The increase of knowledge that is represented by the vision of the Ulai River is what ultimately was written upon Habakkuk’s two tables.
Pe kuaapy ñemongakuaa ojehechaukáva Ulai Ysyry visión rupive hína pe ipahápe ojehaíva Habacuc mokõi kuatia apére.
“Interwoven with prophecies which they had regarded as applying to the time of the second advent was instruction specially adapted to their state of uncertainty and suspense, and encouraging them to wait patiently in the faith that what was now dark to their understanding would in due time be made plain.
“Umi profesía-kuéra ndive, ha’ekuéra ohechava’ekue oje’aplikaha mokõiha jeju ára rehe, oĩkuri mbo’epy oñemohendáva porãite iñemondýi ha iñarõ asýpe g̃uarã, ha omokyre’ỹva chupekuéra toha’arõ hag̃ua paciencia reheve jeroviápe, pe ko’ág̃a iñypytũva iñentendimientópe, itiempoitépe ojekuaaukátaha hesakã porã hag̃uáicha.”
“Among these prophecies was that of Habakkuk 2:1–4: ‘I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what He will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved. And the Lord answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.’
“Ko’ã profesía apytépe oĩ pe Habacuc 2:1–4-pe oje’éva: ‘Che aime che ñangarekoha ári, ha añemoĩta che tórre ári, ha ama’ẽta ahecha hag̃ua mba’épa Ha’e he’íta chéve, ha mba’épa ambohováita ajehekombo’éramo. Upéi Ñandejára chembohovái ha he’i: Ehai pe visión, ha emboporu porã tabla-kuéra ári, ikatu hag̃uáicha oñani pe omoñe’ẽva. Pe visión niko gueteri peteĩ ára oñemoĩporã vaekuépe guarã, ha ipahápe oñe’ẽta ha ndijapúi: jepe ipuku hag̃uáicha, eha’arõ chupe; añetehápe oúta, ndahi’aréi mo’ãi. Péina, pe iñangapýva oñembotuicháva ndohupytýi tekojoja ipype; pe hekojojáva katu oikovéta ijerovia rupi.’”
“As early as 1842 the direction given in this prophecy to ‘write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it,’ had suggested to Charles Fitch the preparation of a prophetic chart to illustrate the visions of Daniel and the Revelation. The publication of this chart was regarded as a fulfillment of the command given by Habakkuk. No one, however, then noticed that an apparent delay in the accomplishment of the vision—a tarrying time—is presented in the same prophecy. After the disappointment, this scripture appeared very significant: ‘The vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry…. The just shall live by his faith.” The Great Controversy, 391, 392.
“1842-pe voi jepe guive, ko profesía ome'ẽva ñembohape ‘ehai hag̃ua pe visión, ha emyesakã hag̃ua itáblape, ikatu hag̃uáicha odipara pe omoñe'ẽva chupe,’ omokyre'ỹ Charles Fitch-pe ombosako'i hag̃ua peteĩ cuadro profesiagua omyesakã hag̃ua Daniel ha Apocalipsis-pe ojehechaukáva visión-kuérape. Ko cuadro oñemoherakuãrõ guare ojehecha kuri ramo peteĩ ñekumplimiénto pe tembiapoukapy Habacuc ome'ẽva rehe. Upéicharõ jepe, avave ndohechakuaái upérõ pe profesía peteĩteĩme voi ojehechaukaha peteĩ jekoare aparénte pe visión ñekumplimiéntope—peteĩ aravo ojepyta hag̃uáicha. Pe ñembotavy rire, ko Escritura ojehecha iporãitereiha he'iséva: ‘Pe visión niko gueteri peteĩ ára oñemoĩmava guarã, ha ipahápe oñe'ẽta, ha ndijapumo'ãi: ha'e oñembotavyramo jepe, eha'arõ chupe; añetehápe ou hag̃uágui, ndahi'aréi mo'ãi…. Pe ijojáva oikove va'erã ijerovia rupi.’ The Great Controversy, 391, 392.”
The two tables of Habakkuk are prophetically two witnesses. Biblically, two witnesses are to be brought together to establish truth.
Mokõi tabla Habacuc pegua ha’e profétikamente mokõi testígo. Bíblicamente, mokõi testígo oñembyaty va’erã oñemoañete hag̃ua pe añetegua.
But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Matthew 8:16.
Ha ndohendúiramo ndéve, eraha ne ndive peteĩ térã mokõi ambue, mokõi térã mbohapy testígo jurúpe ojejoko hag̃ua opa ñeʼẽ. Mateo 8:16.
When Habakkuk’s two tables (the 1843 and 1850 pioneer charts) are overlaid with each other they confirm the truths that were the “jewels” of Miller’s dream. The mistake of 1843, represented upon the first table, when overlaid with the second table, establishes the “tarrying time” of the vision. Miller (the symbolic watchman of that history) asked what he was to say during the debate of his history.
Oñembojoajúramo ojuehe Habacuc mokõi tabla (1843 ha 1850 ary pegua cuadro pionero-kuéra), ombohovái hikuái umi añetegua ha’éva “jeguaka’ẽ” pe sueño Miller reheguape. Pe jejavy 1843 gua, ojehechaukáva pe primera tabla ári, oñembojoajúramo pe mokõiháre, omopyenda pe visión “aravo oñeha’arõha”. Miller (upe ñangarekoha simbólico upe tembiasakue rehegua) oporandu mba’épa he’íta va’erã pe debate oikóva guare pe hembiasakue ryepýpe.
I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved. Habakkuk 2:1.
Che aime hag̃ua che ñangarekoha ári, ha amoĩta chejupe torre ári, ha ama’ẽta aikuaa hag̃ua mbaʼépa heʼíta chéve, ha mbaʼépa ambohováita oñemongyʼa jave che rehe. Habacuc 2:1.
The Lord instructed Miller to write the vision, and in his dream he placed the casket which contained the vision on a table in the center of his room.
Pe Señor ombo’e Miller-pe ohai hag̃ua pe visión, ha ikérape omoĩ pe arkita orekóva pe visión peteĩ mesa ári, iñkoty mbytépe.
And the Lord answered me, and said, Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. Habakkuk 2:2.
Ha Ñandejára he’i chéve, ha he’i: Ehai pe visión, ha embosako’i porã mba’yrupáre, oikuaa hag̃uáicha pya’e pe omoñe’ẽva. Habacuc 2:2.
The tables then identify the tarrying time and the first disappointment.
Upéi umi tabla ohechauka pe tiempo de demora ha pe primera desilusión.
For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. Habakkuk 2:3.
Pe visión niko gueteri peteĩ ára oñemohendámavape g̃uarã; ha ipahápe oñe’ẽta, ha ndijapúimo’ãi: jepe itaríramo, eha’arõ chupe; anichéne oúta katuete, ndaitaririmo’ãi. Habacuc 2:3.
Then the two classes that are manifested based upon the increase of knowledge are represented.
