We are addressing six lines of prophetic controversy that have occurred within the history of Adventism from 1798 until the present day.
Münaẓaray ḥiszāẓ yitnabbaʾiyyat sitta allati ḥadathat dākhil tārīkh al-Adventiyya mundhu 1798 ḥattá al-yawm al-ḥāḍir.
“In history and prophecy the Word of God portrays the long continued conflict between truth and error. That conflict is yet in progress. Those things which have been, will be repeated. Old controversies will be revived, and new theories will be continually arising. But God’s people, who in their belief and fulfillment of prophecy have acted a part in the proclamation of the first, second, and third angels’ messages, know where they stand. They have an experience that is more precious than fine gold. They are to stand firm as a rock, holding the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end.” Selected Messages, book 2, 109.
«تاریخ اور نبوت میں خدا کا کلام حق اور باطل کے درمیان دیرینہ کشمکش کو نمایاں کرتا ہے۔ یہ کشمکش اب بھی جاری ہے۔ جو کچھ پہلے ہو چکا ہے، وہ دوبارہ دہرایا جائے گا۔ پرانے مناقشے پھر سے زندہ کیے جائیں گے، اور نئے نظریات مسلسل ابھرتے رہیں گے۔ لیکن خدا کے لوگ، جنہوں نے اپنے ایمان اور نبوت کی تکمیل میں پہلے، دوسرے، اور تیسرے فرشتے کے پیغامات کی منادی میں اپنا حصہ ادا کیا ہے، جانتے ہیں کہ وہ کہاں کھڑے ہیں۔ ان کے پاس ایسا تجربہ ہے جو کُندن سونے سے بھی زیادہ گراں قدر ہے۔ انہیں چٹان کی مانند ثابت قدم رہنا ہے، اپنی امید کے آغاز کو آخر تک مضبوطی سے تھامے رکھنا ہے۔» Selected Messages, book 2, 109.
The previous article addressed the first and last controversy about the Roman power, and we will now take up the controversy that occurred between Uriah Smith and James White. Uriah Smith inserted his own “private interpretation” into verse thirty-six.
Przedni artykuł rozważał pierwszy i ostatni spór dotyczący potęgi rzymskiej, a teraz podejmiemy spór, jaki powstał między Uriahem Smithem a Jamesem White’em. Uriah Smith wprowadził do wersetu trzydziestego szóstego własny „prywatny wykład”.
“VERSE 36. And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done.
“36-ДОЛКУ АЯТ. Падыша өз эркине жараша иш кылат; ал өзүн жогору көтөрөт, ар бир кудайдан жогору өзүн улуулантат, жана кудайлардын Кудайына каршы укмуш сөздөрдү сүйлөйт; ал каардын мезгили аяктаганга чейин ийгиликке жетет; анткени белгиленген нерсе аткарылат.
“The king here introduced cannot denote the same power which was last noticed; namely, the papal power; for the specifications will not hold good if applied to that power.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 292.
«پادشاھ جنہِ اتے پیش کیا گیا ہے، اوہ اَسّی طاقت نوں ظاہر نئیں کر سکدا جیہڑی ہُن تائیں آخری واری ذکر ہوئی سی؛ یعنی پاپائی طاقت؛ کیوں جو جے اِیہہ تخصیصاں اُس طاقت اُتے لاگو کیتیاں جان، تاں اوہ درست نئیں بیٹھدیاں۔» Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 292.
Smith acknowledged that the power in the previous verse was “papal Rome,” but claims the characteristics of verse thirty-six are not prophetic characteristics that identify papal Rome. That claim is false. It should be remembered that in the rebellion of 1863, the seven times of Leviticus chapter twenty-six was set aside, and therefore the representation of the seven times of both tables of Habakkuk was rejected. Both the 1843 and the 1850 charts illustrate the seven times in the very center of the charts, and both illustrations place the cross in the center of the line of the seven times. When the new light of the seven times arrived in 1856 and was thereafter rejected, it marked a rejection of Habakkuk’s two tables, and also the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy, which so clearly identifies that both charts were directed by God.
Smith avowek kere urharen xoketsoy nê versê berê de “Roma ya papal” bû, lê îdîa dike ku taybetmendiyên versê şeh û sê de ne taybetmendiyên pêxemberî ne ku Roma ya papal nas bikin. Ew îdîa derew e. Divê were bîranîn ku di serhildana 1863-an de, heft demên Leviticus beşa bîst û şeşan hate danîn aliyekî, û ji ber vê yekê nîşandana heft deman a herdu tabloyên Habakkuk hate redkirin. Hem charta 1843-an û hem charta 1850-an heft deman di navenda rast a chartan de nîşan didin, û herdu nîşandan xaçê di navenda xeta heft deman de datînin. Dema ronahiya nû ya heft deman di 1856-an de hat û paşê hate redkirin, ew nîşana redkirina herdu tabloyên Habakkuk bû, û her wiha desthilata Ruhê Pêxembertiyê jî, yê ku bi awayekî ew qas eşkere nas dike ku herdu chart ji aliyê Xwedê ve hatine rêber kirin.
According to Sister White the last deception of Satan is to make of none effect the testimony of God’s Spirit, and here the first deception was to make of none effect the testimony of God’s Spirit, and it also represented a simultaneous rejection of the foundational truths upon the two charts, and more specifically the seven times.
Jilə̂əp ləŋ Sister White, tə̀ bə̀lə̀ŋ kə Sátan bə̀ məníŋ tə̀ mə̀fɔɔ̀ghə̂ lə̂ bəzíŋ bɔ̀ mətə́ŋ mə Nyuŋnə̂ Mvùm mə Nzambə̂; nə̀ hā, tə̀ bə̀lə̀ŋ kə də́ŋgə́ mə̀gə̀nə̀ mə̀nùŋ kə tə̀ mə̀fɔɔ̀ghə̂ lə̂ bəzíŋ bɔ̀ mətə́ŋ mə Nyuŋnə̂ Mvùm mə Nzambə̂, nə̀ yí də̀ tə̀ sàŋgə̀ nə̂ ŋgə̀nə̀ŋgə̀nə̀ kə̀ bìtúm bì tə́ŋgə́ mə̀sísí məm báa búɔ̀ bìlɔ̂, nə̀ kə́ŋkə́ŋ mədzə́m yí bìlí bìsàmbə̀.
At the rebellion of 1863, it was none other than Uriah Smith that produced the 1863 counterfeit chart, which removed the line of the seven times. By 1863 Uriah Smith had closed his eyes to the light of the seven times, and was unable to see that there are two “indignations” which Daniel identifies. The two indignations represent the seven times against the northern kingdom of Israel, and the southern kingdom of Judah. The first against the ten northern tribes began in 723 BC and ended in 1798, and the second began in 677 BC and ended in 1844.
