When the little horn of Rome is represented in verses nine through twelve of Daniel chapter eight, it is a corrupted symbol for it is a symbol of transvestitism, a cross-dresser oscillating between male and female. It agrees with the Millerite understanding that Rome was represented by two phases, the first phase being the Roman statecraft and the second phase being the Roman churchcraft, but in the oscillation of genders in the verses, the little horn is out of the historical and prophetic sequence (corrupted). Yet each of the four verses represents history directly associated with either Roman statecraft or Roman churchcraft. Pagan Rome persecuted all who resisted its imperial authority, but the persecution of papal Rome (feminine) in verse ten, is specifically directed against heaven.
Pe kuatiaĩ michĩva Roma rehegua oñerrepresenta jave versíkulo porundygui doce peve Daniel kapítulo ocho-pe, ha’e peteĩ símbolo oñembyaíva, ha’égui peteĩ símbolo travestismo rehegua, peteĩ oĩva kuimba’e ha kuña apytépe, omoambuéva ijehegua peteĩgui ambuépe. Kóva oñemoĩ porã pe entendimiento Millerita ndive, he’íva Roma oñerrepresentaha mokõi fase rupive: pe peteĩha fase ha’e Roma rembiapo estado rehegua, ha pe mokõiha fase ha’e Roma rembiapo iglesia rehegua; hákatu pe género kuéra oscilación-pe umi versíkulope, pe kuatiaĩ michĩva oĩ historia ha profecía secuencia gui okápe (oñembyaíva). Upéicharõ jepe, umi irundy versíkulo peteĩteĩva orrepresenta historia ojoajúva directamente térã Roma rembiapo estado rehegua ndive térã Roma rembiapo iglesia rehegua ndive. Roma pagana omuña asýkuri opa umi ojokóva ijehe pe autoridad imperial rehe, ha katu pe persecución Roma papal rehegua (kuñáva) versíkulo diez-pe, oñembohape específicamente yvága rehe.
In the Millerite understanding that Rome was the fourth and final kingdom, the oscillating from state to church to state to church again would not have been a concern. They had seen the mixture of iron and clay in the feet of Daniel chapter two, and simply understood it as two phases of Rome, with no concern to define a specific historical sequence of a fourth and fifth kingdom. They understood the same of chapter seven, where the horn that spake great things against the most High, had three horns plucked up from the original ten horns of the beast of Rome. Even if Miller did recognize the gender oscillation of verse nine through twelve, it would have been unimportant to his understanding of the fourth kingdom being Rome. In Millerite understanding the fourth kingdom ended in 1798, and the next prophetic event was the Second Coming of Christ.
Pe entendimiento Millerita-pe guive, Roma ha’e hague pe irundyha ha pahaite tetãnguéra, pe ojere jey va’ekue estado-gui tupão-pe ha upéi jey estado-pe ha tupão-pe, ndaha’éi va’erã kuri mba’e ojepy’apýpe hikuái. Ha’ekuéra ohechakuaa kuri pe ñembyai hierro ha ñai’ũ rehegua umi py Daniel kapítulo mokõi-pe, ha oñentende hag̃uánte mokõi fase Roma rehegua ramo, mba’eveichavérõ noñeikotevẽi ojedefini hag̃ua peteĩ secuencia histórica específica peteĩ irundyha ha poha tetã rehegua. Péicha avei oñentende hikuái kapítulo siete rehegua, moõ pe hatĩ oñe’ẽva’ekue mba’e guasueterei pe Altísimo kóntrape, oreko hague mbohapy hatĩ ojeipe’áva’ekue umi diez hatĩ ypykue pe mymba Roma reheguágui. Jepe Miller ohechakuaa va’ekue pe oscilación de género versículo nueve guive doce peve, upéva ndoikovéi va’erã kuri mba’eve pe iñentendimiento-pe pe irundyha tetã ha’eha Roma rehegua. Pe entendimiento Millerita-pe, pe irundyha tetã opa kuri ary 1798-pe, ha pe ambue evento profético ou va’erãkuri hapykuéri ha’e Cristo Jejujey Mokõiha.
The feminine horn identifies the woman who commits spiritual fornication with the masculine horn, and is represented in verses ten and twelve.
Pe kuña pehẽngue ohechauka pe kuña ombojoguáva fornicación espiritual pe kuimba’e pehẽngue ndive, ha ojehechauka umi téxto diez ha doce-pe.
And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Daniel 8:10.
Ha okakuaa eterei, pe ehupyty peve yvágape oĩva ehérsitope; ha omombo yvýre umi ehérsitogua ha umi mbyjakuéra apytégui peteĩ aty, ha opyrũ hi’ári. Daniel 8:10.
The persecution of the papal power was directed against Christianity (the host of heaven), and in verse twelve papal Rome (feminine), receives the power to accomplish her murderous work through the transgression of fornicating with the kings of Europe.
Pe mbyaigua guasu papagua ojereva’ekue kristianismo rehe (yvágape oĩva ñorairõhára aty) rehe, ha pe versíkulo doce-pe Roma papagua (kuña), ohupyty mbarete omboguata hag̃ua hembiapo porojuka hag̃ua, pe tembiapo vai rupive, oñemongarai hag̃ua tekoñaña rupi Europa ruvichakuéra ndive.
And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered. Daniel 8:12.
Ha oñeme’ẽ chupe peteĩ ehérsito oñemoĩ hag̃ua pe mymbajuka ára ha ára rehegua rehe, ñembyai rupi; ha omombo yvýre pe añetegua; ha ojapo hembiapo, ha osẽ porã. Daniel 8:12.
The “host” in the verse represents the military power that was given the papacy “against the daily.” The word “against” means “from”. From the pagan kings of Europe (pagan Rome), represented by “the daily,” military support (an host) was given to the papacy “by reason of transgression.” The combination of church and state, with the church in control of the relationship is the “transgression.” The wine of that transgression is Christian blood. Once the papacy had control of the armies of pagan Rome, papal Rome (“it”) “cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered.”
Pe “ehérsito” pe versíkulope ohechauka pe mbarete militar oñeme’ẽ vaekue papadópe “pe ára ha ára rehe”. Pe ñe’ẽ “rehe” he’ise “gui”. Umi mburuvicha pagáno Europa pegua guive (Roma pagána), ojehechaukáva “pe ára ha ára” rupive, oñeme’ẽ papadópe pytyvõ militar (pe “ehérsito”) “tembiapo vaikue rehehápe”. Tupaó ha estado joaju, ha tupaó oisãmbyhy upe joaju, ha’e pe “tembiapo vaikue”. Upe tembiapo vaikue káusa rymba ha’e tuguy kristiáno. Peteĩ jevy papado oguereko rire ipópe umi ehérsito Roma pagána pegua, Roma papal (“ha’e”) “omboyke yvýpe añetegua; ha omba’apo, ha oñakãrapu’ã.”
In Daniel chapter eleven, verse thirty-one, the giving of the armies to papal Rome is also represented:
Daniel kapítulo once, versíkulo treinta y uno-pe, avei ojehechauka umi ehérsito oñeme’ẽha Roma papal-pe:
And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. Daniel 11:31.