Upéi umi mokõi aty ojehechauka oĩva arandu hetave hag̃ua rupive.
Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. Habakkuk 2:4.
Péina, pe oikovéva hína ánga ndaha’éi hekojojáva ipype; ha pe hekojojáva oikovéta ijerovia rupi. Habacuc 2:4.
The two classes of worshippers would be manifested by the testing process of Daniel chapter twelve.
Mokõi aty umi adoradór rupi ojehechaukáta pe ñeha’ãnga rupive oñemombe’úva Daniel kapítulo doce-pe.
And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand. Daniel 12:9, 10.
Ha he’i: Tereho nde rapére, Daniel; umi ñe’ẽ oñembotypa ha oñemongu’e hag̃ua pe ára paha peve. Heta oñemopotĩta, oñemomorotĩta ha oñeha’ãta; ha umi ñaña katu ojapóta ivaíva; ha avave umi ñaña apytégui noikũmbymo’ãi; umi arandu katu oikũmbýta. Daniel 12:9, 10.
The “wise” of Daniel are the wise virgins of Matthew twenty-five who were justified by faith, and the wicked were the foolish virgins who were lifted up in pride. At the end of Miller’s dream, the jewels represent the oil in the parable of the ten virgins, which was the message.
Daniel pe “arandúva” ha’e Mateo mokõipa po virgen arandu kuéra, oñembojuruja va’ekue jerovia rupive; ha umi iñañáva ha’e umi virgen tavy kuéra, oñembotuicha va’ekue ñemomba’eguasúpe. Miller kerayvoty paha gotyo, umi ita jeguaka ha’e pe ñandy pe parábola diez virgen rehegua, ha’éva pe marandu.
“God is dishonored when we do not receive the communications which he sends us. Thus we refuse the golden oil which he would pour into our souls to be communicated to those in darkness. When the call shall come, ‘Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him,’ those who have not received the holy oil, who have not cherished the grace of Christ in their hearts, will find, like the foolish virgins, that they are not ready to meet their Lord. They have not, in themselves, the power to obtain the oil, and their lives are wrecked.” Review and Herald, July 20, 1897.
“Ñamomirĩ Tupãpe ndajajapyhyjái ramo umi marandu ha’e ñandéve omondo va’ekue. Péicha roñembotove pe aséite órova ha’e ohekuavo hag̃uáicha ñane ánga kuérape, ikatu hag̃uáicha oñembohasa umi pytũmbýpe oĩvape. Ha pe ñehenói oguahẽ vove, ‘Péina, pe novio ou; pesẽ pejotopa hag̃ua hese,’ umi ndojapyhýiva’ekue pe aséite marangatu, umi nomokunu’ũiva’ekue Cristo gracia ipy’ápe, ojuhúta, umi kuñataĩ arandu’ỹicha, ndaikatuiha oĩ hag̃uáicha ojojuhu haguã Ijára ndive. Ha’ekuéra ndoguerekói ijehegui pe pu’aka ohupyty hag̃uáicha pe aséite, ha hekove kuéra oñehundi.” Review and Herald, July 20, 1897.
Miller’s jewels in the last days would shine ten times brighter, and both the number ten is a symbol of a test, as is light. In the last days, represented in the end of Miller’s dream, the light of truth represented upon Habakkuk’s tables produces a testing message, which in the parable of the ten virgins is the testing message of the Midnight Cry. That testing process is a repetition of the testing process of Millerite history, for the parable of the ten virgins is repeated to the very letter in the last days.
Miller joyakuéra umi ára pahápe overeséta pa’ẽmbyryve diez jey, ha mokõivéva, pe papapy diez ha pe tesape, ha’e peteĩ símbolo peteĩ prueba rehegua. Umi ára pahápe, ojehechaukáva Miller kerayvoty paha rupi, pe añetegua resape ojehechaukáva Habacuc tablas ári omoheñói peteĩ marandu de prueba rehegua, ha upéva, umi diez virgen parábola-pe, ha’e pe marandu de prueba rehegua Midnight Cry rehegua. Upe proceso de prueba ha’e peteĩ jevyjey pe proceso de prueba rehegua historia Millerita-pe, pórke umi diez virgen parábola oñembopyahu jey pe letra peve umi ára pahápe.
“I am often referred to the parable of the ten virgins, five of whom were wise, and five foolish. This parable has been and will be fulfilled to the very letter, for it has a special application to this time, and, like the third angel’s message, has been fulfilled and will continue to be present truth till the close of time.” Review and Herald, August 19, 1890.
“Py’ỹi oñemombe’u chéve pe parábola rehegua umi diez kuñataĩ rehe, po ha’eva’ekue arandu ha po tavýva. Ko parábola oñekumpli va’ekue ha oñekumplíta pe letra peve, oguerekógui peteĩ aplicación especial ko árape g̃uarã, ha, pe mensáhe ángel mbohapyha guáicha, oñekumpli va’ekue ha osegíta ha’évo añetegua ko ára peve opa hag̃ua ára.” Review and Herald, August 19, 1890.
The experience of the tarrying time would be repeated to the very letter at the end of Miller’s dream, and his jewels would then shine ten times brighter than the sun, thus identifying that the jewels represent the final test in the parable of the ten virgins. Ten is the symbol of a test, and at the end of ten days Daniel and the three worthies were visually fairer and fatter than those who were eating the diet of Babylon. The proud in Habakkuk who lived by presumption, not faith, developed the character of Babylon. In Millerite history they became the daughters of Babylon, and in Habakkuk the papacy is used to identify their character.
Pe ára de espera ojerejeytaiteva’erã pe letraite peve Miller képe ipahápe, ha upérõ ijegua kuéra omimbi va’erãta kuarahýgui jepe pa veces hesakãvévaicha, upéicha ojehechakuaávo umi jegua ohechauka hag̃ua pe prueba paha pe parábola de las diez vírgenes-pe. Pa ha’e pe símbolo peteĩ prueba rehegua, ha pa ára pahápe Daniel ha umi mbohapy kuimba’e hekojojáva ojehecha porãve ha ikyvéva umi okarúva Babilonia rembi’u rehegui. Umi oñemomba’eguasúva Habacuc-pe, oikóva ñemomba’eguasu rupive ha ndaha’éi jerovia rupive, omoakãrapu’ã Babilonia rekome’ẽ. Historia Millerita-pe ha’ekuéra oiko Babilonia rajykuéraramo, ha Habacuc-pe pe papado ojepuru ojehechauka hag̃ua ijarekóva pe carácter.
Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. Yea also, because he transgresseth by wine, he is a proud man, neither keepeth at home, who enlargeth his desire as hell, and is as death, and cannot be satisfied, but gathereth unto him all nations, and heapeth unto him all people: Shall not all these take up a parable against him, and a taunting proverb against him, and say, Woe to him that increaseth that which is not his! how long? and to him that ladeth himself with thick clay! Shall they not rise up suddenly that shall bite thee, and awake that shall vex thee, and thou shalt be for booties unto them? Because thou hast spoiled many nations, all the remnant of the people shall spoil thee; because of men’s blood, and for the violence of the land, of the city, and of all that dwell therein. Habakkuk 2:4–8.