१८६३ को विद्रोहमा, १८६३ को नक्कली चार्ट तयार गर्ने अरू कोही नभई उरियाह स्मिथ नै थिए, जसले सात समयको रेखा हटायो। १८६३ सम्म आइपुग्दा उरियाह स्मिथले सात समयको ज्योतिप्रति आफ्ना आँखा बन्द गरिसकेका थिए, र दानिएलले चिनाउने दुई “indignations” छन् भन्ने कुरा देख्न असमर्थ भएका थिए। यी दुई indignations ले इस्राएलको उत्तरी राज्य र यहूदाको दक्षिणी राज्यमाथि आउने सात समयलाई जनाउँछन्। पहिलो उत्तरी दस कुलहरूमाथि ई.पू. ७२३ मा सुरु भयो र १७९८ मा समाप्त भयो, र दोस्रो ई.पू. ६७७ मा सुरु भयो र १८४४ मा समाप्त भयो।
Gabriel came to Daniel in chapter eight to explain the marah vision, and in connection with his work, he provided a second witness to 1844. The twenty-three hundred years of Daniel chapter eight ended in 1844, but so too did the last of the two indignations against the northern and southern kingdoms.
Gabriel vino a Daniel en el capítulo ocho para explicar la visión del marah y, en relación con su obra, proporcionó un segundo testigo de 1844. Los dos mil trescientos años de Daniel capítulo ocho terminaron en 1844, pero también terminó entonces la última de las dos indignaciones contra los reinos del norte y del sur.
And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. Daniel 8:19.
Et il dit : Voici, je te ferai connaître ce qui arrivera à la fin dernière de l’indignation ; car à l’époque fixée sera la fin. Daniel 8:19.
The last end presupposes a first end. The last of the two indignations, which is simply another expression of the seven times, ended in 1844, and the first indignation ended in 1798. The verse Smith claimed possessed no specifications of the papal power identified the year when the papacy would receive its deadly wound.
Lakısh tukuypa kayñiqa ñawpaq tukuypa kayñita presupone-nmi. Iskay piñakuyninkunamanta qhepa kaq, mayqenchus qanchis kuti nisqapa huknin rimariyninlla kashan, 1844 watapi tukukapun; ñawpaq piñakuynintaq 1798 watapi tukukapun. Smithpa nisqanman hina, mayqin versículopas papal atiyniyuqmanta mana ima especificaciónniyoq kasqan, chaymi papadoqa wañuywan llakiy k’irisqanta chaskinan watata reqsichirqan.
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done. Daniel 11:36.
وتاجت نہٕ کَرِہ یِمِس پَنُن مرضی چھُ؛ تہٕ سُہ کَرِہ پَنُن نَفْس بُلند، تہٕ پَنُن نَفْس ہرِ اَکھ خُدایس پٮ۪ٹھ وُزُل بناوِہ، تہٕ خُدایَن ہُند خُداہس خِلاف عَجِیب کَلام کَرِہ، تہٕ سُہ تام کَمیاب روزِہ یِتھ کھَطرہ پُورٕ نہٕ گژھِہ؛ کیازِکہ یُس طے چھُ کرنہٕ، سُہ ضرور گژھِہ۔ دانی ایل 11:36۔
“The king” in verse thirty-six would “prosper till the indignation be accomplished.” Notice what Smith writes about Daniel chapter eight, verses twenty-three and twenty-four in the same book where he claims the papal power does not possess the correct attributes to fulfill verse thirty-six.
«الملك» في العدد السادس والثلاثين «ينجح إلى أن يتمّ السخط». لاحظ ما يكتبه سميث عن دانيال الأصحاح الثامن، العددين الثالث والعشرين والرابع والعشرين، في الكتاب نفسه الذي يزعم فيه أن السلطة البابوية لا تمتلك الصفات الصحيحة لإتمام العدد السادس والثلاثين.
“VERSE 23. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 24. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. 25. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand: and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
«ԱՅԱՍ 23. Եվ նրանց թագավորության վերջին ժամանակում, երբ հանցավորները լրանան, պիտի ելնի մի թագավոր՝ խիստ դեմքով և մութ խոսքեր հասկանալով։ 24. Եվ նրա զորությունը հզոր պիտի լինի, բայց ոչ իր իսկ զորությամբ. և նա զարմանալի կերպով պիտի կործանի, և պիտի հաջողի, և պիտի գործի, և պիտի կործանի զորավորներին ու սուրբ ժողովրդին։ 25. Եվ իր խորագիտությամբ ևս նա պիտի պատճառի, որ նենգությունը բարգավաճի իր ձեռքում. և իր սրտում պիտի մեծարի ինքն իրեն, և խաղաղությամբ շատերին պիտի կործանի. նա պիտի ելնի նաև իշխանների Իշխանի դեմ, բայց պիտի կոտրվի առանց ձեռքի։
“This power succeeds to the four divisions of the goat kingdom in the latter time of their kingdom, that is, toward the termination of their career. It is, of course, the same as the little horn of verse 9 and onward. Apply it to Rome, as set forth in remarks on verse 9, and all is harmonious and clear.
«Ин қувват дар замони охирини подшоҳии он чаҳор тақсимоти подшоҳии буз, яъне наздик ба поёни раванди онҳо, ба ҷойи онҳо меояд. Албатта, он ҳамон шохи хурде аст, ки аз ояти 9 ва баъд аз он зикр шудааст. Онро ба Рум татбиқ намоед, чунон ки дар мулоҳизаҳо бар ояти 9 баён шудааст, ва ҳама чиз ҳамоҳанг ва равшан мегардад.
“‘A king of fierce countenance.’ Moses, in predicting punishment to come upon the Jews from this same power, calls it ‘a nation of fierce countenance.’ Deut. 28:49, 50. No people made a more formidable appearance in warlike array than the Romans. ‘Understanding dark sentences.’ Moses, in the scripture just referred to, says, ‘Whose tongue thou shalt not understand.’ This could not be said of the Babylonians, Persians, or Greeks, in reference to the Jews; for the Chaldean and Greek languages were used to a greater or less extent in Palestine. This was not the case, however, with the Latin.
“‘A kwenhwe ombinga.’ Mose, pakutongora etpunuko tali uya kombada yOvajuda okuza kombinga ei ye likulu, ote yi ifana ‘oshilongo shombinga.’ Deut. 28:49, 50. Kape na ovantu va holoka nena momutumba gwokulwa sha fa Ovaroma. ‘Tashi uda omayeloyele omile.’ Mose, moshinyolwa sha tumbulwa nale, otya, ‘Elaka lalo ito li uda.’ Eshi inashi dulu okutumbulwa kombada yOvaBabilonia, OvaPersia, nOvaGrika, molwa Ovajuda; osheshi elaka lOvaKaldea nOvaGrika ola li tali longifwa, mokule mokule, muPalestina. Nande ongaho, hasho sha li shili koshilonga sheLatin.”
“When the transgressors are come to the full.’ All along, the connection between God’s people and their oppressors is kept in view. It was on account of the transgressions of his people that they were sold into captivity. And their continuance in sin brought more severe punishment. At no time were the Jews more corrupt morally, as a nation, than at the time they came under the jurisdiction of the Romans.
«Quando i trasgressori saranno giunti al colmo». Per tutto il tempo si tiene presente il legame tra il popolo di Dio e i suoi oppressori. Fu a causa delle trasgressioni del suo popolo che essi furono venduti in cattività. E il loro perseverare nel peccato attirò un castigo più severo. In nessun tempo i Giudei, come nazione, furono più corrotti moralmente di quando passarono sotto la giurisdizione dei Romani.
“‘Mighty, but not by his own power.’ The success of the Romans was owing largely to the aid of their allies, and divisions among their enemies, of which they were ever ready to take advantage. Papal Rome also was mighty by means of the secular powers over which she exercised spiritual control.