Ha umi yva oñemopuʼãta hese, ha omongyʼáta pe tupaópe imbaretevéva, ha oipeʼáta pe mymbajuka ára ha ára, ha omoĩta pe mbaʼe jeguaru oporomonguʼeʼỹva. Daniel 11:31.
The verse is identifying the historical transition from pagan Rome to papal Rome. In the verse the “arms” are the European kings that began to stand up for the papacy beginning with Clovis, king of the Franks (France), in the year 496. The “arms” also polluted “the sanctuary of strength” (the city of Rome), through the continuous warfare from the fourth century onward to the year 538. The “arms” also removed the pagan resistance to the rise of the papacy, and by the year 508, the pagan resistance was finished.
Pe versíkulo ohechauka pe ñemoambue histórico Roma pagána-gui Roma papál-pe. Pe versíkulope umi “jyva” ha’e umi mburuvicha guasu Europa-pegua oñepyrũva opu’ã hag̃ua papado rehehápe, oñepyrũvo Clovis, mburuvicha guasu Francokuérare (Francia), áño 496-pe. Umi “jyva” avei omongy’a “pe santuario mbarete rehegua” (táva Roma), umi ñorairõ tapiaite rupive siglo irundyha guive pe áño 538 peve. Umi “jyva” avei ombogue pe resistencia pagána opu’ãva papado ñemopu’ã rehe, ha pe áño 508-pe, pe resistencia pagána opa hag̃ua.
The word translated as “take away,” is the Hebrew word “sur” and means “to remove”. The “arms” placed the “abomination that maketh desolate” (the papacy), on the throne of the earth in the year 538. When Daniel chapter eight, verse twelve identifies that “an host” was given to the feminine little horn, it is agreeing with the witness of verse thirty-one of chapter eleven. The book of Revelation also gives witness to the same truth in chapter thirteen.
Pe ñe’ẽ oñembohasáva “oipe’a hag̃ua”, ha’e pe ñe’ẽ hebreo “sur” ha he’ise “oñemboguejývo” térã “oñemboguejýramo”. Pe “jyva kuéra” omoĩ pe “mba’e jeguaru ombyaíva” (papado), yvy guapyhápe áño 538-pe. Daniel capítulo 8, versículo 12-pe ojehechauka ramo “aty” oñeme’ẽ hague pe michĩva hatĩ kuñameguávape, upéva oñemoĩ peteĩcha capítulo 11, versículo 31 rembiasa reheve. Apocalipsis aranduka avei ombohovái upe añetegua capítulo 13-pe.
And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. Revelation 13:2.
Ha pe mymba guasu ahecháva vaʼekue ojogua kuri peteĩ jaguarete rehe, ha ipykuéra haʼe peteĩ oso pykuéraicha, ha ijuru peteĩ león jurúicha; ha pe dragón omeʼẽ chupe ipokatu, iguapyha, ha tuicha mbaʼepuʼaka. Apocalipsis 13:2.
Sister White directly identifies the beast of verse two as the papacy, and that the dragon in the verse is pagan Rome. Pagan Rome gave three things to the papacy; “his power, and his seat, and great authority.”
Hermana White ombojekuaa hag̃ua porã pe mymba oĩva pe mokõiha versíkulope ha’eha pe papado, ha avei pe dragón oĩva upe versíkulope ha’eha Roma pagana. Roma pagana ome’ẽ mbohapy mba’e pe papadope; “ipu’aka, iguapyha, ha tuicha autoridad.”
The military power was given by pagan Rome beginning with Clovis in the year 496. The “seat” to rule from, was given to the papacy in the year 330, when the emperor Constantine moved his capitol to Constantinople, leaving his former capitol city of Rome to the control of the papal church. In the year 533, the emperor Justinian decreed that the pope was the head of the church and the corrector of heretics, turning his “great authority” over to the pope of Rome. Verse twelve of Daniel chapter eight, identifies the time when a “host” was given, and that prophetic truth is testified to on many witnesses. From that point in time (beginning in the year 496), the papacy “prospered.”
Mburuvicha guasu mbaretépe ojehupyty Roma pagana rupive, oñepyrũvo Clovis ndive ary 496-pe. “Apyka” oguapy hag̃ua ipoguýpe ha ogoverna hag̃ua, oñeme’ẽ papado-pe ary 330-pe, mburuvicha guasu Constantino omyenyhẽvo hóga guasu Constantinopla-pe, ohejávo itavusu yma guarã, Roma, tupao papal poguýpe. Ary 533-pe, mburuvicha guasu Justiniano he’i mburuvicha guasu rembiapoukapy rupive papa ha’eha tupao akã ha umi herejía mohendaha, upéicha ome’ẽvo ipape “mburuvicha guasu” Roma-gua papa-pe. Daniel kapítulo 8, versíkulo 12-pe, ojehechauka araka’épa oñeme’ẽ peteĩ “ehérsito”, ha upe añetegua maranduhára rehegua oñemoneĩ heta testígo rupive. Upe ára guive (oñepyrũvo ary 496-pe), papado “oñakãrapu’ã porã.”
It would continue to “practice” and “prosper” until the end of the indignation against the northern kingdom of Israel ended in 1798, and the papacy received its deadly wound.
Oseguíta “ojapo” ha “oporomoakã porã” pe ára peve pe pochy oĩva Israél retã yvate gotyo rehe opa hag̃ua ary 1798-pe, ha pe papado ojapyhy hag̃ua pe ijerida omano hag̃uáva.
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous 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.
Ha pe rréi ojapóta hembipota he’iháicha; ha omopu’ãta ijehe, ha ombotuicháta ijehe opaichagua tupã ári, ha oñe’ẽta mba’e hechapyrãva Tupãkuéra Tupã rehe, ha ipo porãta pe pochy oñembotývo; pe ojejapókuaáva niko oikóta. Daniel 11:36.
Verse nine of chapter eight, describes masculine Rome (pagan Rome), and represents the three-step conquering process that pagan Rome accomplished, and which typified the three geographical areas that would be conquered in order for papal Rome to be established upon the throne of the earth, as represented by the three horns that were plucked up in chapter seven. Those two three-step conquering’s of pagan and papal Rome, represented the three geographical obstacles of modern Rome, in verses forty through forty-three of Daniel eleven. Then in chapter eight, verse eleven, the masculine little horn (pagan Rome) is again represented. In the verse, the sanctified logic is so sound, that the scornful men that rule Jerusalem were forced to introduce several theological lies in order to erect their counterfeit foundation.