Péina, upe iñánga oñemopuʼãva ndahaʼéi hekojoja ipype; ha pe hekojojáva oikovéta ijerovia rupi. Ha avei, vino rupi oñembotavygui, haʼe kuimbaʼe oñemombaʼeguasúva, ndaopytái hógape; ombotuicháva hiʼãha Aña retãicha, ha ojogua ñemanóme, ha ndojejokói arakaʼeve; ohenondeʼáva hag̃ua ijehe opa tetãnguéra, ha ombyaty hag̃ua ijehe opa tavayguakuérape. Ndahupytýi piko koʼãva opavave omopuʼã peteĩ ñeʼẽjoja hese, ha peteĩ ñeʼẽ mbotavyha hese, ha heʼi: ¡Ai pe ombohetáva mbaʼe ndahaʼéiva imbaʼe! ¿Arakaʼe peve? ha pe oñembohysyiva ijatiʼy hũmbáva rehe! Ndopúi piko pyaʼe umi nde suʼútava, ha ndopáy piko umi nemongyhyjétava, ha nde reikóta chupekuéra rembiapyrãramo? Reipeʼágui heta tetãnguéra mbaʼe, opa umi tavaygua hembýva oipeʼáta ndehegui; yvypóra ruguy rehe, ha yvy rehe jejopy vai rupi, táva rehe, ha opa umi upépe oikóvare. Habakkuk 2:4–8.
The testing process brought upon the virgins of Matthew twenty-five produces a class of worshippers, who have developed the character of the king of the north (the papacy), who is also the power that “spoiled many nations.”
Pe proceso de prueba oúva umi vírgen Mateo mokõipa popegua ári ogueru peteĩ aty adoradorkuéra rehegua, ohekorupytyva’ekue pe karai Norte-pegua (pe papado) rekove tee, ha’éva avei pe pokatu “omondáva’ekue heta tetãnguéra.”
Thus saith the Lord, Behold, a people cometh from the north country, and a great nation shall be raised from the sides of the earth. They shall lay hold on bow and spear; they are cruel, and have no mercy; their voice roareth like the sea; and they ride upon horses, set in array as men for war against thee, O daughter of Zion. We have heard the fame thereof: our hands wax feeble: anguish hath taken hold of us, and pain, as of a woman in travail. Go not forth into the field, nor walk by the way; for the sword of the enemy and fear is on every side. O daughter of my people, gird thee with sackcloth, and wallow thyself in ashes: make thee mourning, as for an only son, most bitter lamentation: for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us. Jeremiah 6:22–26.
Péicha he'i Ñandejára: Péina ápe, peteĩ tetãgua ou yvy gotyo yvate guive, ha peteĩ tetã guasu oñemopuʼãta yvy rembeʼýgui. Haʼekuéra ojokóta arco ha kyse puku; iñañaiterei ha ndorekói poriahuvereko; ijayvu osapukái yguasuicha; ha oguata kavaju ári, oñemohenda kuimbaʼe ñorairõrãicha nde rehe, Sión rajy. Rohendu herakuã: ñande po ikangy; ñembyasýgui japyhy, ha mbaʼasy kuña imemby hag̃uáicha. Aníke pesẽ ñúme, ni peguata tape rupi; mbaʼére, enemigo kyse puku ha kyhyje oĩ opa hendáre. Che retãygua rajy, eñemonde ao ajagüégui, ha ejeity tanimbúpe; ejapo hag̃ua ñembyasy peteĩ taʼýra peteĩnte hag̃uáicha, jaheʼo asy etereíva; mbaʼére, pe ohundíva outa sapyʼaite ñande ári. Jeremías 6:22–26.
Habakkuk’s two classes are those who are justified by faith, and those who ate and drank the doctrines of Babylon. Those in the last days of Miller’s dream that are represented as virgins, either develop the character of Christ, and thus receive the seal of God, or they develop the character of the papacy and receive the mark of the beast.
Mokõi aty oĩva Habacuc-pe ha’e umi oñemomarangatúva jerovia rupive, ha umi ho’u ha hoy’u Babilonia rembiapokue doctrinal-kuérape. Umi oĩva umi ára paha peve, Miller kerayvotýpe ojehechaukáva kuñataĩnguéraicha, térã omongakuaa Cristo rekokatu, ha upéicha ohupyty Tupã sello, térã omongakuaa papado rekokatu ha ohupyty mymba ñaña marca.
“The time has come for the true light to shine amid moral darkness. The third angel’s message has been sent forth to the world, warning men against receiving the mark of the beast or of his image in their foreheads or in their hands. To receive this mark means to come to the same decision as the beast has done, and to advocate the same ideas, in direct opposition to the word of God. Of all who receive this mark, God says, ‘The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.’” Review and Herald, July 13, 1897.
“Oguahẽma ára pe tesape añetegua omimbi hag̃ua tekoporã’ỹ pytũmby mbytépe. Mbohapyha ánhel rembiaporã oñemondo ko yvy tuichakue javeve, oñemomarandu hag̃ua yvypórape ani hag̃ua oguereko mymba vai térã ta’ãnga rehegua techaukaha ijyva kuéra ári térã ipo kuéra ári. Oñegueraha hag̃ua ko techaukaha he’ise ojeju hag̃ua peteĩchagua ñemoĩme mymba vai ojapohaguéicha, ha oñemotenonde hag̃ua umi temimo’ẽ peteĩchagua, Tupã Ñe’ẽ rovake porãite. Opa umi ogueraháva ko techaukaha rehe, Tupã he’i: ‘Upeicha avei ho’úta Tupã pochy kaguy, oñeñohẽva oñembojehe’a’ỹre ipochy ryrupe; ha oñembyasýta tata ha asufre rupive umi ánhel marangatu renondépe, ha Ovecha Ra’y renondépe.’” Review and Herald, 13 de julio de 1897.
The virgins that drink the wine of Babylon will ultimately drink the wine of God’s wrath. In Isaiah, the drunkards of Ephraim manifest their blind drunkenness by turning things upside down, and that action is to be esteemed as “potter’s clay.”
Umi virhén o’u vaekue Babilóni víno, ipahápe ho’úta Tupã pochykue víno. Isaías-pe, Efraín ka’u vaekue ohechauka iñakañy ka’úre ombojerepa hag̃ua opa mba’e, ha upe tembiapo oñeñandu va’erã “ñai’ũ ñembiapohára mba’erãicha”.
The identification of “the daily” as a symbol of Christ, turns the truth of “the daily” upside down, for “the daily,” is a satanic symbol. Miller’s identification of “the daily” as paganism is directly represented upon Habakkuk’s tables. Miller’s discovery of the passage in Thessalonians, which allowed him to understand that it was paganism that was “taken away,” in order for the “man of sin” who sits in the temple of God to be revealed, is the primary truth located in 2 Thessalonians, chapter two.