«'ХьунагӀа, амма цуьнан шен нипаца доцуш.' Римхойн гӀалаташ дукха массо а церан союзникхойн гӀоьнца а, церан мостагӀийн юкъара декъалойла а бахьана долуш дара, уьш хӀинцца а шайн пайдахьа лело кийча болуш. Папийн Рим а хьунагӀа яра, иза ша духовни тӀехьалла дина йолчу дунялхойн нипашца.»
“‘He shall destroy wonderfully.’ The Lord told the Jews by the prophet Ezekiel that he would deliver them to men who were ‘skilful to destroy;’ and the slaughter of eleven hundred thousand Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army, was a terrible confirmation of the prophet’s words. And Rome in its second, or papal, phase was responsible for the death of fifty millions of martyrs.
«Он будет поражать чудесным образом». Господь сказал иудеям через пророка Иезекииля, что предаст их людям, «искусным губить»; и избиение одного миллиона ста тысяч иудеев при разрушении Иерусалима римским войском было страшным подтверждением слов пророка. И Рим во второй, или папской, фазе своей истории был ответствен за смерть пятидесяти миллионов мучеников.
“‘And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand.’ Rome has been distinguished above all other powers for a policy of craft, by means of which it brought the nations under its control. This is true of both pagan and papal Rome. And thus by peace it destroyed many.
« Et, par sa politique, il fera aussi prospérer la ruse entre ses mains. » Rome s’est distinguée au-dessus de toutes les autres puissances par une politique de ruse, au moyen de laquelle elle a amené les nations sous son contrôle. Cela est vrai tant de la Rome païenne que de la Rome papale. Et ainsi, par la paix, elle en a détruit beaucoup.
“And Rome, finally, in the person of one of its governors, stood up against the Prince of princes, by giving sentence of death against Jesus Christ. ‘But he shall be broken without hand,’ an expression which identifies the destruction of this power with the smiting of the image of chapter 2.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 202–204.
“Roma pa, antin, iti persona ti maysa kadagiti gobernadorna, timmaktakder a maibusor iti Principe dagiti principe, babaen ti panangitedna iti sentensia ti patay a maipanggep ken Jesu-Cristo. ‘Ngem mapukawto isuna nga awan ti ima,’ maysa a pannakaibaga a mangipakilala iti pannakadadael daytoy a pannakabalin a kas mayannurot iti pannakababa ti ladawan iti kapitulo 2.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 202–204.
Smith, twice in the passage, identifies that the prophetic characteristics of pagan and papal Rome are interchangeable, for they are simply the manifestation of Rome in its two phases, such as the mixture of iron and clay in Daniel chapter two, which Sister White identifies as symbols of churchcraft and statecraft. When Daniel identifies in the verses Smith is addressing–that Rome “shall prosper, and practice,” and that Rome “shall cause craft to prosper in his hand,”–Smith claims that in verse thirty-six that the “king” who “shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished,” identifies a prophetic characteristic of both pagan and papal Rome. Then he claims that none of the characteristics of Rome in verse thirty-six refer to the papal power.
Սմիթը, տվյալ հատվածում երկու անգամ, նշում է, որ հեթանոսական և պապական Հռոմի մարգարեական բնութագրերը փոխարինելի են, քանի որ դրանք պարզապես Հռոմի դրսևորումն են իր երկու փուլերում, ինչպես Դանիելի երկրորդ գլխում ներկայացված երկաթի և կավի խառնուրդը, որը Քույր Ուայթը նույնացնում է որպես եկեղեցականության և պետականության խորհրդանիշներ։ Երբ Դանիելը, այն համարներում, որոնց անդրադառնում է Սմիթը, նշում է, թե Հռոմը «պիտի հաջողի և գործի», և թե Հռոմը «պիտի պատճառի, որ խորամանկությունը հաջողի իր ձեռքում», Սմիթը պնդում է, որ երեսունվեցերորդ համարում այն «թագավորը», որ «պիտի հաջողի, մինչև բարկությունն ավարտվի», մատնանշում է թե՛ հեթանոսական, թե՛ պապական Հռոմի մի մարգարեական բնութագիր։ Այնուհետև նա պնդում է, որ երեսունվեցերորդ համարում Հռոմին վերաբերող բնութագրերից ոչ մեկը չի վերաբերում պապական իշխանությանը։
We have referred to Smith in supporting the identification of Rome being the robbers who establish the vision, and one of the four prophetic characteristics in verse fourteen is that Rome exalts themselves.
אַנַּחְנוּ הִתְיַחַסְנוּ אֶל סְמִית בְּתְמִיכָה לְזִהוּיָהּ שֶׁל רוֹמָא כַּשּׁוֹדְדִים הַמְכֹונְנִים אֶת הֶחָזוֹן, וְאַחַת מֵאַרְבַּע הַתְּכוּנוֹת הַנְּבוּאִיּוֹת בִּפְסוּק אַרְבַּע־עֶשְׂרֵה הִיא שֶׁרוֹמָא מְרוֹמֶמֶת אֶת עַצְמָהּ.
And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. Daniel 11:14.
Awur abɛna hɔ no, nnipa pii bɛsɔre atia anafo fam hene no; na wo nkurɔfo mu awifonom nso bɛma wɔn ho so de agyina ade anisoadehunu no mu; nanso wobebu wɔn agu. Daniel 11:14.
Smith claims that the specifications of the king in verse thirty-six do not align with the papal power, though he earlier defended that it was Rome in verse fourteen that exalts itself. Yet the king in verse thirty-six “shall exalt himself.” That very same king in verse thirty-six would “speak marvelous things against the God of gods.” In Daniel the papal power “shall speak great words against the Most High,” and in the book of Revelation the papal power blasphemes against the Most High.
Smith ܐܡܪ ܕܦܘܪ̈ܫܢܐ ܕܡܠܟܐ ܕܒܦܣܘܩܐ ܬܠܬܝܢ ܘܫܬܐ ܠܐ ܡܫܬܘܝܢ ܥܡ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܕܦܦܐ، ܐܦ ܥܠ ܕܩܕܡ ܗܢܐ ܟܕ ܢܦܩ ܠܡܓܢܢܘ ܕܗܝ ܗܘܬ ܪܗܘܡܐ ܕܒܦܣܘܩܐ ܐܪܒܥܣܪ ܕܡܬܬܪܝܡܐ ܥܠ ܢܦܫܗ. ܐܠܐ ܡܠܟܐ ܕܒܦܣܘܩܐ ܬܠܬܝܢ ܘܫܬܐ «ܢܬܬܪܝܡ ܥܠ ܢܦܫܗ». ܘܗܘ ܡܠܟܐ ܗܢܐ ܓܘܦܗ ܕܒܦܣܘܩܐ ܬܠܬܝܢ ܘܫܬܐ «ܢܡܠܠ ܡܕܡ ܕܬܡܝܗ ܥܠ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܐܠܗ̈ܐ». ܘܒܕܢܝܐܝܠ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܕܦܦܐ «ܢܡܠܠ ܡܠ̈ܐ ܪ̈ܘܪܒܬܐ ܥܠ ܥܠܝܐ»، ܘܒܟܬܒܐ ܕܓܠܝܢܐ ܫܘܠܛܢܐ ܕܦܦܐ ܡܓܕܦ ܥܠ ܥܠܝܐ.
