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 arandupy ñemongakuaa ojehechaukáva visión ysyry Ulái rehegua rupive ha’e upe ipahaitépe ojehaíva Habacuc mokõi tabla ári.
“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.
“Oñembojoaju hag̃ua profecía reheve, ha’ekuéra ohecha vaʼekue ojeporu hag̃uáicha pe mokõiha jeju ára rehe, oĩ vaʼekue ñembo’e ha ñembo’epy hesakã porãva oñemohenda hag̃uáicha iñakãrapu’ãme ha’e kuéra oĩrõ guare py’atarovápe ha oha’ãrõ hag̃uáicha, ha omokyre’ỹva chupekuéra oha’arõ hag̃ua paciencia reheve jeroviápe, pe oĩva ko’ág̃a iñypytũva iñentendimientope, ára ohasávape ojekuaaukáta hesakã 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.’
Umíva koʼã profesía apytépe oĩ Habacuc 2:1–4 pegua: “Che aime vaʼekue che ñangarekoha ári, ha amoĩta chejupe torre ári, ha amaʼẽta ahecha hag̃ua mbaʼépa Haʼe heʼíta chéve, ha mbaʼépa ambohováita ajekorrehíro vove. Upéi Ñandejára chembohovái ha heʼi chéve: Ehai pe visión, ha emoñeʼẽkuaa porãke yvyra pehẽnguekuéra ári, ikatu hag̃uáicha pe omoñeʼẽva osyry. Pe visión niko gueteri peteĩ ára oñemoĩmavaʼekuépe g̃uarã; ha ipahápe oñeʼẽta, ha ndijapumoʼãi. Jepémo ipuku hag̃uáicha ojekuaa, ehaʼarõ chupe; oútagui añetehápe, ndahiʼaréi moʼãi. Péina ápe, pe oñembotuicháva angapyhy ndorekói tekojoja ipype; pe hekojojáva katu oikove hag̃ua ijerovia rupive.”
“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.
“Pe áño 1842-pe voi pe ñembohape oñeme’ẽva ko profecía-pe ‘ehaíke pe visión, ha emboguapy hesakã hag̃uáicha távla ári, ikatu hag̃uáicha oñani pe omoñe’ẽva’ekue,’ omokyre’ỹ Charles Fitch-pe ombosako’i hag̃ua peteĩ kuatiahaipyre profético ohechaukáva Daniel ha Apocalipsis vision-kuéra. Ko kuatiahaipyre ñemyasãi oñehechakuaa kuri ramo peteĩ ñemohu’ã pe mandamiento ome’ẽva Habacuc. Upéicharõ jepe, avave ndohechakuaái kuri upérõ pe profecía peteĩteĩme avei ojehechaukaha peteĩ jehasarei ojogua hag̃uáicha pe visión ñemohu’ãme—peteĩ aravo oha’arõva. Pe ñembyasy guasu rire, ko Escritura ojehecha kuri tuicha mba’évarõ: ‘Pe visión gueteri oĩ peteĩ ára oñemoĩmava’erã hag̃uápe, ha ipahápe oñe’ẽta, ha ndijapumo’ãi: jepe oha’arõ, eha’arõ chupe; péva ou hag̃uáicha añetehápe oune, ndopytareimo’ãi…. Pe hekojojáva 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, oñembojoaju vaʼerã mokõi testígo oñemopyendá hag̃ua 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 18:16.
Ha ndéve nohenduséiramo, upéicharõ egueraha nendive peteĩ térã mokõi ambue, ikatu hag̃uáicha mokõi térã mbohapy testígo jurúpe oñemopyenda hag̃ua opa ñeʼẽ. Mateo 18:16.
When Habakkuk’s two tables (the 1843 and 1850 pioneer charts) are overlaid with one another 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.
Ojojoajúramo Habacuc mokõi táva (1843 ha 1850 pegua ta’ãngamýi tenondegua) oñondive, omoneĩ umi añetegua ha’éva Miller képe pe ta’ãngarã porãite. Jejavy oikóva’ekue 1843-pe, ojehechaukáva pe távape peteĩha, ojejoajúramo pe mokõiha távandi, omopyenda pe visión are hag̃ua. Miller (upe tembiasakue ñangarekoha simbólico) oporandu mba’épa he’íta va’erã upe iñarõva’ekue jave pe ijarahýi oñomongeta aja.