Pe oñemombe’úva “pe ára ha ára” ha’eha peteĩ símbolo Cristo rehegua omoakãpytĩvérõ pe añetegua “pe ára ha ára” rehegua, pórke “pe ára ha ára” ha’e peteĩ símbolo satánico. Miller ohechakuaa hag̃ua “pe ára ha ára” ha’eha paganísmo, upéva oñerrepresenta hag̃uaichaite Habacuc táva ári. Miller ojuhu hag̃ua pe pasáhe Tesalonicenses-pe, ome’ẽva’ekue chupe oikũmby hag̃ua ha’eha paganísmo pe “ojeipe’áva’ekue”, ikatu hag̃uáicha ojekuaauka pe “kuimba’e angaipa rehegua” oguapýva Tupã templope, upéva hína pe añetegua tenondegua oĩva 2 Tesalonicenses, kapítulo mokõi-pe.
“I read on, and could find no other case in which it [the daily] was found, but in Daniel. I then [by the aid of a concordance] took those words which stood in connection with it, ‘take away;’ he shall take away the daily; ‘from the time the daily shall be taken away,’ etc. I read on, and thought I should find no light on the text; finally I came to 2 Thessalonians 2:7, 8. ‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked be revealed,’ etc. And when I had come to that text, O, how clear and glorious the truth appeared! There it is! That is the daily! Well, now, what does Paul mean by ‘he who now letteth,’ or hindereth? By ‘the man of sin,’ and the ‘wicked,’ Popery is meant. Well, what is it which hinders Popery from being revealed? Why, it is Paganism; well, then, ‘the daily’ must mean Paganism.’—William Miller, Second Advent Manual, page 66.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, January 6, 1853.
“Alee hag̃ua, ha ndaikatúi ajuhu ambue káso ojejuhuhápe upéva [pe ára ha ára], ndaha’éiramo Daniel-pe año. Upéi [peteĩ concordancia pytyvõ rupive] aipyhy umi ñe’ẽ oĩva hendive joajúpe, ‘oipe’a hag̃ua’; ha’e oipe’áta pe ára ha ára; ‘pe ára ha ára ojeipe’áta guive,’ h.a. Aleeve, ha aime hag̃uáicha ndajuhumo’ãi mba’eve mohesakãva pe texto; ipahápe aju 2 Tesalonicenses 2:7, 8-pe. ‘Pe tekoañámegua mba’evai ñemimby niko omba’apóma; pe ko’ág̃a ojoko vaekue añoite ojokóta, pe tapegui ojeipe’a peve, ha upérõ pe hekoañáva ojekuaaukáta,’ h.a. Ha ag̃uahẽvo upe texto-pe, ¡ajépa hesakã porã ha mimbipa pe añetegua ojechauka! ¡Upépe oĩ! ¡Upéva hína pe ára ha ára! Añetehápe, ko’ág̃a, mba’épa he’ise Pablo he’ívo ‘pe ko’ág̃a ojokóva,’ térã ombotapykue’óva? ‘Pe kuimba’e angaipa rehegua’ ha ‘pe hekoañáva’ rupive, oñe’ẽ hína Popería rehe. Upéicharõ, mba’épa ojokóva Popería ani hag̃ua ojekuaauka? Añete, upéva hína Paganismo; upéicharõ, ‘pe ára ha ára’ tekotevẽ he’ise Paganismo.” —William Miller, Second Advent Manual, página 66. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 6 jasypakõi, 1853.
The meaning of “the daily” in Thessalonians, which Miller discovered, is the primary truth of the passage. When Paul identifies those who do not love the truth, and who will therefore receive strong delusion, he is most certainly identifying the hatred of truth in the general sense, but the truth which is directly referenced in the passage is the truth that “the daily,” represents pagan Rome.
Pe “mba’éichapa oje’e hína ‘pe ára ha ára pegua’” Tesalonicenses-pe, Miller ojuhuva’ekue, ha’e pe añetegua tenondegua upe pasáhepegua. Pablo ohechauka jave umi ndohayhúiva pe añetegua, ha upévare oguerohorytaha hikuái peteĩ ñembotavy mbarete, katuete ohechauka hína pe ñembyai añetegua rehegua sentido general-pe; ha pe añetegua oñeñe’ẽ directamente hese upe pasáhepe ha’e pe añetegua “pe ára ha ára pegua” ohechauka hag̃ua Roma pagána.
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Matthew 6:22–24.
Tete rehecha hína nde resa: upévare, nde resa ipotĩ ramo, nde rete pukukue tuichakue oĩta henyhẽ tesakãgui. Ha nde resa ivaí ramo, nde rete pukukue tuichakue oĩta henyhẽ pytũgui. Upévare, pe tesakã oĩva nderehe pytũ ramo, mba’eichaitépa tuicha upe pytũ! Avave ndaikatúi oservi mokõi járape: peteĩme niko ndaija’éimo’ãi ha ohayhúta ambuépe; térã ojokóta peteĩre ha omboykéta ambuépe. Peẽ ndaikatúi peservi Tupãme ha mamónpe. Mateo 6:22–24.
There is only a love for truth, or a hatred of the truth. There is no middle ground. The strong delusion that comes upon the foolish virgins of Matthew twenty-five is based upon their rejection of the light of Miller’s jewels that represent the final test. Ancient Israel’s final test, was their tenth test, and Miller’s jewels shine ten times brighter in the last days. The symbol of the rejection of Miller’s jewels is “the daily,” which the drunkards of Ephraim turned upside down in the third generation of Adventism. “The daily” is a satanic symbol of paganism. The drunkards introduced a counterfeit jewel, which they brought from apostate Protestantism that identifies “the daily,” as a symbol of Christ.
Oĩ peteĩ añónte mborayhu añeteguáre, térã ñembotavy añetegua rehe. Ndaipóri mbytegua. Pe jejavy mbarete ouva umi virgen iñakãhatãvape Mateo mokõipa popeguape oñemopyenda hína hikuái omboykére rehe pe tesape umi joya Miller rehegua rehe, umíva ohechaukáva pe prueba pahaite. Israel yma guare prueba pahaite vaʼekue, haʼe vaʼekue iprueba décima, ha umi joya Miller rehegua omimbi diez jeyve hag̃ua ára pahápe. Pe taʼanga ohechaukáva oñemboykeha umi joya Miller rehegua haʼe “pe ára ha ára”, upéva umi kaʼuáva Efraín pegua ombojere vaʼekue akã yvýre mbohapyha generación adventista ryepýpe. “Pe ára ha ára” haʼe peteĩ símbolo satanico paganismo rehegua. Umi kaʼuáva omoingéva peteĩ joya japu, oguerúva protestantismo apóstata-gui, ha upéva omoĩ “pe ára ha ára” ramo peteĩ símbolo Cristo rehegua.
