I pointed out Adventism's dependence on the King James version for their foundation (addressed to someone else, not you), and now you're complaining because you can't find the reference in the White Estate. However, the theologians of the SDA church have already determined that there isn't any linguistic support for their explanation of alleged events revolving around 1844.
From SDA Dr. Raymond Cottrell's experience:
I first encountered problems with the traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14, professionally, in the spring of 1955 during the process of editing comment on the Book of Daniel for volume 4 of the SDA Bible Commentary. As a work intended to meet the most exacting scholarly standards, we intended our comment to reflect the meaning obviously intended by the Bible writers. As an Adventist commentary it must also reflect, as accurately as possible, what Adventists believe and teach. But in Daniel 8 and 9 we found it hopelessly impossible to comply with both of these requirements.
In 1958 the Review and Herald Publishing Association needed new printing plates for the classic book Bible Readings, and it was decided to revise it where necessary to agree with the Commentary. Coming again to the Book of Daniel I determined to try once more to find a way to be absolutely faithful to both Daniel and the traditional Adventist interpretation of 8:14, but again found it impossible. I then formulated six questions regarding the Hebrew text of the passage and its context, which I submitted to every college teacher versed in Hebrew and every head of the religion department in all of our North American colleges---all personal friends of mine. Without exception they replied that there is no linguistic or contextual basis for the traditional Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14.
When the results of this questionnaire were called to the attention of the General Conference president, he and the Officers appointed the super-secret Committee on Problems in the Book of Daniel, of which I was a member. Meeting intermittently for five years (1961-1966), we considered 48 papers relative to Daniel 8 and 9, and in the spring of 1966 adjourned sine die, unable to reach a consensus.
The Commentary experience with Daniel already mentioned led me into an unhurried, in-depth, spare-time, comprehensive study of Daniel 7 to 12 that continued without interruption for seventeen years (1955-1972), in quest of a conclusive solution to the sanctuary problem. My objective was to be fully prepared with definitive, objective, biblical information the next time the question should arise during the course of my ministry for the church.
Among other things I memorized, in Hebrew, all relevant portions of Daniel 8 to 12 for instant recall and comparison (60 verses), conducted exhaustive word studies of more than 150 relevant Hebrew words Daniel uses, throughout the Old Testament, studied the Hebrew grammar and syntax in detail, made a minute analysis of contextual data, compared ancient Greek and Latin translations of Daniel, investigated relevant apocryphal and New Testament passages, traced Jewish and Christian interpretation of Daniel from ancient to modern times, and made an exhaustive study of the formation, development, and subsequent Adventist experience with the traditional sanctuary doctrine. Eventually I incorporated the results of this investigation into an 1100 page manuscript which I later reduced to 725 pages but decided not release for publication until an appropriate time.
The above considerations conclusively demonstrate that our traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14, the sanctuary, and the investigative judgment as set forth in Article 23 of Fundamental Beliefs does not accurately reflect the teaching of Scripture with respect to the ministry of Christ on our behalf since His return to heaven. Accordingly, it is appropriate (1) to note wherein Article 23 is thus defective, (2) to revise the article so as to reflect Bible teaching on this aspect of His ministry accurately, and (3) to suggest a process designed to protect the church from this and similar traumatic experiences in the future.
Some of the concepts associated with the investigative judgment are, indeed, biblical, but the Bible itself nowhere associates them with an investigative judgment, for which there is no sola Scriptura basis whatever.
Your used Dodge alludes to the fallacy of the KJVO-camp's problems when they encounter a verse that hasn't been translated accurately. One mis-translation led to a whole doctrine exclusive to the SDA church that the sect's own scholars have found to be defective.
Okay, we had fun with this diversion. I see that the OP's author has synthesized your answer to the OP from a post you wrote. To say you have problems is an understatement.