How to summarize this? I asked Copilot AI a question about Ellen White and her prediction that England would enter the Civil War and it answered that question incorrectly. That is the first half, getting the AI to revise its position. Then AI noted the Adventist tendency to claim prophecies are conditional and how they link that to Jonah. So I post this for the useful information it contains.
I asked Copilot AI this question and here is our conversation:
The SDA prophet Ellen White thought that England would join the south in the civil war correct?
Direct answer: Ellen White did not predict that England would join the Confederacy. What she wrote was that England was considering whether to take advantage of the United States’ weakened condition during the Civil War, possibly by declaring war. She never claimed England would side with the South, and in fact she emphasized that God was not with the Confederacy.
🔎 What Ellen White Actually Said
• In 1861–62, Ellen White reported visions about the Civil War.
• She wrote that England was weighing whether to make war on the United States, fearing that if it did so, other nations might exploit England’s weakness.
• She described England as “studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present weak condition of our nation” but did not say it would definitely act.
• She also stated: “God is not with the South, and He will punish them dreadfully in the end” (Testimonies, Vol. 1, p. 359, 1863).
📌 Clarifying the Misconception
• Not a prophecy of alliance: Ellen White never said England would join the Confederacy.
• Context: At the time, there was widespread speculation in both North and South that Britain or France might intervene, since they relied on Southern cotton. Ellen White echoed those fears but framed them as possibilities, not certainties.
• Outcome: England ultimately stayed neutral, though it flirted with recognition of the Confederacy early in the war.
⚖️ Comparison: Ellen White vs. Historical Reality
🧠 Why This Matters
• Ellen White’s Civil War comments are often cited by Adventists as evidence of prophetic insight.
• Critics point out that she reflected common fears of the time rather than unique predictions.
• The idea that she thought England would join the South is a misunderstanding—her concern was about England possibly declaring war on the Union, not siding with the Confederacy.
In sum: Ellen White speculated that England might attack the Union during the Civil War, but she did not predict England would ally with the South. Her writings emphasized that the Confederacy was under divine judgment, not divine favor.
I then wrote:
It seems in her quote when she says "when England" that is a prediction after she said England was considering it. The quote: "Said the angel: “Hear, O heavens, the cry of the oppressed, and reward the oppressors double according to their deeds.” This nation will yet be humbled into the dust. England is studying whether it is best to take advantage of the present weak condition of our nation, and venture to make war upon her. She is weighing the matter, and trying to sound other nations. She fears, if she should commence war abroad, that she would be weak at home, and that other nations would take advantage of her weakness. Other nations are making quiet yet active preparations for war, and are hoping that England will make war with our nation, for then they would improve the opportunity to be revenged on her for the advantage she has taken of them in the past and the injustice done them. A portion of the queen’s subjects are waiting a favorable opportunity to break their yoke; but if England thinks it will pay, she will not hesitate a moment to improve her opportunities to exercise her power and humble our nation. When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and there will be general war, general confusion. England is acquainted with the diversity of feeling among those who are seeking to quell the rebellion. She well knows the perplexed condition of our Government; she has looked with astonishment at the prosecution of this war—the slow, inefficient moves, the inactivity of our armies, and the ruinous expenses of our nation. The weakness of our Government is fully open before other nations, and they now conclude that it is because it was not a monarchial government, and they admire their own government, and look down, some with pity, others with contempt, upon our nation, which they have regarded as the most powerful upon the globe. Had our nation remained united it would have had strength, but divided it must fall. "
That’s a sharp observation. The phrasing “When England does declare war…” certainly reads like a prediction, especially coming after the conditional language about England considering war. Adventist historians and critics have debated this very point: was Ellen White reporting a possibility, or did she cross into forecasting an event that never happened?
📖 How to Read the Passage
• Conditional vs. declarative:
• Earlier in the passage she says England is studying and weighing the matter. That’s conditional language.
• Then she shifts to “When England does declare war…” which sounds declarative, as if anticipating inevitability.
• Prophetic tone:
• Ellen White often used visionary language that blurred the line between describing possibilities and declaring outcomes.
• In this case, the angelic voice and the “when” phrasing give it a prophetic flavor, even though historically England never declared war.
🧠 Interpretive Options
1. Literal prediction (failed):
• Some critics argue this was a straightforward prophecy that England would declare war, which did not occur.
• They see this as evidence of fallibility in her Civil War visions.
2. Conditional warning (not fulfilled):
• Adventist apologists often frame it as conditional: “If England did declare war, then…”
• They argue the “when” was rhetorical, describing what would happen in that scenario, not guaranteeing it.
3. Reflection of contemporary fears:
• In 1861–62, many Americans feared Britain or France might intervene because of their reliance on Southern cotton.
• Ellen White’s language mirrors those anxieties, giving them a prophetic cast.
⚖️ Historical Reality
• Britain debated recognition of the Confederacy but never declared war.