Miller’s understanding of his jewels was limited by the history in which he was raised up. Convinced the Second Coming was the next prophetic event, the deadly wound of the papacy in 1798, could only represent the fourth and final earthly kingdom of Daniel two. Miller was also limited in his understanding of “the daily,” for his testimony is that through revelation he was led to a specific method of study, in which he stated that he used his Bible, Cruden’s Concordance and read some newspapers. His decision to study in that manner had simply come into his mind.
Miller oikũmby porã hag̃ua umi ita jeguaka rehegua ipyʼaguapyeterei pe tembiasakue oñemongakuaahague rupi. Ojeroviágui pe Mokõiha Jejuha haʼeha pe mbaʼe profétiko oútava upe rire, pe papado ñembyai vaiete ojehúva ary 1798-pe ikatu hag̃uánte ohechauka pe irundyha ha paha reino yvy arigua Daniel mokõihápe. Miller avei ipyʼaguapyeterei pe “diario” ñemyesakã rehe, pórke hekope’ẽ heʼi pe revelasión rupive oñeguerahaha hague peteĩ método específico de estudio-pe, upépe heʼíva oiporu hague iBiblia, Cruden’s Concordance ha olee hague algunos periódicos. Iñemoĩ hag̃uáicha ostudia upeichaite simplemente ou vaʼekue ipyʼapýpe.
“During, the twelve years I was a deist, I read all histories I could find; but now I loved the Bible It taught of Jesus! But still there was a good deal of the Bible that was dark to me. In 1818 or 19, while conversing with a friend! To whom I made a visit, and who had known and [heard] me talk while I was a deist, he inquired, in rather a significant manner, ‘What do you think of this text, and that?’ referring to the old texts I objected to while a deist. I understood what he was about, and replied—If you will give me time, I will tell you what they mean. ‘How long time do you want?’ I don’t know, but I will tell you, I replied, for I could not believe that God had given a revelation that could not be understood. I then resolved to study my Bible, believing I could find out what the Holy Spirit meant. But as soon as I had formed this resolution the thought came to me—‘Suppose you find a passage that you cannot understand, what will you do?’ This mode of studying the Bible then came to my mind:—I will take the words of such passages, and trace them through the Bible, and find out their meaning in this way. I had Cruden’s Concordance, which I think is the best in the world; so I took that and my Bible, and set down to my desk, and read nothing else, except the newspapers a little, for I was determined to know what my Bible meant. Apollos Hale, The Second Advent Manual, 65.
“Umi doce áño aja deísta ramo aime vaʼekue jave, alee opaite tembiasakue ikatúva ajuhu; ha koʼág̃a katu ahayhu vaʼekue la Biblia. Haʼe omboʼe Jesús rehegua. Upéicharõ jepe, heta mbaʼe oĩva la Bibliape iñypytũ gueteri chéve. Áño 1818 térã 1819-pe, añemongeta aja peteĩ che irũnguéndi, ahávo avisitá chupe, ha haʼe oikuaa ha [ohendu] vaʼekue che ñeʼẽngue deísta ramo aime jave, oporandu chéve, peteĩ hendáicha heʼisévape, ‘Mbaʼe ere ko téxto rehe, ha pe ambuévare?’ oñeʼẽvo umi téxto yma guare rehe, che ambotovéva deísta ramo aime jave. Aikuaa porã mbaʼérepa oporandu, ha ambohovái:—Remeʼẽramo chéve tiempo, haʼéta ndéve mbaʼépa heʼise. ‘Mboy tiempo-pa reikotevẽ?’ Ndaikuaái, péro haʼéta ndéve, ambohovái, ndaikatúigui aguerovia Tupã omeʼẽ hague peteĩ revelación ndaikatúiva oñentende. Upérõ añemoĩ che pyʼaguapýpe astudia hag̃ua che Biblia, agueroviávo ikatuha ajuhu mbaʼépa heʼise pe Espíritu Santo. Péro upe resolución ajapo hag̃uáicha rire voi, ko pensamiento ou chéve—‘Ha rejuhúrõ peteĩ pasáhe ndaikatúiva rentende, mbaʼépa rejapóta?’ Upérõ ko tapeicha añemoarandu hag̃ua la Biblia ou che akãme:—Ajagarráta umi ñeʼẽ oĩva umi pasáhepe, ha ahaperekóta pe Bibliakue rupi, ha péicha ajuhúta mbaʼépa heʼise. Areko vaʼekue Cruden’s Concordance, che aime hag̃ua, kóva hína pe iporãvéva ko yvy ape ári; upévare agueraha upéva ha che Biblia, ha aguapy che mesápe, ha ndaaleéi ambue mbaʼe, sapyʼami umi kuatiañeʼẽnguénte, chembopyʼaguasúgui aikuaa hag̃ua mbaʼépa heʼise che Biblia. Apollos Hale, The Second Advent Manual, 65.”
Miller’s jewels were not simply recognized by his method of study, but also by direct revelation from God.
Miller rembiporã ndaha’éi ojehechakuaánte iñemoarandu rape rupive, ha katu avei ñemombe’u porãite rupive osẽva’ekue Tupãgui.
“God sent His angel to move upon the heart of a farmer who had not believed the Bible, to lead him to search the prophecies. Angels of God repeatedly visited that chosen one, to guide his mind and open to his understanding prophecies which had ever been dark to God’s people. The commencement of the chain of truth was given to him, and he was led on to search for link after link, until he looked with wonder and admiration upon the Word of God. He saw there a perfect chain of truth. That Word which he had regarded as uninspired now opened before his vision in its beauty and glory. He saw that one portion of Scripture explains another, and when one passage was closed to his understanding, he found in another part of the Word that which explained it. He regarded the sacred Word of God with joy and with the deepest respect and awe.” Early Writings, 230.
“Ñandejára omondo Iángelpe omýi hag̃ua peteĩ kokuekarai py’a ári, ndogueroviáiva’ekue la Biblia, ogueraha hag̃ua chupe ohesa’ỹijo hag̃ua umi profesía. Ñandejára remimboukuéra oho jevy jevývo ovisita hag̃ua upe ojeporavo va’ekuépe, omboguata hag̃ua iñakãme ha oipe’a hag̃ua iñentendimientorã umi profesía ymaite guive iñypytũva’ekue Ñandejára retãyguápe g̃uarã. Pe ñepyrũmby joaju añetegua rehegua oñeme’ẽ chupe, ha oguerahahína chupe toheka hag̃ua peteĩ joaju rapykue ambue joaju, peve omaña hag̃ua ñemondýi porã ha mborayhu reheve Ñandejára Ñe’ẽ rehe. Ha’e ohecha upépe peteĩ joaju añetegua perfecto. Upe Ñe’ẽ, ha’e oimo’ã hague ndaha’éiha Tupãgui ouva’ekue, ko’ág̃a ojepe’a henondépe hechapyrãrõ iporã ha imimbipa reheve. Ha’e ohecha peteĩ Escritura pehẽngue omyesakãha ambuepe, ha peteĩ pasáhe oñemboty jave iñentendimientogui, ojuhu ambue hendápe pe Ñe’ẽme upe omyesakãva upéva. Ha’e omomba’e Ñandejára Ñe’ẽ marangatu vy’a reheve ha tembiapoite guasu mborayhu ha kyhyje marangatu ndive.” Early Writings, 230.
