to tampering with Scripture.  With all of the excellent modern translations available that are carefully researched and true to the earliest manuscripts, it’s a shame that any church thinks it’s necessary to create a paraphrase that is more clear and will support their particular teachings.  To package it up in bright colors and feed it to children is even more troublesome, especially when it introduces ideas and doctrines that are really at odds with what the Bible teaches.

For instance, 1 Tim 4:1-5 in the ESV says the following:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

Here’s how the Clear Word renders this passage:

The Holy Spirit has explicitly told us that in the last days, people will give up their faith and turn away from Christ.  They will listen to deceiving spirits and end up following doctrines of demons.  Some will pretend to be loyal to the truth while teaching lies.  Their consciences will be as insensitive as if they had been seared with a hot iron.  Others will say that it’s wrong to marry and to eat the good things God created which we should receive with gratitude.  God created everything.  Nothing should be rejected which He has said we can eat, and we should do so by offering thanksgiving and praise.  These foods not only have the approval of the word of God, but will also be blessed by Him through our prayers.

Notice how the underlined sentence fundamentally alters the more literal ESV text, twisting the meaning of the passage and infusing it with Adventist doctrine.  Do the kids really need to hear that they can’t eat unclean meats more than being aware of the “deceiving spirits” and their conspicuous hallmarks?

Guibox, if I hear you correctly, are you saying that Adventists should reject the Clear Word?

Greg

Posted anonymously by: Ron Corson

It is interesting how this debate about the Clear Word Abomination (my pet name for this mis-paraphrase)keeps coming up. Years ago we discussed this quite about on SDAnet when it was actually a good forum. But the history of this debate assures us that the debate will come up again even if the ABC’s put out another 30 variations on the book. As they say you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

Guibox has a good point about the traditions inherent in most Christian’s. But I don’t think that we get out of that rut by creating a book filled with our denominations traditions as well as many(but not all)of the general Christian traditions. 

Ron,

Thanks for your thoughts on this topic.  I think the difference between Adventists and other denominations in terms of “traditions” is that there is no example of these other groups creating a Bible paraphrase to support their unique doctrinal views.  The only thing that comes remotely close is the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their New World Translation, which waters down all the verses supporting the deity of Jesus.

Furthermore, Adventists don’t really see topics like 1844, the investigative judgment, food laws, Sabbath, etc. as traditions but as tests of fellowship.  As evidence of this, you don’t need to look any further than the latest Adventist Review.  In his last editorial before retiring, William G. Johnsson wrote, “Sound theology is vital; it must never be compromised. But the Fundamental Beliefs draw the boundaries, and so long as any Adventist assents to them, he or she deserves respect and fellowship. Points of doctrine not spelled out in the Fundamentals must not be allowed to divide us.”
http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2006-1535&page=5

Using Johnsson’s reasoning, as long as Christians acknowledge the prophetic status of Ellen White (FB #18), attend church on Saturday (FB #20) and believe in the two apartment ministry of Jesus (FB #24), they can be considered brothers and sisters in the faith.  This effectively excludes 99% of Christ’s body and creates an insular group that believes they are the true “remnant,” having worked out all the doctrinal particulars the other churches of Babylon have overlooked.

So long as Adventists see their particular distinctives as the boundary lines between true Christianity and apostasy, books like the Clear Word will continue to have a strong footing in Adventist circles and sound biblical doctrine will remain obscure.

Thanks for joining us....

Greg

Ron,

I will add my welcome to Greg’s above. Thanks for your excellent article on this topic.

I remember a long time ago (about 1988), you gave a Friday night presentation at a house in Orange County, Calif., and you were doing an interesting research project on I think Adventist youth. I am not quite sure. But do you have your research on Adventism on line? I would be interested in reviewing any available research.

Stan