Pe versíkulo 9 pehẽ capítulo 8-pe oñemombe’u Roma kuimba’éva rehegua (Roma pagana), ha ojehechauka upe mbohapy paso rupi ojeporavo ha oñemoinga hag̃ua ipoguýpe, upe Roma pagana ojapova’ekue, ha upéva ohechauka hag̃ua umi mbohapy hendaguasu geográfica oñemomba’éva’erãva ikatu hag̃uáicha Roma papal oñemoĩ ko yvy apyka ári, ojehechaukaháicha umi mbohapy hatĩ oñekytĩva’ekue capítulo 7-pe. Umi mokõi mbohapy paso rupi ñemomba’e Roma pagana ha papal rehegua, ohechauka umi mbohapy mba’ejoko geográfica Roma moderna rehegua, Daniel 11:40–43-pe. Upéi, capítulo 8, versíkulo 11-pe, pe hatĩ michĩva kuimba’éva (Roma pagana) jeýma ojehechauka. Pe versíkulope, pe lógica oñesantifikáva tuichaite añete ha hatã, upévare umi kuimba’e ñembohory rehegua oisãmbyhýva Jerusalénpe ojejopy va’erãkuri omoingévo heta japu teológica ikatu hag̃uáicha omopu’ã hag̃ua hikuái iñepyenda japu.
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. Daniel 8:11.
Haʼe oñembotuicha voi pe ehérsito ruvicha peve, ha chugui ojeipeʼa pe sakrifísio ára ha ára guáva, ha oñembyai iñesantuario renda. Daniel 8:11.
As we begin to address the counterfeit coins and jewels that have been introduced to Adventism since 1863, it should be noted that there are two primary fields of supposed theological expertise which Adventism boasts of, as their basis for upholding the doctrines of apostate Protestantism and Catholicism. The claim that the modern theologians of Adventism make is that they are either experts in biblical history, or experts in biblical languages. Their application of the verse, reveals the prophetic word has become as a sealed book unto them, and also reveals that their claim of being experts of the biblical languages is simply the modern manifestation of Pharisaism.
Jajepyrũvo guive umi moneda ha umi ita jeguaka japúva oñemoinge vaʼekue Adventismo-pe 1863 guive, tekotevẽ ojehechakuaa oĩha mokõi mbaʼeporãha guasu ojeʼe hag̃uáicha katupyry teológico rehegua, Adventismo oñembotuichahápe hese, haʼéva ipyenda omombarete hag̃ua umi doctrina Protestantismo apóstata ha Catolicismo rehegua. Pe heʼíva umi teólogo moderno Adventismo-pegua haʼe hikuái térã katupyry Biblia rembiasakue rehe, térã katupyry Biblia ñeʼẽnguéra rehe. Iporuháicha pe versíkulo, ohechauka pe ñeʼẽ profética oiko hague chupekuéra peteĩ kuatiañeʼẽ oñembotýva ramo, ha avei ohechauka pe heʼíva hikuái haʼeha katupyry Biblia ñeʼẽnguéra rehe, haʼeha añetehápe pe Fariseísmo rehegua jehechauka pyahu koʼág̃agua.
First is the disregard of the oscillation of the genders for the little horn in verse nine through twelve. If they were actually experts in the Hebrew language, they would not deny, or water down, the fact that Daniel purposely employed gender oscillation in the verses. The little horn is represented in both genders, and those genders go back and forth through the verses. The theologians try to cover this fact with rubbish and counterfeit coins, for it clearly identifies that verse eleven is identifying pagan, not papal Rome. They of course insist that the little horn of verse eleven is the pope, when it is actually pagan Rome.
Peteĩha ha’e pe ñembotavy’ỹ umi ñe’ẽme’ẽme kuimba’e térã kuña rehegua pe hatĩ michĩvare versíkulo porundy guive pakõi peve. Oĩramo añetehápe ha’ekuéra katupyry ñe’ẽ hebreo rehe, ndoheja mo’ãi, térã nomombareteve’ỹi, pe añetegua Daniel ojepuru porã hague umi ñe’ẽme’ẽ kuimba’e ha kuña rehegua ko’ã versíkulope. Pe hatĩ michĩ ojehechauka mokõivéva ñe’ẽme’ẽme, ha umi ñe’ẽme’ẽ ou ha oho umi versíkulo rupi. Umi teólogo oñeha’ã omo’ã ko añetegua mba’e vai reheve ha viru gua’u reheve, péva niko hesakã porã ohechaukágui versíkulo pa peteĩha ohechauka Roma pagána, ndaha’éi Roma papal. Ha’ekuéra katu, añetehápe, oñe’ẽ hatã pe hatĩ michĩ versíkulo pa peteĩhagua ha’eha papa, ha añetehápe ha’e Roma pagána.
Once it is acknowledged that two of the four little horn verses are male and two are female, then it is simple to incorporate the biblical truth that a woman in Bible prophecy represents a church, and a man represents a state. Knowing this allows all who wish to see, that the little horn of verse eleven, is masculine Rome (pagan Rome), not feminine Rome (papal Rome).
Ojehechakuaávo mokõi umi irundy versíkulo apytégua pe mimbipa michĩ rehegua ha’eha kuimba’e ha mokõi ambue ha’eha kuña, upéicharõ ndahasýi omoinge hag̃ua pe añetegua bíblica: peteĩ kuña, marandu’ypy marandúpe, ohechauka peteĩ iglesia; ha peteĩ kuimba’e ohechauka peteĩ tetã. Ko mba’e jeikuaávo oheja opa umi ohechasevape ohechakuaa hag̃ua pe mimbipa michĩ versíkulo once pegua ha’eha Roma kuimba’éva (Roma pagana), ndaha’éi Roma kuñáva (Roma papal).
The verse then is understood as teaching that pagan Rome (he) magnified himself to the prince of the host, as did pagan Rome when it placed the prince of the host upon the cross of Calvary. Not only did pagan Rome magnify itself against Christ at the cross, the verse goes on to say that by him (pagan Rome) “the daily sacrifice was taken away.”
Upévare, ko versíkulo oñentende ombo’eha Roma pagána (ha’e) oñemomba’eguasu hague pe ehérsito ruvicha rovake, ojapo haguéicha Roma pagána omoĩrõ guare pe ehérsito ruvichápe Calvario kurusúre. Ndaha’éi añoite Roma pagána oñemomba’eguasu hague Cristo rehe kurusúpe; pe versíkulo osegi he’i hag̃ua hese (Roma pagána rehe) “pe sacrificio ára ha ára gua ojeipe’a hague.”
In the book of Daniel there are two Hebrew words that are both translated as “take away.” The words are “sur” and “rum”. Both words are used in the sanctuary service. Sur means to take away or remove, and when the ashes from the altar in the sanctuary were removed, the word used to describe the removal of the ashes is “sur”. The word “rum” means to lift up and exalt, and when the priest in the sanctuary was to lift up a wave offering, he was to “rum” (lift up) the offering. In verse eleven, pagan Rome (“the daily”) would “rum” (take away) paganism by lifting up and exalting the religion of paganism.