When Sister White states that “God sent His angel” to Miller, it is identifying that Gabriel was the angel sent to Miller, for “His angel,” is a term assigned to Gabriel.
Pe ermána White he’i vove “Tupã omondo Iángel” Miller-pe, ohechauka hína Gabriel hague pe ánhel oñemondova’ekue Miller-pe, “Iángel” niko peteĩ ñe’ẽ ojepurúva ojehechauka hag̃ua Gabriel-pe.
“The words of the angel, ‘I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God,’ show that he holds a position of high honor in the heavenly courts. When he came with a message to Daniel, he said, ‘There is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael [Christ] your Prince.’ Daniel 10:21. Of Gabriel the Saviour speaks in the Revelation, saying that ‘He sent and signified it by His angel unto His servant John.’ Revelation 1:1.” The Desire of Ages, 99.
“Pe ánhel ñe’ẽ, ‘Che hína Gabriel, aĩva Tupã renondépe,’ ohechauka ha’e oguerekoha peteĩ tenda yvate jehecharamóva yvagapegua huísio-kuérape. Oguahẽrõ guare peteĩ marandu reheve Daniel-pe, he’i: ‘Avave ndaipóri che ndive oĩva ko’ã mba’épe, ndaha’éiramo Miguel [Cristo], pene Ruvicha.’ Daniel 10:21. Gabriel rehegua, pe Salvador oñe’ẽ Apocalípsis-pe, he’ívo: ‘Ha’e omondo ha oikuaauka iñánhel rupive hembiguái Juan-pe.’ Apocalipsis 1:1.” The Desire of Ages, 99.
Gabriel and the other angels guided Miller’s “mind and” opened “to his understanding prophecies which had ever been dark to God’s people.” His message was not simply developed through his method of study, but also by Divine revelation. The very method he employed to study the Bible just came into his mind. When God brings truth to our mind, it is a Divine revelation as opposed to arriving at truth through the process of rightly dividing the Bible. Miller did both, but Divine revelation was a part of how Miller came to understand the subject of “the daily.”
Gabriel ha ambue ánhelkuéra omoakã Miller “apytu’ũ ha” ombojuruja “iñe’ẽrendupyrãme umi profesía ymaite guive pytũva’ekue Tupã retãygua kuérape guarã”. Imarandu ndaha’éi oñemoheñóiva añónte iñemoarandu rape rupive, ha katu avei Revelación Divina rupive. Pe tapeete voi ha’e oipuruva’ekue ohesa’ỹijo hag̃ua la Biblia ounte kuri ipytuhẽme. Tupã ogueru jave añetegua ñane apytu’ũme, upéva ha’e peteĩ Revelación Divina, ha ndaha’éi jaheguahẽva añeteguápe la Biblia jepe’a porã rapekue rupive. Miller ojapo mokõivéva, péro Revelación Divina oikeva’ekue avei mba’éichapa Miller oguahẽ ohendu hag̃ua pe mba’e “the daily” rehegua.
Miller would not have recognized the gender oscillation of Daniel chapter eight, verses nine through twelve, for all he had was the Bible and a concordance that is void of any information concerning the biblical languages. He would not have seen the distinction between ‘sur’ and ‘rum’ which are both translated as “take away.” He would have not seen the distinction between ‘miqdash’ and ‘qodesh’ which are both translated as “sanctuary.”
Míller ndoikuaamo’ãikuri pe género osyryrýva Daniel aranduka capítulo ocho, versículos nueve guive doce peve, taguerekógui añoite la Biblia ha peteĩ concordancia ndaipóriha pype marandu mba’eveichagua ñe’ẽnguéra bíblicas rehegua. Ndohecháimo’ãi kuri pe joavy ‘sur’ ha ‘rum’ apytépe, mokõivéva oñembohasáva “ojegueraha hag̃ua.” Ndohecháimo’ãi avei kuri pe joavy ‘miqdash’ ha ‘qodesh’ apytépe, mokõivéva oñembohasáva “santuario”.
He would not have seen the truth of the word ‘tamid’ that is found one hundred and four times in the Bible. The truth he could not have seen (which is also the truth that he did see), was that of the one hundred and four times that the Hebrew word ‘tamid’ is used in the Bible, but only in the book of Daniel is the Hebrew word ‘tamid,’ used as a noun. ‘Tamid’ is the Hebrew word that means “continual”, and is translated as “the daily” in the book of Daniel.
Ndaha’éiriremo’ãikuri pe ñe’ẽ “tamid” añetegua ojejuhúva cien cuatro jey pe Biblia-pe. Pe añetegua ndaikatúiva ha’e ohecha (ha upéva avei pe añetegua ha’e ohechava’ekue), ha’eva’ekue ko’ãva: cien cuatro jey pe ñe’ẽ hebreo “tamid” ojepuru pe Biblia-pe, ha katu Daniel arandukápe añoite pe ñe’ẽ hebreo “tamid” ojepuru téra ramo. “Tamid” ha’e pe ñe’ẽ hebreo he’iséva “continual”, ha oñembohasa “pe ára ha ára” ramo Daniel arandukápe.
Only in the book of Daniel is the word used as a noun, and the other ninety-nine times it is used as an adverb. For this reason, when the translators of the King James Bible were confronted with Daniel using the word five times as a noun, when all the other writers of the Bible used the word ninety-nine times as an adverb, they were forced by the weight of evidence to “correct” Daniel’s use of the word as a noun. In order to “correct” Daniel, they added the word “sacrifice” to the word, and thus turned a noun into an adverb. And then in order to correct the translators, Ellen White was inspired to record that she, “saw in relation to the ‘Daily,’ that the word ‘sacrifice’ was supplied by man’s wisdom, and does not belong to the text; and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry.”
Daniel arandúpe añoite ojeporu pe ñeʼẽ téraicha, ha ambue noventa y nueve jey ojeporu adverbiáicha. Upévare, umi traduktór Kíng James Biblia reheguáva ojuhúramo Daniel oipuruha pe ñeʼẽ po jey téraicha, ha opa ambue Biblia haihára oipurúramo upéva noventa y nueve jey adverbiáicha, pe prueba pohýi ombojere chupekuéra “omyatyrõ” hag̃ua Daniel oipuru haguéicha pe ñeʼẽ téraicha. Ikatu hag̃uáicha “omyatyrõ” Daniel-pe, omoĩve hikuái pe ñeʼẽ “sacrificio” pe ñeʼẽ rehe, ha upéicha ombohasa peteĩ téra adverbio-rã. Ha upéi, ikatu hag̃uáicha omyatyrõ umi traduktór-pe, Ellen White oñeinspira hag̃ua omoĩ hag̃ua kuatiarehe haʼe “ohechaha pe ‘Daily’ rehegua, pe ñeʼẽ ‘sacrifice’ kuimbaʼe arandu rupive oñemoĩve hague, ha ndahaʼeiha pe téxto pegua; ha Ñandejára omeʼẽ hague pe jehecha añeteguáva upévare umi omeʼẽ vaʼekuépe pe juicio aravo marandu sãso.”