And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. Revelation 13:5, 6.
Уӕд-иунг ӕмӕй фидӕн дзырдтӕ ӕмӕ бласфеми кӕнынӕн дзуырындзинад; ӕмӕ йын тых раттын кодтой дыууӕ азы ӕмӕ мӕйы. Ӕмӕ йӕ дзырд байгом кодта Хуыцауы ныхмӕ бласфемимӕ, цӕмӕй бласфеми кӕна йӕ номыл, ӕмӕ йӕ скиниайыл, ӕмӕ уӕд иумӕ цӕрджытыл, кӕцытӕ цӕрын уӕларвмӕ. Revelation 13:5, 6.
Every prophetic specification of the papal power is identified in verse thirty-six.
ທຸກລາຍລະອຽດແຫ່ງຄຳພະຍາກອນທີ່ກ່ຽວກັບອຳນາດຂອງສັນຕະປາປາ ຖືກຊີ້ບອກໄວ້ໃນຂໍ້ທີສາມສິບຫົກ.
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done. Daniel 11:36.
Тэгээд тэр хаан өөрийн хүслийн дагуу үйлдэх бөгөөд өөрийгөө өргөмжлөн, өөрийгөө бүх бурхдаас дээгүүр агуу болгож, бурхдын Бурханы эсрэг гайхамшигт үгсийг хэлэх болно; мөн хилэн төгсөх хүртэл амжилттай байх болно. Учир нь тогтоогдсон зүйл биелэх ёстой. Даниел 11:36.
Human commentators are many times unreliable, but many Adventist commentators give witness to the obvious truth that it was verse thirty-six which the apostle Paul was paraphrasing from 2 Thessalonians, when he addressed the man of sin.
ا نسانی مفسرین بسا اوقات ناقابلِ اعتماد ہوتے ہیں، لیکن بہت سے ایڈونٹسٹ مفسرین اس واضح حقیقت کی گواہی دیتے ہیں کہ جب رسول پولس نے 2 تھسلنیکیوں میں مردِ گناہ کا ذکر کیا، تو وہ دراصل چھتیسویں آیت ہی کا مفہوم بیان کر رہے تھے۔
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thessalonians 2:2, 3.
မည်သူမျှ မည်သည့်နည်းဖြင့်မျှ သင်တို့ကို မလှည့်ဖြားစေနှင့်။ အကြောင်းမူကား ထိုနေ့သည် ပထမဦးစွာ ယုံကြည်ခြင်းမှ ဖောက်ပြန်ကျဆင်းခြင်း ဖြစ်ပေါ်လာခြင်းမရှိလျှင်လည်းကောင်း၊ အပြစ်၏လူ၊ ပျက်စီးခြင်း၏သား ပေါ်ထွန်းဖော်ပြခြင်းမရှိလျှင်လည်းကောင်း မရောက်လာနိုင်။ ထိုသူသည် ဘုရားဟု ခေါ်ဝေါ်သမျှအားလုံးနှင့် ကိုးကွယ်ခြင်းခံရသမျှအားလုံးအပေါ် ဆန့်ကျင်၍ မိမိကိုယ်ကို မြှောက်တင်၏။ ထို့ကြောင့် သူသည် ဘုရားသခင်၏ ဗိမာန်တော်၌ ဘုရားအဖြစ် ထိုင်လျက်၊ မိမိသည် ဘုရားဖြစ်ကြောင်း ဖော်ပြလျက်ရှိ၏။ ၂ သက်သာလောနိတ် ၂:၂၊ ၃။
Verse thirty-six states that “he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god,” and Paul says “that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.” Clearly Smith had no prophetic authority to claim that the king of verse thirty-six was different from the king under discussion in the verses leading to verse thirty-six. Grammatically he had no justification for making his flawed application, and his claim that he did so because verse thirty-six possesses no characteristics of the papal power was a wresting of the Scripture in an attempt to establish a private interpretation.
آية السادس والثلاثين تنصّ على أنّه «يرتفع ويتعظّم على كل إله»، ويقول بولس: «يُستعلَن إنسان الخطية، ابن الهلاك، الذي يقاوم ويرتفع فوق كل ما يُدعى إلهاً أو معبوداً». ومن الواضح أنّه لم يكن لِسِمِث أي سلطان نبوي يجيز له أن يزعم أنّ الملك المذكور في آية السادس والثلاثين يختلف عن الملك الذي يدور عنه الكلام في الآيات السابقة لآية السادس والثلاثين. ومن جهة القواعد لم يكن لديه أي مسوّغ لهذا التطبيق الفاسد، وكان ادعاؤه أنّه فعل ذلك لأن آية السادس والثلاثين لا تشتمل على أيٍّ من خصائص السلطة البابوية ليّاً للكتاب المقدس في محاولة لإقامة تفسير خاص.
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 arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:19–21.
Wa aamma andum Ergartaan Uñacht’äwix juk’amp chiqapawa; ukar istʼañamawa, ch’amaka chiqar qhantʼki uka qhanar uñtata, urux qhantʼkchi ukkama, ukat warawara qhaniri chuymanakaman saytʼkchi ukkama: Nayraqata ak yatipxam, Qillqatan kuna qullan arsuwis janiw khitit maynina amuytʼäwipakïkiti. Kunjamtï profecíax nayra pachan jaqin munañapat jani jutkänti, ukhamarakiw Diosan qullan jaqinakapax Qullan Ajayun irpatäpxasin arsupxäna. 2 Pedro 1:19–21.
Through the years of Laodicean Adventism there have been many Adventist theologians, pastors and authors who have addressed whether they think Smith’s application is correct or incorrect. An Australian pastor, Louis Were, who is long deceased, spent the majority of his ministry in opposing Smith’s false prophetic model. The reason for his opposition was not simply that Smith ultimately identified the king that comes to his end in verse forty-five as Turkey, but Smith’s platform also produced an incorrect application of Armageddon. In the 1980’s or thereabout an Adventist author penned a book titled, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? The author’s name is Donald Mansell, and the book is still available.