Pe kuatia Daniel-pe oĩ mokõi ñe’ẽ hebreo mokõivéva oñembohasa “ojepe’a” hag̃ua. Umi ñe’ẽ ha’e “sur” ha “rum”. Mokõivéva ojepuru pe tembiapo pe santuariope. “Sur” he’ise ojepe’a térã oñembogue, ha araka’e pe altárgui pe santuariope ojeipe’a va’ekue tanimbu, pe ñe’ẽ ojepurúva oñemombe’u hag̃ua upe jeipe’a ha’e “sur”. Pe ñe’ẽ “rum” he’ise oñemopu’ã ha oñemomba’eguasu, ha pe pa’i pe santuariope omopu’ãva’erãrõ peteĩ ofrénda oñemyengovia hag̃ua, upérõ ha’eva’erã “rum” (omopu’ã) pe ofrénda. Pe versíkulo once-pe, Roma pagana (“pe ára ha ára”) ojapóta “rum” (oipe’a) hag̃ua pe paganísmo omopu’ã ha omomba’eguasúvo pe rrelihión pagana.
Pagan Rome would lift up and exalt the religion of paganism. The Adventist theologians that profess an expertise of biblical languages choose to treat every occurrence of “take away” in the book of Daniel as “remove”. They fail to acknowledge the distinct and precise writing of Daniel, and thus place themselves above the prophet Daniel.
Róma pagana omopu’ã ha omomba’eguasúta pe religión pagana. Umi teólogo adventista he’íva oguerekoha katupyry umi ñe’ẽ bíblica-pe oiporavo omoñe’ẽ hag̃ua opaite jevy “take away” ojehúva Daniel arandukápe ramo “remove”. Ha’ekuéra ndohechakuaái Daniel jehaikue iñambue ha hendaitépe ojehaíva, ha upévare oñemoĩ proféta Daniel ári.
The theologians that profess to understand the biblical languages provide arguments to justify why Daniel intended to mean the same thing, when he employed two different words. They provide long and tedious word studies to uphold their false claims. The theologians that profess to understand biblical history, argue that the false application is based upon recognizing that in different periods of history the same word might mean something different, and therefore when Daniel employed two different words, only a historical expert can identify what Daniel actually meant. It is important to identify these two false methods for they are employed often by the theologians who seek to hide from the methodology of “line upon line.”
Umi teólogo he’íva ontendeha umi ñe’ẽ oĩva la Biblia-pe ome’ẽ argumento ombojehe’a hag̃uáicha mba’érepa Daniel oipotáta he’ise peteĩchagua mba’e, oiporúramo jepe mokõi ñe’ẽ iñambuéva. Ha’ekuéra ojapo estudio puku ha ikane’õva umi ñe’ẽ rehe, omombarete hag̃ua he’íva japu. Umi teólogo he’íva ontendeha pe tembiasakue bíblica oñe’ẽ hag̃ua, he’i pe jeporu vai oñemopyenda hag̃ua pe kuaa rehe, tembiasakue ryepýpe ára iñambuévape peteĩ ñe’ẽ ikatu hag̃uáicha he’ise ambue mba’e, ha upévare Daniel oiporúramo mokõi ñe’ẽ iñambuéva, peteĩ experto añónte tembiasakuére ikatu oikuaa mba’épa añetehápe Daniel he’iseva’ekue. Tuicha mba’e jahechakuaa hag̃ua ko’ã mokõi tape japu, ipórke ojeporu jepi umi teólogo ohekáva okañy hag̃ua pe metodología “línea ári línea”-gui.
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. Daniel 8:11.
Haʼe oñembotuichave voi pe ehérsito Ruvicha guive peve, ha hese rupi ojeipeʼa pe mymbajuka ára ha ára guare, ha oñembyaipa pe tenda isantuariopegua. Daniel 8:11.
The word translated as “taken away” in the verse means to “lift up and exalt”. It does not mean to remove. This fact creates confusion and contradiction for the Adventist theologians, for their premises do not hold up under a simple evaluation of the verse, when the actual definition of the word Daniel used is applied to the verse. They argue the little horn of the verse is papal Rome, and therefore the verse would read that “by him” (papal Rome) “the daily was taken away.”
Pe ñe’ẽ oñembohasáva “ojeipe’a” ramo pe versíkulope he’ise “opu’ã ha oñemomba’eguasu hag̃ua”. Ndaha’éi he’iséva oñemboipe’a hag̃ua. Ko añetegua omoheñói ñemyangekói ha joavy umi teólogo adventista-kuérape g̃uarã, pórke ijypykuéra ndopytái mbarete peteĩ jehecha hag̃uáicha pe versíkulo rehe, oñemoĩ jave pe versíkulope pe ñe’ẽ he’ise añetéva Daniel oiporúva. Ha’ekuéra he’i pe hatĩ michĩva pe versíkulope ha’eha Roma papal, ha upévare pe versíkulo he’íta va’erã “hese rupi” (Roma papal) “pe ára ha ára oñepe’a kuri.”
They of course have no problem including the added word that Sister White states directly was added by human wisdom and does not apply to the text.
Ha’ekuéra, ojekuaaháicha, ndaikatúi mba’eve hag̃ua omoĩvo pe ñe’ẽ oñembohetavéva, Sister White he’iháicha hesakã porã oñembohetaha arandupy yvypóra reheve ha ndojeporúi pe texto rehe.
“Then I saw in relation to the ‘daily’ (Daniel 8:12) 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.” Early Writings, 74.
“Upéi ahecha pe ‘tapia guive’ rehegua (Daniel 8:12) ha pe ñe'ẽ ‘sacrificio’ yvypóra arandu rupive oñemoĩ hague, ha ndaha'éiha pe texto pegua, ha Ñandejára ome'ẽ hague hese pe jehecha añeteguáva umi ome'ẽ va'ekuépe pe juicio aravo sapukái.” Early Writings, 74.
They identify “the daily” as Christ’s sanctuary ministry, so the “daily sacrifice” upholds the concept that “the daily” is Christ sacrificial work in the heavenly sanctuary. But inspiration identifies that the word “sacrifice” “does not belong to the text”.
Haʼekuéra ohechakuaa “pe ára ha ára guápe” Cristo rembiapo pe santuario-pe ramo, upévare “pe sacrificio ára ha ára gua” omombarete pe concepto heʼíva “pe ára ha ára gua” haʼeha Cristo rembiapo sacrificial pe santuario yvágape. Péro pe inspiración ohechauka pe ñeʼẽ “sacrificio” “ndahaʼéi pe texto pegua”.
When the drunkards of Ephraim identify “the daily” as Christ’s sanctuary work, the verse would then read, “by him” (papal Rome) “the daily was taken away,” or it would read, “by the papal power, Christ’s sanctuary ministry was taken away.” They actually teach this falsehood. They insist that through the darkness of the papal rule the true understanding of Christ’s sanctuary ministry was removed from the minds of men.
Efraín kaʼu háicha oikuaaukárõ “pe ára ha ára” Cristo rembiapo santuariopegua ramo, upe versíkulo upéicharõ heʼíta: “haʼe rupi” (Roma papal) “ojeipeʼa kuri pe ára ha ára”, térã heʼíta: “poder papal rupive, ojeipeʼa kuri Cristo rembiapo santuariopegua”. Añetehápe haʼekuéra omboʼe ko japu. Haʼekuéra insisténte heʼívo pe pytũmby gobierno papal rehegua rupive ojeipeʼa hague yvypóra apytuʼũgui pe entendimiento añetegua Cristo rembiapo santuariopegua rehegua.