• The Union’s naval blockade and Britain’s alternative cotton sources (Egypt, India) reduced the incentive.
• So the “when England does declare war” line was never realized.
✨ Why It Matters
This passage is a good example of how Ellen White’s Civil War writings are interpreted differently depending on one’s stance:
• Believers: see it as conditional prophecy or a warning that reflected real geopolitical risks.
• Critics: see it as a failed prediction, showing she echoed popular fears rather than divine foresight.
So yes—you’re right to notice that the “when England” phrase shifts from possibility to apparent prediction. The tension lies in whether that should be read as a literal forecast (which history disproved) or as a conditional scenario framed in prophetic rhetoric.
I wrote:
You say "The tension lies in whether that should be read as a literal forecast" At the time it had to be a literal forecast, if it were conditional what would the conditions be? If they are not stated they can not be conditional or you could say every prediction was conditional on some unstated conditions.
I point this out to you because you began with: "Direct answer: Ellen White did not predict that England would join the Confederacy. What she wrote was that England was considering whether to take advantage of the United States’ weakened condition during the Civil War, possibly by declaring war"
You’re right to call me out on that, Ron. My opening phrasing was too categorical—it glossed over the very tension you’ve been highlighting.
The passage itself clearly contains two layers:
- Possibility language: “England is studying whether it is best… She is weighing the matter…”
– This reflects deliberation, not certainty. - Forecast language: “When England does declare war, all nations will have an interest of their own to serve…”
– This moves into declarative prediction.
So while it’s accurate to say Ellen White never explicitly claimed England would ally with the South, it’s also true that she did forecast England would declare war on the Union. My earlier “direct answer” oversimplified by focusing only on the first part (the deliberation) and not acknowledging the second (the forecast).
Why this matters
- Critics: point to the “when England” phrase as a failed prophecy, since England never declared war.
- Defenders: argue it was conditional, even without stated conditions, drawing parallels to biblical prophecies like Jonah’s.
- Natural reading: as you’ve emphasized, without explicit conditions, the text reads as a literal forecast.
So I’ll refine my stance: Ellen White did not predict England would join the Confederacy, but she did predict England would declare war on the Union. That distinction is crucial. My initial summary blurred it, and you’re right to press for precision. [my emphasis here]
I wrote:
Going back to the Jonah's prophecy. As I recall the Hebrew word for overthrown has a pretty wide meaning. As the King repented and at least in the story changed his ways, would not that make the prophecy true without the need of conditions? I would also assume that Jonah preached more than those 8 words, so it is likely that that line is more a summation of what he preached rather than all he preached.
You’re remembering something very important about Jonah’s prophecy. The Hebrew verb used in Jonah 3:4 is הָפַךְ (hāphak), usually translated “overthrown” or “turned.” And yes—it has a broad semantic range. It can mean:
• Destroyed/overthrown (as in Sodom, Genesis 19:25).
• Turned/changed/transformed (as in a reversal of fortune or a change of heart).
So when Jonah proclaimed, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown,” the wording itself carries a kind of double edge. The city could be “overthrown” in judgment, or “turned” in repentance.
📖 Implications for Jonah’s prophecy
• Fulfillment without conditions: If Nineveh repented and was “turned,” then the prophecy was fulfilled in the broader sense of hāphak. The city was indeed “overturned”—not by destruction, but by transformation.
• No need for explicit conditions: That linguistic flexibility means the prophecy doesn’t have to be read as failed or conditional. It was fulfilled, just in a different mode than Jonah expected.
• Jonah’s frustration: This explains Jonah’s anger in chapter 4. He wanted “overthrown” to mean destruction, but God allowed it to mean transformation. Jonah knew God’s character was merciful, which is why he resisted preaching in the first place.
🗣️ On Jonah’s actual preaching
You’re right: the eight words in English (“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown”) are almost certainly a summary of his message, not the entirety of what he said. Ancient prophetic accounts often condense the core oracle into a memorable line. Jonah probably preached more detail about Nineveh’s sins and the urgency of repentance, but the text preserves the essence.
⚖️ Why this matters for Ellen White
Adventist apologists use Jonah as a model: they argue that just as Jonah’s prophecy was “fulfilled” in repentance rather than destruction, Ellen White’s Civil War statements could be read as conditional warnings rather than failed forecasts.
But your point cuts deep: Jonah’s prophecy had a built-in semantic flexibility in the Hebrew word hāphak, whereas Ellen White’s “When England does declare war” lacks that kind of linguistic openness. Jonah’s oracle could be fulfilled either way; Ellen White’s forecast was falsified unless one imports the idea of unstated conditions.
So yes—your instinct is right. Jonah’s prophecy can be seen as fulfilled without needing conditions, because the Hebrew verb itself allows for transformation. Ellen White’s Civil War passage doesn’t have that linguistic elasticity, which is why the apologetic move feels much thinner.
No comments:
Post a Comment