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 chejehe pe tórre ári, ha ama’ẽta ahecha hag̃ua mba’épa he’íta chéve, ha mba’éichapa ambohováita añemongy’a jave. 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.
Ñandejára ombo’e Miller-pe ohai hag̃ua pe visión, ha i-képe omoĩ pe mba’yruguata oguerekóva pe visión peteĩ mesa ári, i-kotýpe mbyte gotyo.
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 ombohovái, he’ívo: Ehai pe visión, ha embosako’i porã itablakuérape, ikatu hag̃uáicha pya’e osẽ pe omoñe’ẽva. Habacuc 2:2.
The tables then identify the tarrying time and the first disappointment.
Umi kuatia upérõ ohechauka pe ára oñembotaveha ha pe ñembotavy peteĩha.
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 oñemoĩmava peguarã; ha ipahápe oñe’ẽta, ha ndijapumo’ãi: imbeguéramo jepe, eha’arõ chupe; oútaha katuete, ndimbegueimo’ãi. Habacuc 2:3.
The three-step testing process produced by the increase of knowledge (Miller’s jewels) are then represented.
Upéi ojehechauka pe proceso de prueba mbohapy jepysokue rehegua, oúva pe aranduka jehechauka ñembohetavegui (Miller rembiporavo).
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 peteĩ ijánga yvatekue rehe oñembotuicha vaʼekue, ndahaʼéi hekojoja ipype; ha pe hekojoja oikovéta ijerovia rupive. Habacuc 2:4.
The two classes of worshippers would be manifested by the testing process of Daniel chapter twelve.
Mokõi aty ñemomba’eha aty ojehechaukáta pe jehechaporã rape rupive Daniel capítulo 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; ko'ã ñe'ẽ niko oñemboty ha ojesella pe ára paha peve. Heta oñemopotĩta, oñemomorotĩta ha oñeha'ãmbaitéta; ha umi hekoañáva hekoañáme oikóta; ha avave umi hekoañávagui noikũmbymo'ãi; umi iñarandúva 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.
Umi arandu Daniel pegua ha’e umi kuñataĩ arandu Mateo mokõipa poha pegua, ojehekovia va’ekue jerovia rupive; ha umi iñañáva katu ha’e umi kuñataĩ tavy, oñemopu’ã va’ekue oñembotuichágui. Miller képe pahaite peve, umi ita jeguaka rehechauka pe aséite pe ñe’ẽtépe umi pa kuñataĩ 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.
“Ñandejára oñemomarãramo ñande ndajarresivéiramo umi marandu ha’e ñandéve omondóva. Péicha ñambotove pe aséite órova ha’e oñohẽseva ñande ánga kuérape, oñembohasávo umi oĩvape pytũmbýpe. Oguahẽ vove pe ñehenói: ‘Pema’ẽ, pe novio ou; pesẽ pejotopa hag̃ua hese’, umi ndoresivéiva’ekue pe aséite marangatu, umi nomombaretéiva’ekue ikorasõme Cristo gracia, ojuhúta, umi virhen itavýicha, noĩriha oĩporã hag̃uáicha ojotopa hag̃ua Ijára ndive. Ha’ekuéra ndojoguerekói ijehegui pe pokatu ohupyty hag̃ua pe aséite, ha hekovekuéra oñehundi.” Review and Herald, July 20, 1897.