ᎤᏕᎵᏍᏗ ᎤᏓᏘᏴᏛ ᎳᎣᏗᏏᎠᏂ ᎠᏛᏫᏍᏕᎵᏍᎩ ᎠᏁᎲᎢ, ᎤᏂᏣᏘ ᎠᏛᏫᏍᏕᎵᏍᎩ ᎤᎾᏕᎶᏆᏍᏗ ᎠᏂᎦᏔᎾᎢ, ᎠᏂᏅᏃᏛ ᎠᎴ ᎠᏃᏪᎵᏍᎩ ᎤᏂᏃᎮᎸ ᎯᎠ ᎠᏂᏰᎸᎢ ᏍᎻᏗ ᎤᏤᎵ ᎤᏬᎯᏳᎯ ᎠᎴ ᎤᏓᎴᎾᏍᏗ ᎤᏍᏆᏂᎪᏛ ᎤᏙᎯᏳᎯ ᎠᎴ ᎥᏝ ᎤᏙᎯᏳᎯ ᎢᏯᏛᏁᏗ ᎨᏒᎢ. ᎠᏍᏟᏯ ᎡᎯ ᎠᏂᏅᏃᏛ, ᎷᎢᏍ ᏭᎵ, ᎦᎳᏅᏛ ᎢᏳᏍᏗ ᎤᏬᎯᏤᎸᎯ, ᎤᏣᏘ ᎤᏓᏡᎬ ᎤᏕᎵᏍᏗ ᎤᎵᏍᏕᎸᏙᗗ ᏍᎻᏗ ᎤᏤᎵ ᎦᏰᎯ ᎤᏙᎴᎰᏒ ᎠᏙᎴᎰᏍᎬ ᎤᏍᏆᏂᎪᏛ ᎠᏡᣏᏍᏗ ᎤᏡᎬᎢ ᎤᏁᏍᎬᎢ. ᎾᏍᎩ ᎤᎵᏍᏕᎸᎲ ᎥᏝ ᎤᏩᏒ ᏱᎩ ᏍᎻᏗ ᎣᏂᎩᏨᏂ ᎤᏙᎴᎰᏍᎬ ᎡᎶᎯ ᎠᏥᎸᏉᏗ ᎠᏎᏃ ᎡᎵᏍᎩ-ᎣᏍᏓᏂ ᎢᏳᏟᎶᏒ ᎾᎿᎭᏧ ᎤᎵᏍᏔᏅᎯ ᎤᎷᏤ ᎤᏍᏆᎸᎲᎢ ᏔᎩ ᎢᏯᏍᏗᏱ ᎠᎩᎵᎠᎾ ᎨᏒ ᏗᎬᏩᏚᎢᏍᏛ ᎢᏯᏛᏁᎲ ᏆᎩ, ᎠᏎ ᏍᎻᏗ ᎤᏪᏍᏗ ᎤᏓᏅᏖᎢ ᎾᏍᏉ ᎤᏛᏁᎴ ᎤᏓᎴᎾᏍᏗ ᎠᎵᏍᏓᏴᏗ ᎠᎹᎨᏓᏂ ᎤᏙᎴᎰᏍᎬᎢ. 1980-Ꭲ ᎢᏯᏕᏘ ᎠᎴ ᏱᎩ ᎾᎥ ᎢᏳᏍᏗ, ᎠᏛᏫᏍᏕᎵᏍᎩ ᎠᏃᏪᎵᏍᎩ ᎠᏥᏃᎮᎸ ᎪᏪᎵ ᎠᏍᏓᏯ ᎯᎠ ᎾᏍᎩ, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? ᎠᏃᏪᎵᏍᎩ ᏕᎤᏙᎥ ᏓᎾᎵᏲ ᎹᏁᏍ, ᎠᎴ Ꮎ ᎪᏪᎵ ᎠᏏᏉ ᏗᎬᏩᏩᛍᏗ ᎤᏍᏗ.
Mansell tracks the history leading up to World War One and World War Two showing that when both those wars were seen to be approaching the Adventist evangelists began to employ Smith’s false application of Turkey marching to literal Jerusalem as a sign of Armageddon and the end of the world. He demonstrates by church membership roles that as each of the wars approached many souls were brought into the membership of the Adventist church, based upon the evangelist’s prophetic emphasis drawn from Smith’s flawed view of Armageddon.
Mansell, birinchi jahon urushi va ikkinchi jahon urushiga olib borgan tarixni kuzatib, shuni ko‘rsatadiki, bu ikki urushning yaqinlashayotgani ayon bo‘lganida, adventist voizlar Armageddon va dunyoning oxirining alomati sifatida Smithning Turkiyaning tom ma’nodagi Quddusga yurishi haqidagi soxta tatbiqini qo‘llay boshlaganlar. U jamoat a’zoligi ro‘yxatlari orqali shuni namoyon qiladiki, urushlarning har biri yaqinlashgan sari, Smithning Armageddon haqidagi nuqsonli qarashidan kelib chiqqan voizlarning payg‘ambarlik urg‘usi asosida ko‘plab jonlar adventist jamoati a’zoligiga kiritilgan.
When either war ended, and the flawed predictions were not fulfilled, the church lost more members than they had gained from the prophetic model that was constructed by Smith.
Қайсыбір соғыс аяқталған кезде де, әрі Смит құрған пайғамбарлық үлгіге сүйенген қате болжамдар орындалмай қалғандықтан, шіркеу сол үлгі арқылы қосып алғанынан да көбірек мүшесінен айырылды.
Through Smith’s rejection of the foundational message of the Millerites, and his willingness to promote his private interpretation of verse thirty-six to forty-five of Daniel, Smith’s logic produced a prophetic model based upon current events.
Milleritchilerin təməl xəbərini Smithin rədd etməsi və Daniel kitabının otuz altıncı ayəsindən qırx beşinci ayəsinədək olan hissənin öz şəxsi təfsirini irəli sürməyə hazır olması nəticəsində, Smithin məntiqi cari hadisələrə əsaslanan bir peyğəmbərlik modeli meydana gətirdi.
In the argument between Smith and James White over the king who comes to his end in the last verse of Daniel eleven, James White presented a logic that succinctly represented Smith’s sandy prophetic foundation. White taught that “prophecy produces history, but history does not produce prophecy.”
ဒန်နီယေလ အခန်းတစ်ဆယ့်တစ်၏ နောက်ဆုံးအခန်းငယ်တွင် မိမိအဆုံးသို့ ရောက်လာသော ဘုရင်အကြောင်း၌ စမစ်နှင့် ဂျိမ်းစ် ဝှိုက်တို့အကြား ဖြစ်ပွားသော အငြင်းပွားမှုတွင်၊ ဂျိမ်းစ် ဝှိုက်သည် စမစ်၏ တည်ငြိမ်မှုမရှိသော ပရောဖက်ပြုချက်ဆိုင်ရာ အခြေခံကို အကျဉ်းချုံး၍ ကိုယ်စားပြုသော ယുക്തိတစ်ရပ်ကို တင်ပြခဲ့သည်။ ဝှိုက်က “ပရောဖက်ပြုချက်သည် သမိုင်းကို ဖြစ်ပေါ်စေသော်လည်း၊ သမိုင်းသည် ပရောဖက်ပြုချက်ကို မဖြစ်ပေါ်စေ” ဟု သွန်သင်ခဲ့သည်။
The evangelists of Adventism that worked before both wars employed the developing history to present Smith’s flawed prophetic model of Armageddon, and their work, which seemed so blessed leading up to the wars, produced a net loss when the prophetic model was demonstrated to be based upon a private interpretation.
Адвентизмниң һәр икки уруштин илгирики дәвиридә хизмәт қилған евангелистлири, тәрәққий етиватқан тарихни ишлитип, Смитниң Армагеддон тоғрисидики нуқсанлиқ пәйғәмбәрлик үлгисини оттуриға қойди; урушларға қәдәр интайин бәрикәтликдәк көрүнгән уларниң хизмити, пәйғәмбәрлик үлгисиниң шәхсий тәфсиргә асасланғанлиқи испатланғанда, ахирида таза йоқитишни пәйда қилди.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:15–20.
Mwaitecherere na aneneri apumpu, amene amabwera kwa inu atavala zikopa za nkhosa, koma mkati mwawo ali mimbulu yolusa. Mudzawadziwa ndi zipatso zawo. Kodi anthu amatola mphesa pa minga, kapena nkhuyu pa nthula? Momwemonso mtengo uliwonse wabwino ubala zipatso zabwino; koma mtengo woipa ubala zipatso zoipa. Mtengo wabwino sungabale zipatso zoipa, ngakhale mtengo woipa sungabale zipatso zabwino. Mtengo uliwonse umene subala zipatso zabwino umadulidwa, n’kuponyedwa m’moto. Choncho mudzawadziwa ndi zipatso zawo. Mateyu 7:15–20.