Yet the word translated as “take away,” does not mean to remove, it means to lift up and exalt. If the professed experts of biblical languages would correctly apply the meaning of the Hebrew word “rum,” to the passage, their rendition would need to say, “by the papal power, Christ’s sanctuary ministry was lifted up and exalted.” When did the papacy ever lift up and exalt Christ?
Upéicharamo jepe pe ñeʼẽ oñembohasáva “ojeipeʼa hag̃ua” ndahaʼéi heʼiséva ojeipeʼa, haʼe heʼise oñemopuʼã ha oñemombaʼeguasu. Umi oñeʼẽva ijeheguiete haʼeramoha experto ñeʼẽnguéra bíblicas-pe omoĩporãrire pe heʼiséva pe ñeʼẽ hebrea “rum”, upe pasáhepe, iñembohasa tekotevẽva heʼi hag̃ua: “mburuvicha papal pokatu rupive, Cristo pe santuario pegua hembiapo oñemopuʼã ha oñemombaʼeguasu.” ¿Arakaʼe piko pe papado omopuʼã ha omombaʼeguasu Cristo-pe?
They seek to impose the definition of the Hebrew word “sur” upon the Hebrew word “rum.” Daniel uses the word “sur,” which means to remove, in connection with “the daily” in two other verses, but in verse eleven, Daniel chose the word “rum” meaning to lift up and exalt. Not only is the dish of fables concerning this verse foolishness because of the wresting of the meaning of the word translated as “take away,” but there was never a time when Christ’s sanctuary ministry was in any way removed from men.
Haʼekuéra oheka omoĩ hag̃ua pe ñeʼẽ hebreo “sur” rembiapokue pe ñeʼẽ hebreo “rum” ári. Daniel oipuru pe ñeʼẽ “sur”, heʼiséva ojeipeʼa hag̃ua, “pe ára ha ára” rehegua mokõi ambue versíkulope; versíkulo once-pe katu, Daniel oiporavo pe ñeʼẽ “rum”, heʼiséva ojehupi ha oñemombaʼeguasu hag̃ua. Ndahaʼéi añónte pe tembiʼu mombeʼuguaʼu rehegua ko versíkulo rehegua vyroreiha, pe oñembotavy rupi pe heʼiséva pe ñeʼẽ oñembohasáva “ojeipeʼa” ramo; ha arakaʼeve ndaipóri vaʼekue peteĩ tiempo Cristo pe santuario-pe hembiapo ministerial ojeipeʼa haguéicha mbaʼeveichavérõ umi kuimbaʼe apytégui.
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:24, 25.
Ha ko kuimbaʼe, opyta hag̃ua opa ára g̃uarã, oguereko peteĩ saserdóte rembiapo ndaikatúiva oñemoambue. Upévare ikatu avei osalvaite peve umi oñemboja Tupã rendápe hese rupi, oikovégui tapia hag̃uáicha oñemoĩ hag̃ua hesekuéra ñeporandu hag̃ua. Hebreos 7:24, 25.
To claim, as the Adventist theologians do, in an attempt to prop up their false application of the verse, that there was a period of time when the papacy exercised some type of power to remove Christ’s sanctuary intercession is absurd!
Asegura hag̃ua, umi teólogo adventista ojapoháicha, oñehaʼãvo omombarete hag̃ua ijerovia vaiete ko versíkulo jehechaukarãme, oĩ hague peteĩ aravo pe papado oipuru hague peteĩchagua pokatu oipeʼa hag̃ua pe intersesión pe santuariopegua Cristo rehegua, ndahaʼéi mbaʼeve ndoguerohorýiva, síno peteĩ mbaʼe itavyetereíva!
But the theologians do not teach that the verse identifies that the papacy lifted up and exalted Christ’s sanctuary ministry. They avoid the meaning of Daniel’s words, and the inspired counsel of Ellen White, to teach what they choose to teach in spite of the testimony of Daniel’s words.
Ha umi teólogo kuéra nombo’éi pe versíkulo ohechauka hag̃ua pe papado omopu’ã ha omomba’eguasu hague pe Cristo santuario pegua ministerio. Ha’ekuéra ojehekýi Daniel ñe’ẽngue he’isévagui, ha Ellen White consejo inspiradogui, ombo’e hag̃ua mba’épa ha’ekuéra oipota ombo’e, Daniel ñe’ẽngue testimonio rehe jepe.
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. Daniel 8:11.
Haʼe oñemombaʼeguasu voi pe ehérsito ruvicha guasúpe peve; ha hese rupi ojeipeʼa chugui pe sacrificio ára ha ára, ha itupãóga marangatu renda oñemombo yvýre. Daniel 8:11.
The theologians teach that the verse means “by the papal power, Christ’s sanctuary ministry was removed,” and the removal of Christ’s sanctuary ministry from the minds of men is supported by the fact that in association with the removal, the place of Christ’s “sanctuary was cast down.” There is not one verse in God’s Word that identifies the heavenly sanctuary, which is where Christ performs his intercession, has ever been cast down. Nor is there any biblical passage that identifies that heaven itself, which is the “place of his sanctuary”, is ever cast down. Once again, the theologians place themselves above the prophet Daniel, for they insist that “the place of his sanctuary” in the verse is referring to God’s sanctuary, in spite of the fact that Daniel teaches directly opposite of that idea.
Umi teólogo-kuéra ombo’e ko hag̃ua pe versíkulo he’iseha: “poder papal rupive, oñemboguejy hag̃ua Cristo santuario-pe hembiapo ministerial”, ha pe jeipe’a Cristo rembipota santuariopegua kuimba’e kuéra apytu’ũgui oñemombarete pe añetegua rupive, oñembojoajúvo upe jeipe’a rehe, Cristo “santuario renda oñemboguejy” hague. Ndaipóri ni peteĩ versíkulo Tupã Ñe’ẽme ohechaukáva pe santuario yvagagua, upépe Cristo ojapohápe hembiapo ñemoĩ hag̃ua ñande rehe, araka’eve oñemboguejy hague. Ha ndaipóri avei ni peteĩ pasaje bíblico ohechaukáva pe yvága voi, ha’éva “isantuario renda”, araka’eve oñemboguejy hague. Jey jeývo, umi teólogo-kuéra oñemoĩ proféta Daniel ári, pórke oñeñandu hag̃ua “isantuario renda” pe versíkulope oñeñe’ẽha Tupã santuario rehe, jepe Daniel ombo’e hesakã porã hag̃ua upe ñemimo’ã rováiite.
The professed experts of the Hebrew language insist that in the verse the Hebrew word “rum,” needs to be understood with the meaning of the Hebrew word “sur.” They also insist that the Hebrew word “miqdash” needs to be understood as the Hebrew word “qodesh.” “Miqdash” and “qodash” are both translated simply as “sanctuary” in the book of Daniel, yet they have different meanings. “Miqdash” represents any sanctuary, whether it is God’s sanctuary or a pagan sanctuary. It is the general word for sanctuary, but “qodesh” is only used in the Bible to represent God’s sanctuary.