The light of Miller’s jewels in the last days will shine ten times brighter, and both the number ten and light are symbols of a test. 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 represented as the 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 ita’ỹi kuéra resape, ára pahápe, omimbipáta diez jey hetave; ha mokõivéva, papapy diez ha tesape, ha’e peteĩ prueba ra’anga. Ára pahápe, ojehechaukáva Miller képe paha rupi, añetegua resape ojehechaukáva Habacuc táva kuéra ári ogueru peteĩ marandu de prueba, ha upéva, umi diez virgen kuéra ñe’ẽnga rupive, ojehechauka Pyhare Mbyte Sapy’a’y marandu ramo. Pe proceso de prueba ha’e peteĩ jey jevy pe proceso de prueba ojehuva’ekue Miller rembiasakuepe, pe ñe’ẽnga umi diez virgen rehegua oñembojevy hag̃ua, peteĩ letra peve, 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 pa umi diez kuñataĩkuéra rembiasakue, po apytépe iñarandu ha po ambue itavyva’ekue. Ko ñe’ẽnga ojehuma ha ojehútaite opa mba’e he’iháicha, oguerekógui peteĩ aplicación especial ko tiempo-pe, ha, mbohapyha ángel maranduicha, oñekumplíma ha opytáta añetegua ko’ág̃agua pe ára paha peve.” Review and Herald, agosto 19, 1890.
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 represented 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 it is the prophetic characteristics of the papacy which is employed to identify the character of those who chose not to live by faith.
Pa simbolisa peteĩ prueba, ha paha diez ára rire Daniel ha umi mbohapy kuimba'e ijojaháva ojehechauka hesãi ha ikyve umi okaru va'ekue Babilonia rembi'u rehe. Umi oñemomba'eguasúva ojehechaukáva Habacuc-pe, oikova'ekue jerovia'ỹme ha ndaha'éi jeroviápe, omoakã Babilonia reko. Historia Millerita-pe ha'ekuéra oiko Babilonia rajykuéra, ha Habacuc-pe ha'e umi marandu profético papado rehegua ojeporúva ojeikuaa hag̃ua umi oiporavo va'ekue ndaha'éi oiko hag̃ua jeroviápe.
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, pe imba’e pytu ojejapysakáva ndaha’éi hekojojáva ipype; ha pe hekojojáva oikovéta ijerovia rupi. Añetehápe avei, víno rupi hembiapo vai haguére, ha’e kuimba’e jejapóva, ndopytái hógape; ombotuicha hag̃ua hembipota hag̃ua yvyra’ẽicha, ha ojogua ñemanóme, ha ndaikatúi hyguatã; upévare ombyaty hag̃ua ichupe opa tetãnguéra, ha omono’õ hag̃ua ichupe opa tavayguakuéra. Ndajajapomo’ãi piko opavave ko’ãva peteĩ ñe’ẽnga ha peteĩ ñe’ẽ pohýi ñembohory rehegua hese, ha he’íta: ¡Ai pe ombohetávape mba’e ndaha’éiva imba’e! ¿Araka’e peve? ha pe ombohýivape ijehe ári ñai’ũ hũ! Ndopu’ãmo’ãi piko pya’e umi nde su’ãtava, ha ndopáymo’ãi piko umi nemoangekoitava, ha nde reiko hag̃uáicha chuguikuéra mba’e jeguakarã? Reipe’a hag̃ua heta tetãnguéra mba’e, opyta hag̃uáicha umi tavayguakuéra rembyre reipe’áta ndehegui; yvypóra ruguy rehe, ha pe tetã ñemomarangatu’ỹ rehe, pe táva rehe, ha opa umi ipype oikóva rehe. Habacuc 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.” It is the papal power that gets suddenly bitten, just as Jezebel was eaten by dogs.
Pe proceso de prueba oúva vaʼekue umi virgen de Mateo 25 ári omoheñói peteĩ aty omombaʼeguasúva, omongakuaa vaʼekue pypekuéra pe karácter pe mburuvicha guasu yvate gotyo pegua rehegua (pe papado), haʼe avei pe pokatu “omoñembyai hague heta tetãme”. Pe pokatu papal hína pe oñesuʼũ sapyʼaite, heʼiháicha Jezabel ojeʼu vaʼekue jaguakuéra rehe.