Smith’s willingness to promote a private prophetic model of the king in verse thirty-six bore the fruit of also creating an incorrect application of the sixth plague and Armageddon.
ڕەزایەتیی سمیت بۆ پەرەپێدانی نموونەیەکی تایبەتیی پێشبینیکارانە بۆ پاشا لە ئایەتی سی و شەشدا، ئەو بەرهەمەی هەبوو کە هەروەها بەکارهێنانێکی هەڵەی بۆ بلاى شەشەم و هەرماگدۆن دروست کرد.
And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared. And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. Revelation 16:12–16.
Na angele wa sita akamimina bakuli yake juu ya mto mkubwa Frati; na maji yake yakakauka, ili njia ya wafalme wa mashariki iandaliwe. Nami nikaona roho tatu chafu mfano wa vyura zikitoka katika kinywa cha yule joka, na katika kinywa cha yule mnyama, na katika kinywa cha yule nabii wa uongo. Kwa maana hizo ni roho za mashetani, zifanyazo miujiza, zitokazo kwenda kwa wafalme wa dunia na wa ulimwengu wote, ili kuwakusanya kwa vita ya siku ile kuu ya Mungu Mwenyezi. Tazama, naja kama mwivi. Heri yeye akaaye macho, na kuyatunza mavazi yake, asije akatembea uchi, watu wakaona aibu yake. Akawakusanya pamoja mpaka mahali paitwapo kwa Kiebrania Har–Magedoni. Ufunuo 16:12–16.
As we have previously pointed out, the sixth plague comes after the close of human probation, so the warning contained to keep your garments, must refer to a testing issue that occurs before Michael stands up and human probation closes and the first plague begins. The sixth plague identifies the activities of the dragon, the beast and the false prophet, who are the threefold union that comes together at the soon-coming Sunday law. That threefold union is Modern Rome, and the symbol that identifies and establishes the threefold union of Modern Rome, are the “robbers of thy people,” who “exalt themselves to establish the vision” and “fall.”
Tade nhar uri’ wej, i paqon na suga’ uran ajan ati magunnud ya katapusan na uras na pagnalaing na tolay, kaya i pahimata’ na la’bì “bantayi yu i inyung mga bado,” kinahanglan magtudlok kana sa usang isyu na panulay na mahitabu antes tumindug si Michael kag magsira i uras na pagnalaing na tolay kag magsugod i syahan na uran ajan. I pang-anom na uran ajan nagatukoy sa mga lihuk na dragon, na hayop, kag na bakak na manalagna, na amo i tatlo-ka-bahin na paghiusa na nagatipon sa palaabuton na balaod nunday Domingo. Tana na tatlo-ka-bahin na paghiusa amo i Modernong Roma, kag i simbolo na nagakilala kag nagapalig-on sa tatlo-ka-bahin na paghiusa na ina na Modernong Roma amo i “mga tulisan na katawran mu,” na “nagapataas sa inda mga kaugalingon sa pagpatindug sa bisyon” kag “mapukan.”
The warning of the sixth plague, when understood, allows a soul to keep his garments, but if it is rejected it leaves a soul naked, which is one of the five attributes of a Laodicean. The symbol that establishes that warning is the robbers of thy people, who exalt themselves and ultimately fall. Solomon said if God’s people do not have that vision, they perish.
شىتشا ئالشَنچى بالانىڭ ئەسكەرتۈشى دۇرۇس چۈشەنىلگەندە، بىر جانغا ئۆز كىيىملىرىنى ساقلاپ قېلىش ئىمكانىنى بېرىدۇ؛ ئەمما ئۇ رەت قىلىنسا، بىر جاننى يالىڭاچ قالدۇرىدۇ، بۇ بولسا لاۋدىكىيەلىككە خاس بەش سۈپەتنىڭ بىرىدۇر. شۇ ئەسكەرتۈشنى بەلگىلەيدىغان بەلگە — خەلقىڭنىڭ بۇلاڭچىلىرىدۇر؛ ئۇلار ئۆزلىرىنى ئۈستۈن كۆتۈرىدۇ ۋە ئاخىرىدا يىقىلىدۇ. سۈلەيمان ئېيتقانكى، ئەگەر خۇدانىڭ خەلقىدە شۇ رؤيا بولمىسا، ئۇلار ھالاك بولىدۇ.
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. Proverbs 29:18.
No hay profecía cuando el pueblo se desenfrena; mas el que guarda la ley, bienaventurado es. Proverbios 29:18.
The Hebrew word “perish” means “to make naked”, and John recorded, “Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.” Smith was wrong on the King of the North, and that false prophetic foundation allowed him to develop a prophetic application that, if accepted, produces nakedness, which is a symbol of the Laodiceans, who are spewed out of the mouth of the Lord.
لەفظی عیبری «لەناوچوون» واتای «ڕووت کردنەوە» دەگەیەنێت، و یۆحەنا تۆماریکردووە: «خۆزگە بەوەی چاودێری دەکات و جلوبەرگەکانی دەپارێزێت، نەوەک بە ڕووتی بڕوات و شەرمەزارییەکەی ببینن.» سمیت لەبارەی پاشای باکوور هەڵەبوو، و ئەو بنەمای هەڵەی پێشبینیکارییە ڕێگای پێدا تا بەکارهێنانیەکی پێشبینیکاری پەرەپێبدات کە ئەگەر پەسەند بکرێت، ڕووتی دروست دەکات، کە هێمای لاودیکییەکانە، ئەوانەی لە دەمەوەی مەسیح دەتەقێنرێنەوە.
Smith had no problem arguing his new false identification of the King of the North against the prophetess’ husband James White. Adventist historians, and Sister White, address their famous disagreement. Ellen White rebuked both her husband and Smith for allowing their difference of opinion on who was represented by the king of the north in Daniel eleven, to be put into the public domain. In the very first Adventist publication after the Great Disappointment of 1844, James White wrote:
Смит не имал никакъв проблем да защитава новото си погрешно отъждествяване на Северния цар срещу съпруга на пророчицата, Джеймс Уайт. Адвентните историци, както и Сестра Уайт, разглеждат тяхното прочуто несъгласие. Елън Уайт изобличава както съпруга си, така и Смит за това, че са допуснали различието в мненията си относно това кой е представен от северния цар в Даниил единадесета глава, да бъде изнесено в публичното пространство. В самата първа адвентна публикация след Голямото разочарование от 1844 г. Джеймс Уайт пише:
“That Jesus rose up, and shut the door, and came to the Ancient of days, to receive his kingdom, at the 7th month, 1844, I fully believe. See Luke 13:25; Matthew 25:10; Daniel 7:13,14. But the standing up of Michael, Daniel 12:1, appears to be another event, for another purpose. His rising up in 1844, was to shut the door, and come to his Father, to receive his kingdom, and power to reign; but Michael’s standing up, is to manifest his kingly power, which he already has, in the destruction of the wicked, and in the deliverance of his people. Michael is to stand up at the time that the last power in chapter 11, comes to his end, and none to help him. This power is the last that treads down the true church of God: and as the true church is still trodden down, and cast out by all christendom, it follows that the last oppressive power has not ‘come to his end;’ and Michael has not stood up. This last power that treads down the saints is brought to view in Revelation 13:11-18. His number is 666.” James White, A Word to the Little Flock, 8.