Miller, by his own testimony, was seeking to understand “the daily,” which he ultimately did in 2 Thessalonians. But also, by his own testimony, when seeking to understand a word, he would consider every place the word was used, and the word is used ninety-nine other times in the Bible. Yet his testimony of “the daily,” is that he found it nowhere but in the book of Daniel, when he stated, “I read on, and could find no other case in which it [the daily] was found, but in Daniel.” Miller was led to the jewels not alone by his method of study, but also by divine revelation that was given to him through the ministry of angels.
Miller, he’ẽ tee rupive, oheka kuri ontende hag̃ua “pe ára ha ára”, ha upéva ipahápe ontende 2 Tesalonicenses-pe. Ha avei, he’ẽ tee rupive, ohekávo ontende hag̃ua peteĩ ñe’ẽ, ombojere vaʼekue opa hendápe upe ñe’ẽ ojepuru haguépe, ha upe ñe’ẽ ojepuru ambue noventa y nueve jey pe Biblia-pe. Upéicharõ jepe, he’ẽ “pe ára ha ára” rehegua heʼi hese ojuhu hague ndohupytyvéi mamove ndahaʼéiramo Daniel arandukápe, heʼívo: “Alee hag̃ua asegi, ha ndaikatúi ajuhu ambue caso ipype ojejuhuha [pe ára ha ára], ndahaʼéiramo Daniel-pe.” Miller ogueraha vaʼekue umi joya-kuérape ndahaʼéi iñambue hag̃uánte imétodo de estudio rupive, síno avei revelación divina rupive oñemeʼẽ vaʼekue chupe ánhel kuéra ministerio rupive.
This is why his understanding of “the daily,” was correct, but limited. He could not recognize that of the five times “the daily” is referenced in the book of Daniel, that one of the three times “the daily” is “taken away,” represented a different meaning than the other two times. One time “the daily” is used with the Hebrew word ‘rum’ and the other two times it is used with the Hebrew word ‘sur.’ Both words are translated as take away, but ‘rum’ in Daniel chapter eight, verse eleven means to lift up and exalt, and in chapter eleven, verse thirty-one, and chapter twelve, verse eleven, the word ‘sur’ means to remove.
Upévare hekopete “pe ára ha ára pegua” rehegua hekopete vaʼekue, ha katu michĩeterei. Ndaikatúi ohechakuaa umi po jey “pe ára ha ára pegua” oñemombeʼuha Daniel arandukápe, peteĩ umi mbohapy jey “pe ára ha ára pegua” “oñemboykéva” oguerekoha peteĩ heʼiséva iñambuéva ambue mokõi jégui. Peteĩ jey “pe ára ha ára pegua” ojepuru pe ñeʼẽ hebrea ‘rum’ ndive, ha ambue mokõi jey katu ojepuru pe ñeʼẽ hebrea ‘sur’ ndive. Mokõivéva ñeʼẽ oñembohasa “emboyke” ramo, ha katu ‘rum’ Daniel kapítulo ocho, versíkulo once-pe heʼise “yvate hag̃ua ha ñemombaʼeguasu hag̃ua”, ha kapítulo once, versíkulo treinta y uno-pe, ha kapítulo doce, versíkulo once-pe, pe ñeʼẽ ‘sur’ heʼise “ñemboguete”.
The theologians that eat and drink the Babylonian diet, argue that whether you remove a thing or whenever you lift up a thing, they both represent a type of removal, so both words are to be understood as possessing the same meaning. They argue that the three times “the daily,” is “taken away” always means to remove, and in doing so, they identify that Daniel was careless in his choice of words. They do not openly say that, but by inference they teach that Daniel should have used the word ‘sur’ in all three occurrences, for according to the theologians he supposedly meant the same thing each time “the daily” was “taken away.”
Umi teólogo-kuéra okaru ha ho’u Babilonia rembi’u, omoĩ hag̃ua ñe’ẽrã ñemongeta: taha’e reipe’a peteĩ mba’e térã rehupi peteĩ mba’e, mokõivéva orrepresenta peteĩichagua jeipe’a; upévare mokõive ñe’ẽ ojeikuaava’erã oguerekóva peteĩchagua he’iséva. Ha’ekuéra he’i umi mbohapy jey “pe ára ha ára pegua” “ojeipe’a”ha akóinte he’ise hag̃ua jeipe’a, ha ojapóvo upéicha, ohechauka hikuái Daniel noñangarekói hague iporavóvo iñe’ẽnguéra. Ndaha’éi he’i hag̃uáicha upéva hesakã hag̃uáicha, ha katu ojehechakuaa hag̃uáicha ombo’e hikuái Daniel oiporavova’erãmo’ã kuri ñe’ẽ ‘sur’ umi mbohapy jeyve ojehechávo; umi teólogo-kuéra he’iháicha, ha’e niko he’isékuri peteĩchante káda jey “pe ára ha ára pegua” “ojeipe’a” ramo.
They do the same thing with the words ‘miqdash’ and ‘qodesh’ which are both translated as “sanctuary,” in verses eleven through fourteen in chapter eight. In each reference of “sanctuary” in those four verses, they insist they all represent God’s sanctuary. By inference again, Daniel should have simply used ‘qodesh’ in all three references, and not used ‘miqdash’ in verse eleven. Miller would not have recognized the distinction between those words, but the modern theologians do, and when they do, they insist that no distinction should be acknowledged. Yet Miller, who did not recognize the distinctions between the words, came to an opposite understanding of the modern theologians.
Haʼekuéra ojapo upéicha avei umi ñeʼẽ “miqdash” ha “qodesh” rehe, mokõivéva oñemoñeʼẽva “santuario” ramo, umi versíkulo once guive catorce peve, capítulo ocho-pe. Káda jehechauka “santuario” rehegua umi irundy versíkulope, haʼekuéra oñeʼẽ hatã opaite umíva ohechaukaha Tupã santuario. Jey avei ñeʼẽjoaju rupive, Daniel oipurúvaʼerãmoʼã kuri ‘qodesh’ añoite umi mbohapy jehechauka-pe, ha ndahaʼéi oipuru hag̃ua ‘miqdash’ versíkulo once-pe. Miller ndohechakuaái vaʼekue pe joavy umi ñeʼẽ apytépe, péro umi teólogo moderno ohechakuaa, ha upe ohechakuaávo, haʼekuéra ombotove ojehechakuaa hag̃ua mbaʼeveichagua joavy. Upéicharamo jepe, Miller, ndohechakuaáiramo jepe umi joavy umi ñeʼẽ apytépe, og̃uahẽ kuri peteĩ entendimiento ojoavývape umi teólogo moderno-gui.