Umi experto-kuéra oñemboheróva lengua hebrea-pe insisténte he’i ko versíkulope ñe’ẽ hebreo “rum” oñentendeva’erãha ñe’ẽ hebreo “sur” he’isévaicha. Avei insisténte he’i ñe’ẽ hebreo “miqdash” oñentendeva’erãha peteĩchaite ñe’ẽ hebreo “qodesh” rehe. “Miqdash” ha “qodesh” mokõivéva oñembohasa hag̃uante “santuario” ramo Daniel kuatiañe’ẽme, upéicharõ jepe iñambue he’iséva. “Miqdash” ohechauka oimeraẽ santuario, taha’e Tupã santuario térã peteĩ santuario pagano. Ha’e pe ñe’ẽ general ojeporúva santuario rehe, péro “qodesh” ojeporu Biblia-pe añoite ohechauka hag̃ua Tupã santuario.
Daniel knew the difference between a pagan sanctuary and God’s sanctuary. If Daniel was going to identify a pagan sanctuary, he would use the word “miqdash.” It is amazing to me that the supposed experts of the Hebrew language never address the fact that in four consecutive verses, Daniel uses both words three times. Daniel’s usage of the two Hebrew words, both translated as “sanctuary” defines the meaning Daniel intended to be understood.
Daniel oikuaa porã kuri pe iñambueha peteĩ santuario pagano ha Tupã santuario apytépe. Daniel ohechaukasérire peteĩ santuario pagano, ojeporúta kuri pe ñe'ẽ “miqdash”. Che remiandu hag̃uáicha, mba'e hechapyrãite ningo umi oñehenóiva experto ñe'ẽ hebrea rehegua araka'eve noñe'ẽi pe mba'e rehe, irundy versículo ojoapykuéripe, Daniel oiporu mokõive ñe'ẽ mbohapy jevy. Daniel jeporu ko'ã mokõi ñe'ẽ hebrea rehe, mokõivéva oñembohasáva “santuario” ramo, omyesakã pe he'iséva Daniel oikuaaukase va'ekue.
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel 8:11–14.
Ha’e ombotuicha ijehe voi ehóvo pe mburuvicha pe ehérsitopegua peve, ha hese rupi ojeipe’a chugui pe mba’e ojeikuave’ẽva ára ha ára, ha oñembyai pe tenda isantuariopegua. Ha oñeme’ẽ chupe peteĩ ehérsito pe mba’e ojeikuave’ẽva ára ha ára rovái, pe jejavy rupi; ha omombo añetegua yvýre; ha ojapo hembipota, ha oñemomba’e. Upéi ahendu peteĩ marangatu oñe’ẽva, ha ambue marangatu he’i pe marangatu oikovévape oñe’ẽva’ekue: Mboy araka’e peve piko pe visión pe mba’e ojeikuave’ẽva ára ha ára rehegua, ha pe jejavy omongu’áva ñehundi, oñeme’ẽ hag̃uáicha mokõivéva pe santuario ha pe ehérsito oñepyrũ hag̃ua ojeipyru hag̃ua ipy guýpe? Ha ha’e he’i chéve: Mokõi mil tresientos ára peve; upéi pe santuario oñemopotĩta. Daniel 8:11–14.
In the very passage that includes the foundation of Adventism, Daniel employs two different Hebrew words that are both translated as “sanctuary.” In verses thirteen and fourteen Daniel chose to use the Hebrew word for “sanctuary,” that is only used biblically to identify God’s sanctuary, but in verse eleven, Daniel used the general or generic Hebrew word that can be God’s sanctuary, or it can be a pagan sanctuary.
Pe pasáheite omoĩva Adventísmo pyendaite, Daniel oipuru mokõi ñe’ẽ hebreo iñambuéva, mokõivéva oñembohasáva “santuario” ramo. Umi versíkulo 13 ha 14-pe, Daniel oiporavo ojepuru hag̃ua pe ñe’ẽ hebreo “santuario”-rã, ha upéva añoite ojepuru Ñandejára santuario rehegua hag̃ua Bíbliare; péro pe versíkulo 11-pe, Daniel oipuru pe ñe’ẽ hebreo general térã genérico ikatúva he’ise Ñandejára santuario, térã avei peteĩ santuario pagano.
If Daniel had wanted to identify the “sanctuary” in verse eleven, as God’s sanctuary, he would have used the same Hebrew word that he used twice within the next three verses. It is absolutely clear that Daniel was making a distinction between a pagan sanctuary in verse eleven, and God’s sanctuary in verses thirteen and fourteen! But the drunkards of Ephraim argue that the “place of his sanctuary” that was “cast down,” in verse eleven, was the place of God’s sanctuary, though they avoid the word “place.”
Daniel oipota rire omombeʼu hag̃ua pe “santuario” versíkulo once-pe, Tupã santuario ramo, oiporavóta kuri pe ñeʼẽ hebreo peteĩchagua pe oiporu vaʼekue mokõi jey umi mbohapy versíkulo oúva ryepýpe. Hesakãiterei Daniel ojapo hague peteĩ jehechakuaa porã peteĩ santuario pagano apytépe versíkulo once-pe, ha Tupã santuario apytépe versíkulo trece ha catorce-pe! Péro Efraín kaʼu reíva oñeʼẽ hag̃ua, heʼi hikuái pe “tenda isantuario rehegua” oñemombo vaʼekue yvýre, versíkulo once-pe, haʼe hague Tupã santuario renda, jepe omboykéramo hikuái pe ñeʼẽ “tenda”.
They teach that the papacy took away Christ’s ministry of intercession and cast down the truth of the heavenly sanctuary. But Daniel was clear that the “sanctuary” in verse eleven, was not God’s sanctuary, but a pagan sanctuary. Daniel was just as clear that it was not the “sanctuary” that was cast down, but “the place” of his sanctuary.
Ha’ekuéra ombo’e pe papado oipe’a hague Cristo-gui pe hembiapo ñemomba’eguasu rehegua, ha omboguevi hague pe añetegua yvágapegua tenda marangatu rehegua. Péro Daniel hesakã porã vaʼekue pe “tenda marangatu” versíkulo once-pe, ndahaʼeiha Ñandejára tenda marangatu, síno peteĩ tenda marangatu pagano. Daniel péicha avei hesakã porã vaʼekue ndahaʼeiha pe “tenda marangatu” pe oñemboguevíva, síno “pe tenda” hekoha marangatu rehegua.
Refusing to acknowledge the purposeful gender oscillation of verses nine through twelve, the modern theologians adopted the definition of “the daily” that originated within apostate Protestantism, and began to construct a foundation upon the sand of human conjecture, tradition and custom. When they arrive at verse eleven, they even reject the inspired counsel of Sister White that identified that Miller’s understanding of “the daily” as paganism was correct, and begin to employ the art of misdirection and conjecture to defend their love of Catholic and Protestant theology.