«عيسى قامَ، وأغلقَ البابَ، وأتى إلى القديمِ الأيّامِ، ليأخذَ مُلكه، في الشهرِ السابعِ، سنةَ 1844، فهذا أؤمنُ به إيمانًا كاملًا. انظر لوقا 13:25؛ متى 25:10؛ دانيال 7:13، 14. أمّا قيامُ ميخائيل، دانيال 12:1، فيظهرُ أنّه حادثةٌ أخرى، ولغرضٍ آخر. أمّا قيامُه في سنةِ 1844 فكان ليُغلقَ البابَ، ويأتيَ إلى أبيه، ليأخذَ مُلكه، وسلطانَ المُلك؛ وأمّا وقوفُ ميخائيل، فلكي يُظهرَ سلطانَه الملوكيَّ، الذي هو له بالفعل، في هلاكِ الأشرار، وفي إنقاذِ شعبه. وعلى ميخائيل أن يقفَ في الوقتِ الذي تأتي فيه القوّةُ الأخيرةُ المذكورةُ في الأصحاح 11 إلى نهايتها، ولا يكونُ لها مُعين. وهذه القوّةُ هي الأخيرةُ التي تدوسُ كنيسةَ الله الحقيقية؛ وبما أنّ الكنيسةَ الحقيقيةَ ما تزالُ تُداسُ وتُطرَحُ خارجًا من قِبَلِ العالمِ المسيحيِّ كلِّه، ينتجُ من ذلك أنّ آخرَ قوّةٍ مُضطهِدةٍ لم «تأتِ إلى نهايتها»؛ وأنّ ميخائيل لم يقفْ بعد. وهذه القوّةُ الأخيرةُ التي تدوسُ القديسين تُعرَضُ أمامنا في رؤيا 13:11-18. وعددُه 666». جيمس وايت، كلمة إلى القطيع الصغير، 8.
When Smith introduced his so-called “new light” on the subject of “the last power in Daniel chapter eleven,” James White saw Smith’s application, not as new light, but as an attack upon the foundations. The controversy of Rome as the king of the north in Daniel eleven that took place between Uriah Smith and James White possesses specific attributes, that as students of prophecy, we are to bring together with the other controversies of Adventist history concerning the symbol of Rome.
Smit dɛn kɛsɛŋ a tɔrɔ a kɛ “kɛnɛya kura” wɔ asɛm a ɛfa “tumi a etwa to wɔ Daniel ti du baako mu” ho no, James White huu sɛnea Smith de dii dwuma no, sɛ ɛnyɛ kɛnɛya kura, na mmom sɛ ɔtohyɛ a ɛrekɔ gyidie no fapem no so. Akasakasa a ɛfa Roma ho sɛ ɔhene a ofi atifi wɔ Daniel ti du baako mu, a ɛkɔɔ so wɔ Uriah Smith ne James White ntam no, kura su ahorow pɔtee bi, a ɛsɛ sɛ yɛn a yɛyɛ nkɔmhyɛ adesuafo de bata Adventist abakɔsɛm mu akasakasa afoforo a ɛfa Roma sɛ agyiraehyɛde ho no ho.
One of those attributes is the introduction of a private interpretation. Another attribute is that the application of the private interpretation requires a wresting of simple grammar, for Smith not only disregarded that every prophetic attribute in verse thirty-six addresses Rome, but he disregarded that the grammatical structure demands that the king of verse thirty-six must be the same king as represented in the previous passage.
Maikhanako oio ongkom haksa paꞌjlai thaiha inemni private interpretation ko introdakshan ongꞌa. Anga maikhanako oio ongkom haksa paꞌjlai, se private interpretation ni application nangba simple grammar ko wresting kaꞌani; chubata Smith, verse thirty-six-o prophetic attribute sakprak Rome-ko address ongꞌa ine paꞌsijaijaha nangjaha ongꞌjaha ongꞌa, aro grammatical structure-ni dabi ongꞌa je, verse thirty-six-ni raja, skanggipa passage-o talatgipa apsan raja ongꞌna nanggen.
Another is that the private interpretation was a rejection of foundational truths. Another is that it represents a rejection of the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy. Another characteristic is that the first flawed idea concerning Rome will lead to a prophetic model that disallows a person from keeping his garments as they approach the close of human probation. Another was the willingness to promote his private interpretation publicly. Another is that the private interpretation is invariably identified as new light. All of these attributes are represented within the current discussion of the “robbers of thy people.”
အခြားတစ်ချက်မှာ ထိုပုဂ္ဂလိကအနက်ဖွင့်ဆိုချက်သည် အခြေခံအမှန်တရားများကို ငြင်းပယ်ခြင်းဖြစ်သည်။ အခြားတစ်ချက်မှာ ၎င်းသည် ပရောဖက်ပြုခြင်း၏ဝိညာဉ်တော်၏ အာဏာကို ငြင်းပယ်ခြင်းကို ကိုယ်စားပြုသည်။ အခြားလက္ခဏာတစ်ရပ်မှာ ရောမနှင့်ဆိုင်သော ပထမဆုံးချို့ယွင်းသည့် အယူအဆသည် လူ့စမ်းသပ်ကာလ၏ အဆုံးနီးလာချိန်တွင် လူတစ်ဦးအား မိမိ၏အဝတ်ကို ထိန်းသိမ်းထားနိုင်ခြင်းမရှိစေသော ပရောဖက်ပြုဆိုင်ရာ ပုံစံတစ်ရပ်သို့ ဦးတည်စေမည်ဖြစ်သည်။ အခြားတစ်ချက်မှာ မိမိ၏ ပုဂ္ဂလိကအနက်ဖွင့်ဆိုချက်ကို အများရှေ့တွင် ထုတ်ဖော်မြှင့်တင်လိုသော စိတ်ဆန္ဒဖြစ်သည်။ အခြားတစ်ချက်မှာ ထိုပုဂ္ဂလိကအနက်ဖွင့်ဆိုချက်ကို “new light” ဟူ၍ မပြောင်းမလဲ သတ်မှတ်ဖော်ပြလေ့ရှိခြင်းဖြစ်သည်။ ဤလက္ခဏာအင်္ဂါရပ်အားလုံးသည် လက်ရှိ “robbers of thy people” နှင့်ပတ်သက်သော ဆွေးနွေးမှုအတွင်း၌ ကိုယ်စားပြုဖော်ပြလျက်ရှိသည်။
When the last controversy of Rome, which was typified by the first controversy of Rome identifying the “robbers of thy people,” is brought together with the prophetic line of Uriah Smith’s and James White’s controversy we will see that one class will be building their prophetic model upon a private interpretation, which rejects foundational truth.
Pan samay a pakakro iti maudi a panagbinnusor ti Roma, a naipakita babaen ti umuna a panagbinnusor ti Roma a mangisina kadagiti “agtakaw iti ili mo,” ket maisangpet iti maysa a talna kadagiti linya ti padto a panagbinnusor da Uriah Smith ken James White, makitatayo a ti maysa a bunggoy ket ipasdekna ti modelo na a naibatay iti padto iti maysa a naisangsangayan a panangipatarus, a mangilibak iti pamuon a kinapudno.