The reality is that Daniel was a careful writer, who knew the Hebrew language and was judged as ten times smarter than all the other wise men of Babylon. If anyone knew the proper usage of the Hebrew language, and how it was to be correctly represented in that particular history, it was Daniel. If Daniel employed different words, it was because they were meant to convey different meanings, which he purposely sought to represent. When Daniel’s distinct use of the words that are translated as “sanctuary” or as “take away” are acknowledged, they uphold Miller’s understanding of “the daily,” which was recognized by Miller in the very passage where Paul identifies that those who hate truth are destined to receive strong delusion.
Añetehápe, Daniel ha’e va’ekue peteĩ haihára oñangarekóva porã, oikuaáva pe ñe’ẽ hebreo ha oñekonsidera va’ekue iñaranduha pa diez yvyra hetave opa ambue arandúvagui Babilóniape. Oiméramo avave oikuaa porãkuaa mba’éichapa ojepuru va’erã pe ñe’ẽ hebreo, ha mba’éichapa ojehechauka va’erã hekopete upe tembiasakue particular-pe, ha’e va’ekue Daniel. Daniel oipuru ramo guare ñe’ẽ iñambuéva, upéva ha’e va’ekue ohechaukaségui he’iséva iñambuéva, ha’e voi ohekáva representávo upéva hekopete. Ojehechakuaa jave Daniel ojepurúhague iñambueháicha umi ñe’ẽ oñembohasáva “santuario” térã “pe’a hag̃ua”, umíva omombarete Miller entendimiento rehegua “pe ára ha ára”, ojehechakuaa va’ekue Miller rupive upe pasáhepe voi Pablo ohechaukahápe umi añetegua ndaija’éivape oñembosako’iha ohupyty hag̃ua peteĩ jejavy mbarete.
Those who hate the truth and believe the lie which produces strong delusion, are also represented as the drunkards of Ephraim, who are represented in two classes. One class is the learned leadership and the other class is the unlearned who will only hear what the learned teach them. They are those who hide beneath lies, and who make a covenant with death. They are the foolish virgins of Matthew twenty-five, and those whose soul is lifted up in Habakkuk two. They are those who reject the foundational truths of Miller’s dream, which shine ten times brighter at the end (representing the tenth and final test for modern Israel), as typified by the tenth and final test for ancient Israel.
Umi ogueraháva pe añetegua ha ogueroviáva pe japu omoheñóiva mbotavy guasu, oñembohéra avei Efraín ka’uha ramo, ha umíva ojehechauka mokõi aty ramo. Peteĩ aty ha’e umi tendota arandu, ha ambue aty ha’e umi ndaha’éiva arandu, ohendútava añoite umi arandu ombo’éva chupekuéra. Umíva hína umi oñemokañýva japu guýpe, ha umi ojapóva peteĩ ñe’ẽme’ẽ mano ndive. Ha’e hína umi kuñataĩ arandu’ỹva Mateo mokõipa poha-pe, ha umi ánga oñembotuicháva Habacuc mokõi-pe. Umíva hína umi omboykéva Miller kéguypegua añetegua ypykue, omimbiáva pa jevy hesakãve paha gotyo (ohechaukáva pe décimo ha paha prueba Israel moderno-pe g̃uarã), he’iháicha pe décimo ha paha prueba Israel yma guarépe g̃uarã.
We will continue this study in the next article.
Ko estudio ñamotenondéta pe artíkulo oúvape.
And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them? I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they. And Moses said unto the Lord, Then the Egyptians shall hear it, (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them) And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night. Now if thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness.
Ha Ñandejára he'i Moiséspe: Mboy araka'e peve ko tetãygua chembopochýta? ha mboy araka'e peve ndogueroviamo'ãi chéve, opaite umi techaukaha ajapova'ekue ijapytepekuéra rehe? Ainhundíta chupekuéra mba'asy vai rupive, ha aipe'áta chuguikuéra iñemoirũ tee, ha ndehegui ajapóta peteĩ tetã tuichavéva ha mbaretevéva chuguikuéra. Ha Moisés he'i Ñandejárape: Upéicharõ Egiptoygua ohendúta; (nde ningo ndepu'akápe reguenohẽ ko tetãygua ijapytegui) ha ha'ekuéra omombe'úta ko yvy rupi oikóva kuérape; ohendúma ningo nde, Ñandejára, reimeha ko tetãygua apytépe, nde, Ñandejára, rejechaha hova mbyky hag̃uáicha, ha ne arai opytaha hi'arikuéra, ha nde rehoha tenondépekuéra ára jave peteĩ arai yta ryepýicha, ha pyharekue peteĩ tata yta ryepýicha. Ko'ágã, rejukáramo opa ko tetãygua peteĩ kuimba'éicha, umi tetã nguéra ohendúva nde rerakuã porã he'íta, he'ívo: Ñandejára ndaikatúigui ogueru ko tetãygua pe yvýpe ome'ẽ hag̃ua ichupekuéra ñe'ẽme'ẽ, upévare ojuka chupekuéra pe desiértope.
And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my Lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying, The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now. And the Lord said, I have pardoned according to thy word: But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord. Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it: But my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it. Numbers 14:11–24.
Ha ko'ág̃a, ajerure ndéve, tojekuaauka tuicha hag̃ua che Ruvicha pokatu, nde ere haguéicha, he'ívo: “Ñandejára ipy'aguasu, ha hetaiterei imbaeporiahuvereko, oheja angaipa ha tembiavy vai, ha araka'eve ndohejáiva rei pe orekóva culpa; ombohasa túva kuéra rembiavy vai ta'ýra kuéra ári, pe mbohapyha ha irundyha generación peve.” Eperdona, ajerure ndéve, ko tavayguakuéra rembiavy vai, nde mbaeporiahuvereko tuichakueháicha; ha reñyrõ haguéicha ko tetãyguápe Egíptogui ko'ág̃a peve. Ha Ñandejára he'i: “Aperdona nde ere haguéicha; ha che aikove añetéicha, opa yvy ape ári henyhẽta Ñandejára gloria rehe. Umi kuimba'e ohechava'ekue che gloria ha che milágro ajapova'ekue Egíptope ha desiértope, ha ko'ág̃a chembopy'arory vai rire pa ary jevy, ha nohendúi rire che ñe'ẽ; añetehápe ha'ekuéra ndohechamo'ãi pe yvy ahura va'ekue itúva kuéra peguarã; ni peteĩve umi chembopochy va'ekue ndohechamo'ãi upéva. Ha katu che rembiguái Caleb, orekógui ambue espíritu hendive, ha chemoirũ haguére opaite py'aite guive, chupe aikemoingéta pe yvýpe oike haguepe; ha iñemoñare ohupytyta upe yvy.” Números 14:11–24.