Omboyke hag̃ua umi versíkulo porundy guive pakõi peve oikuaaukaha rehekakuaáva pe ñe’ẽteete oje’éva kuimba’e térã kuña rehegua, umi teólogo moderno omoguahẽ hag̃ua peteĩ definición “pe ára ha ára rehegua” rehegua, osẽva protestantísmo apóstata apytégui, ha oñepyrũ omopu’ã hag̃ua peteĩ pyenda yvyku’i ári, yvypóra remimo’ã, tekotevẽ yma guare ha jepokuaa ári. Oguahẽvo versíkulo peteĩha pa peteĩhápe, jepe omboyke hikuái pe ñemoñe’ẽ ñanepytyvõva Sister White guive, omombe’úva Miller oikuaa hague porã “pe ára ha ára rehegua” ha’éha paganísmo, ha oñepyrũ ojapo hag̃ua pe tapejavyha ha ñemo’ãnguéra rembiporu omoirũ hag̃ua imborayhu teología katóliko ha protestánte rehe.
They change pagan Rome into papal Rome in the verse, and they force the definition of “remove” upon the word that means “lift up and exalt”. They define the satanic symbol of “the daily”, as a godly symbol, and then insist that a pagan temple is God’s temple, while avoiding the direct reference to “the place” of the sanctuary. And the “unlearned” (as Isaiah identifies them), who will only understand if the “learned” tell them it is so, accept the dish of fables unto their own destruction.
Haʼekuéra omoambue Roma pagána-pe Roma papál-pe pe versíkulope, ha omoĩ mbaretépe pe ñeʼẽ “mboguejy” rembiapokue pe ñeʼẽ heʼiséva “hupi ha mombarete” ári. Omyesakã hikuái pe símbolo satániko “pe ára ha ára guigua” ramo peteĩ símbolo Tupãgui ou hag̃ua, ha upéi ombojoaju peteĩ tupao pagáno haʼeha Tupã róga marangatu, ojehekýivo pe ñeʼẽ hekopete heʼíva “pe tenda” pe santuario rehegua. Ha umi “ndoikuaáiva” (Isaías ohenóiháicha chupekuéra), oikũmbytaha añoite umi “oikuaáva” heʼíramo chupekuéra péicha hag̃ua, omoneĩ umi mombeʼuguaʼu rembiʼu ogueraháva chupekuéra ijahapýpe hag̃ua.
We will continue our consideration of the increase of the knowledge represented as the jewels in Miller’s dream in the next article.
Rombojapóta ñande jehechameme pe kuaapy okakuaáva rehe, oñembohechaukáva joya-kuéraicha Miller kerayvotyme, pe artíkulo oúvape.
“The apostle Paul warns us that ‘some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.’ This is what we may expect. Our greatest trials will come because of that class who have once advocated the truth, but who turn from it to the world, and trample it under their feet in hate and derision. God has a work for his faithful servants to do. The attacks of the enemy must be met with the truth of his word. Falsehood must be unmasked, its true character must be revealed, and the light of the law of Jehovah must shine forth into the moral darkness of the world. We are to present the claims of his word. We shall not be held guiltless if we neglect this solemn duty. But while we stand in defense of the truth, let us not stand in defense of self, and make a great ado because we are called to bear reproach and misrepresentation. Let us not pity ourselves, but be very jealous for the law of the Most High.
“apóstol Pablo ñanemomarandu ñandéve oĩha ‘oĩta ojei vaʼekue pe jeroviágui, ohendu hag̃ua espíritukuéra ombotavýva ha añaretã remimboʼekuéra doctrina-kuérape.’ Péva hína ikatúva ñahaʼarõ. Ñane prueba tuichavéva oúta umi tapichakuéra rupi yma oñemoĩ vaʼekue añeteguáre, ha upéi haʼekuéra ojei chugui oho hag̃ua yvóra gotyo, ha opyrũ hese ipy guýpe ñembyai ha puka vai reheve. Tupã oreko tembiapo hag̃ua hembiguái jerovia hag̃ua guasúpe g̃uarã. Pe enemigo rembiapu oñorairõvaʼerã iñeʼẽ añeteguápe rupive. Japúpe ojeipeʼavaʼerã ijao, ojekuaaukavaʼerã imbaʼe reko añetetéva, ha Jehová léi resape overavaʼerã ko yvy arapytu pytũme. Jahechaukavaʼerã iñeʼẽ rembijerurekuéra. Ndajajehejáita orekoʼỹre mbaʼeve vai jahejáramo ko tembiapo pohýi ha marangatuete. Péro jajerovia aja añeteguáre ñañangareko hag̃ua hese, ani ñañangareko ñandejehe, térã jajapo sarambi guasu oñehenóiramo ñandeve jahasa hag̃ua ñeʼẽvai ha ñemombeʼu japu. Ani ñande poriahuvereko ñandejehe, síno tañandeakyhyje eterei pe Yvateve Léi rehehápe.”
“Says the apostle, ‘The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.’ On every side we see men easily led captive by the delusive imaginations of those who make void the word of God; but when the truth is brought before them, they are filled with impatience and anger. But the exhortation of the apostle to the servant of God is, ‘Watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.’ In his day some left the cause of the Lord. He writes, ‘Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world;’ and again, he says, ‘Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.’
“He’i apóstol, ‘Oúta ára hína ndaikatumo’ãi ogueropu’aka hag̃ua pe doctrina hesãiva; ha ijeheguiete rembipota vai rehe ombyatyta ijupekuéra mbo’ehárape, ijapysakuéra ohekýiva ohendu hag̃ua; ha ombojere hag̃ua iñapysakuéra añeteguágui, ha oñembojevýta mombe’upy hag̃ua.’ Mávapa opa hendáicha jahecha kuimba’e kuérape hasy’ỹ hag̃uáicha ojegueraha hag̃ua tembiapo rei ombotavývape umi omboguejýva Ñandejára Ñe’ẽ; ha katu pe añetegua oñemoĩ vove henondépekuéra, henyhẽ hikuái py’aro ha pochy rehe. Ha pe apóstol ñe’ẽmondo Ñandejára rembiguáipe ha’e: ‘Eñatende opa mba’épe, ehasa asy, ejapo evangelista rembiapo, emohu’ã porã nde ministerio.’ Iárape oĩ vaekue ohejáva Ñandejára rembiapo. Ha’e ohai: ‘Demas che reja, ohayhúgui ko mundo ko’ág̃agua;’ ha jey he’i, ‘Alejandro, pe herréro cobre rehegua, heta ivaíva ojapo cherehe: Ñandejára tome’ẽ chupe hembiapokuéra he’iháicha; eñangareko avei hese, ha’e niko hetaiterei oñemoĩ ore ñe’ẽ ndive hag̃ua.”
“Prophets and apostles experienced similar trials of opposition and reproach, and even the spotless Lamb of God was tempted in all points like as we are. He bore the contradiction of sinners against himself.