The rejection of the foundational truths automatically represents a rejection of the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy, which so soundly defends those foundational truths. That class will also be willing to present their view publicly, regardless of any concerns that may be raised about the impact the teaching might have upon God’s people around the globe.
Yäddäri läqäññä ḥaqqoññi haasayawochin mäqäbäl be-rasu ye-Mänfäsawi Tənbit səlṭan mätaläf yämiyammäləkət naw, yäzzihon läqäññä ḥaqqoññi haasayawoch bäṭänqaqe yämiyäqomm bä’əgzi’äbḥerawi Mänfäsawi Tənbit. Yäzzih aynät budənäm, yih timhirt be-’aläm zurya yä’allu yä’əgzi’äbḥer hizboch lay yämiyasäṭṭäw təs’əno mən endämiḥon yämikärräb anyaw nəgər bänoräm, astayätochachewn be-gəlts mähon läqäräb yifäqädu.
Immediately after 1844, in the first generation of Adventism, another controversy about Rome was introduced. That controversy continued to be agitated, until the false view was accepted in the third generation of Adventism. We will consider the controversy of the “daily” as the fourth of six lines we are now considering in the model of line upon line.
1844 yılından hemen sonra, Adventizmin ilk neslinde, Roma hakkında başka bir tartışma ortaya atıldı. Bu tartışma, Adventizmin üçüncü neslinde yanlış görüş kabul edilinceye dek kışkırtılmaya devam edildi. Şimdi, satır üzerine satır modelinde ele almakta olduğumuz altı hattan dördüncüsü olarak “günlük” tartışmasını inceleyeceğiz.
But before we take up the fourth line of the controversies of Rome, it needs to be remembered that in the previous article, when we were addressing verse ten of Daniel chapter eleven, we stated “Verse ten also directly connects the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six to the hidden history, but that line of truth is outside what we are here setting forth.”
Emma Rim papalipi qelqotí qotqan ñawpaqta, yuyarina kachun qhipa qillqapi, Daniel chunka hukniyuq t’aqapi chunka kaq versículota rimashaqtinchik, kayta nisqanchikta: “Versículo chunkaqa directo simiwan Levitico iskay chunka suqtayuq t’aqapi qanchis kutita pakasqa historiawan tinkichinpas, ichaqa chay cheqaq simi kaypi qawachkasqanchikmanta hawapi kashan.”
Uriah Smith was the leader in rejecting the seven times in 1863. He had rejected the increase of knowledge upon that subject that was presented in the articles on the subject, penned by Hiram Edson and published in the Review in 1856. The implications of Smith being associated with a movement that presented the seven times, but who thereafter rejected an increase of knowledge upon that very subject is also outside of the subject of the characteristics of Smith’s introduction of what he claimed was new light on the subject of the king of the north, but when we conclude our overview of the line of the Adventist controversies of Rome, we will return to both the significance of verse ten of chapter eleven of Daniel, and also what is represented by Smith’s rejection of the Laodicean message that arrived in 1856 with the increase of knowledge on the seven times.
ئورایا سمیت در سال 1863 پیشوای ردّ «هفت زمان» بود. او افزایشِ معرفت دربارهٔ آن موضوع را که در مقالات مربوط به آن، به قلم هیرام ادسون، ارائه شده و در سال 1856 در Review منتشر گردیده بود، رد کرده بود. دلالتهای این واقعیت که سمیت با جنبشی مرتبط بود که «هفت زمان» را مطرح ساخت، اما سپس افزایشِ معرفت را دقیقاً دربارهٔ همان موضوع رد نمود، نیز خارج از بحثِ ویژگیهای معرفیِ آنچه او دربارهٔ موضوعِ پادشاهِ شمال «نور جدید» میخوانْد، از سوی سمیت است؛ اما هنگامی که بررسی اجمالیِ خطِّ مناقشاتِ ادونتیستی دربارهٔ روم را به پایان برسانیم، هم به اهمیتِ آیهٔ ده از باب یازدهم دانیال بازخواهیم گشت، و هم به آنچه در ردّ پیامِ لائودیکیه از سوی سمیت نمایانده شده است؛ پیامی که در سال 1856 همراه با افزایشِ معرفت دربارهٔ «هفت زمان» وارد شد.
“Our faith in reference to the messages of the first, second, and third angels was correct. The great waymarks we have passed are immovable. Although the hosts of hell may try to tear them from their foundation, and triumph in the thought that they have succeeded, yet they do not succeed. These pillars of truth stand firm as the eternal hills, unmoved by all the efforts of men combined with those of Satan and his host. We can learn much, and should be constantly searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so.” Evangelism, 223.
“Mi san pexgamberên yekem, duyem û sêyem de baweriya me rast bû. Nîşaneyên mezin ên ku em ji wan derbas bûne nayên hejandin. Her çiqas leşkerên dojehê hewl bidin ku wan ji bingehê xwe derxînin û bi ramana ku serkeftine serfiraz bibin jî, dîsa sernekevin. Ev stûnên rastiyê wek girên herheyî pev dixwînin, li ber hemû hewldanên mirovan ku bi yên Şeytan û leşkerê wî re yek bûne, bêhejandin dimînin. Em dikarin gelek tiştan fêr bibin, û divê her dem Nivîsar bipirsînin da ku bibînin gelo ev tişt wisa ne.” Evangelism, 223.
“The great waymarks of truth, showing us our bearings in prophetic history, are to be carefully guarded, lest they be torn down, and replaced with theories that would bring confusion rather than genuine light.” Selected Messages, book 2, 101, 102.
«Жәлар анығыш һәқиқәт йол бәлгилири, пәйғәмбәрлик тарихида бизниң йөнилишимизни көрситидиған, еһтиятчанлиқ билән қоғдилиши керәк; токи улар вәйран қилинмисун вә уларниң орниға һәқиқий нурдин көрә арилашчилиқ елип келидиған нәзәрийәләр қоюлмисун.» Selected Messages, book 2, 101, 102.
“At this time many efforts will be made to unsettle our faith in the sanctuary question; but we must not waver. Not a pin is to be moved from the foundations of our faith. Truth is still truth. Those who become uncertain will drift into erroneous theories, and will finally find themselves infidel in regard to the past evidence we have had of what is truth. The old waymarks must be preserved, that we lose not our bearings.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55
“Ɔno bere yi mu wɔbɛyɛ mmɔden pii sɛ wɔde bɛwosow yɛn gyidi wɔ kronkronbea no ho asɛm no mu; nanso ɛnsɛ sɛ yɛhinhim. Ɛnsɛ sɛ wɔtu pin baako mpo fi yɛn gyidi fapem no mu. Nokware da so ara yɛ nokware. Wɔn a wɔbɛyɛ wɔn adwene ntanta no bɛkɔ akɔhyɛ atoro nkyerɛkyerɛ mu, na awiei koraa no wɔbɛhu wɔn ho sɛ nnyeadifo wɔ adanse a atwam a yɛanya afa nea ɛyɛ nokware ho no mu. Ɛsɛ sɛ wɔkora tete nsɛnkyerɛnne no so, na amma yɛanhwere yɛn kwan.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55