“Proféta ha apóstol-kuéra ohasa peteĩchagua jejopy ha jeja’o rupi, ha pe Ovecha Ra’y Tupãgua, marangatuite ha ky’a’ỹva jepe, ojejopy’ã opa mba’épe ñandeichaguáicha. Ha’e ogueropu’aka umi pekadorkuéra oñemoĩva hese.”
“Every warning for this time must be faithfully delivered; but ‘the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves.’ We must cherish carefully the words of our God lest we be contaminated by the deceptive workings of those who have left the faith. We are to resist their spirit and influence with the same weapon our Master used when assailed by the prince of darkness,—‘It is written.’ We should learn to use the word of God skillfully. The exhortation is, ‘Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.’ There must be diligent work and earnest prayer and faith to meet the winding error of false teachers and seducers; for ‘in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.’ These words portray the character of the men the servants of God will have to meet. ‘False accusers,’ ‘despisers of those that are good,’ will attack those who are faithful to their God in this degenerate age. But the embassador of Heaven must manifest the spirit that was displayed in the Master. In humility and love he must labor for the salvation of men.
“Opaite ñemomarandu ko ára guarã oñemombeʼuvaʼerã jeroviápe; ha katu ‘Tupã rembiguái ndoñorairõivaʼerãi; síno ipyʼaguapýva opavavépe ndive, katupyry hag̃ua oporomboʼe, opaichagua hag̃ua, pyʼaporãme omboʼe hag̃ua umi ijehegui oñemoĩva.’ Ñañongatu porãvaʼerã ñande Ruete ñeʼẽ ani hag̃ua ñañemongyʼa umi ombotavyséva rembiapo rupive, umi oheja vaʼekue jerovia. Ñañemoĩvaʼerã hesekuéra ha ijespíritu ha ijehecharamóva rehe peteĩchagua tembiporu rupive ñande Mboʼehára oipuru haguéicha oñembosarái ramo guare chupe pytũmby mburuvicha,—‘Ojehai hína.’ Jaikuaavaʼerã jaipuru hag̃ua Tupã ñeʼẽ katupyrýpe. Pe ñemokyreʼỹ heʼi: ‘Eñemoarandu ejejuhu hag̃ua Tupã renondépe ojeroviapy hag̃uáicha nderehe, peteĩ tembiapohára ndoikotevẽiva otĩ hag̃ua, ombojaʼo porãva añetegua ñeʼẽ.’ Tekotevẽ tembiapo kyreʼỹ ha ñemboʼe pyʼaite guive ha jerovia oñembohovái hag̃ua umi mboʼehára japu ha mbotavyséva jejavy ijapysakáva rehe; ‘umi ára pahápe og̃uahẽtaha ára vaieterei. Yvypóra kuéra ojehayhúta ijehe, iplátareikéta, oñemombaʼeguasúta, oñemomorotĩta, oñeʼẽvaíta, naiñeʼẽrendumoʼãi ituvakuérape, ndoagradesemoʼãi, ndojeroviapýmoʼãi, ndaijayhumoʼãi, ndopyʼarorymoʼãi, ndoguerekomoʼãi ñemoĩ porã, ijapu hag̃uáicha ombojovakéta ambuépe, ndojejokomoʼãi, ipohýita, ndaijaʼemoʼãi ivaʼekuére, oporotĩrõta, iñakãhatãta, oñembotuicháta, ohayhuvéta vyʼarã Tupã rayhúgui; oguerekóramo jepe Tupã rerovia raʼanga, omoneĩta ipokatu hag̃ua: koʼãichaguágui ejei.’ Koʼã ñeʼẽ ohechauka umi kuimbaʼe rekokatu, umi Tupã rembiguái ojojuhútava hendivekuéra. ‘Ombotavy hag̃uáicha ombojovakéva,’ ‘umi ivaʼevape ndaijaʼéiva,’ oñorairõta umi ijerovia hag̃ua itupãre ko arapokõindy oñembyaívape. Ha pe Yvága rembiguái katu ohechauka vaʼerã pe espíritu ojehechauka vaʼekue Mboʼehárape. Ñemomirĩ ha mborayhúpe ombaʼapovaʼerã yvyporakuéra pysyrõrã rehe.”
“Paul continues concerning those who oppose the work of God, comparing them to the men who made war against the faithful in the time of ancient Israel. He says: ‘Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth; men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.’ We know that the time is coming when the folly of warring against God will be revealed. We can afford to wait in calm patience and trust, no matter how much maligned and despised; for ‘nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest,’ and those who honor God shall be honored by him in the presence of men and angels. We are to share in the sufferings of the reformers. It is written, ‘The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.’ Christ understands our grief. Not one of us is called to bear the cross alone. The suffering Man of Calvary is touched with the feeling of our woes, and as he has suffered being tempted, he is able also to succor them that are in sorrow and trial for his sake. ‘Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned.’” Review and Herald, January 10, 1888.
“Pablo osegi umi oñemoĩva Tupã rembiapo rehe, omojojávo chupekuéra umi kuimba'épe ojapo va'ekue ñorairõ umi jeroviapy rehegua ndive Israel yma guarépe. Ha'e he'i: ‘Ha Jannes ha Jambres ojokóhaguéicha Moiséspe, upéicha avei ko'ãva oñemoĩ pe añetegua rehe; kuimba'e akãvai, oñemboyke va'ekue pe jerovia rehegua. Péro ndohasamo'ãvéi tenonde gotyo: hi'áva ojekuaáta opavavépe, ha'ekuéra reheguáicha avei ojekuaa va'ekue.’ Jaikuaa og̃uahẽtaha pe ára ojehechaukatahápe mba'eveichaitépa itavy ñorairõ Tupã rehe. Ikatu jaha'arõ py'a guapýpe, paciencia ha jerovia reheve, taha'e jepe mba'éichapa oñeñe'ẽ vai ha oñemboyke ñanderehe; ‘mba'eve ningo ndañemokañýiva, ndojekuaáimo'ãiva,’ ha umi omomba'éva Tupãme ha'e omomba'éta chupekuéra yvypóra ha ánhel kuéra renondépe. Ñande jajuhuva'erã ñande pype umi reformadór kuéra ñemhasa asy. Ojehai: ‘Umi nde rehe oñeñe'ẽ vai va'ekue ñe'ẽ vai ho'a che ári.’ Cristo oikuaa ñande mba'asy. Avave ñande apytégui nohenóiva'erã omondo hag̃ua pe kurusu ha'eño. Pe Kuimba'e Ohasa Asýva Calvariopegua oñandu ñande jehasa asy, ha ha'e voi ohasa asy haguére oñeha'ãrõ jave, ikatu avei oipytyvõ umi oĩvape ñembyasy ha prueba pype hesehápe. ‘Ha añetehápe, opavave oikoseva'erã tekokatu rehe Cristo Jesúspe ohasáta persecución. Péro umi kuimba'e ivaíva ha umi ombotavýva vaietévéta ohóvo, ombotavy ha oñembotavy. Nde katu eñemoĩ hatã umi mba'épe reikuaa ha remoarandu va'ekuépe.’” Review and Herald, January 10, 1888.