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, peteĩ tetãgua ou yvy gotyo guive, ha peteĩ tetã guasu oñemopuʼãta yvy apýra guive. Haʼekuéra ojagarra arco ha kyse puku; ipochy ha ndohechagi porãi avavépe; ijayvu osapukái pe paraicha; ha oho kavaju ári, oñembosakoʼi hag̃ua kuimbaʼe ñorairõháraicha nde rehe, Sión rajy. Rohendu hague herakuã: ore po ikangypa; ñandepyʼapy orejoko, ha mbaʼasy, kuña imembývo oñanduháicha. Esẽ eme ñúme, ani reguata tape rupi; pe enemigo kyse puku ha kyhyje oĩ opa rupi. Che retãygua rajy, eñemonde ao ajáipe, ha ejeity tanimbúpe; ejapo hag̃ua ñembyasy peteĩ taʼýra peteĩnte reheguáicha, tasẽ rovaite; pe ohundíva outa sapyʼaitépe ore 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 ojehechauka hag̃ua hekojoja jerovia rupive, ha umi ho’úva ha hoy’úva Babilonia remimbo’e. Umi oĩva ára pahápe Miller kerayvotýpe, ojehechaukáva kuñataĩ marangatuicha, térã omongakuaa Cristo reko, ha upéicha ohupyty Tupã sello, térã omongakuaa papado reko ha ohupyty mymba ñaña marka.
“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.
“Og̃uahẽma ára pe tesape añetegua omimbi hag̃ua tekoporãrã pytũmby mbytépe. Ángel mbohapyha marandu oñemondóma ko yvy ape ári, ojehekombo’e hag̃ua yvypórape ani hag̃ua ojapyhy mymba ñarõ marca térã ta’anga marca ikuápe térã ipope. Oñeme’ẽ hag̃ua ko marca he’ise peteĩva og̃uahẽha pe mymba ñarõ ojapóhaguéicha upe decisiónpe, ha oñemoirũha umi idea peteĩchagua, Tupã Ñe’ẽ rehe oñemoĩ hag̃uáicha katuete. Opavave umi ojapyhývagui ko marca, Tupã he’i: ‘Upéva voi ho’úta Tupã poxy vino, oñeñohẽva jehe’a’ỹre ipoxy ryrupe; ha oñembohasáta asy tata ha azúfre rupive umi ánhel marangatu renondépe, ha Ovecha Ra’y renondépe.’” Review and Herald, July 13, 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 kuñataĩ Babilonia rymba vino ho’úva, ipahápe ho’úta Tupã pochy rymba vino. Isaías-pe, Efraín ka’uçára ohechauka hikuái iñakañy ka’u rehegua omoĩvo opa mba’e akã yvate guýpe; ha upe tembiapo ojehecha va’erã “ña’ẽ ñai’ũ ojapo hag̃ua kambuchi” ramo.
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 Second Thessalonians, chapter two.
Pe ñe’ẽñemombe’u “pe ára ha ára” rehegua ha’eha peteĩ símbolo Cristo rehegua, ombojere pype guive “pe ára ha ára” añetegua, pórke “pe ára ha ára” ha’e peteĩ símbolo satánico. Miller ohechakuaa hague “pe ára ha ára” ha’eha paganismo, ojehechauka hag̃uáicha voi Habacuc táva kuéra ári. Miller ojuhu hague pe pasáhe Tesalonicenses-pe, ome’ẽva’ekue chupe ikatuháicha ontende ha’eha paganismo pe “oñemboi’óva hag̃ua” ikatu hag̃uáicha ojehechauka “pe kuimba’e angaipa rehegua” oguapýva Tupã templo-pe, ha’e pe añetegua tenondegua oĩva Segunda Tesalonicenses, capítulo 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 ndaikuaái ambue káso ojejuhu hague ipype [pe ára ha ára], ndaha’éiramo Daniel-pe año. Upéi [peteĩ concordancia pytyvõ rupive] ajagarra umi ñe’ẽ oĩva hendive joajúpe, ‘oipe’a hag̃ua’; ha’e oipe’áta pe ára ha ára; ‘pe ára ha ára ojeipe’a guive,’ h.a. Alee memévo, apensa ndaikatumo’ãiha ajuhu mba’eve tesape hag̃ua pe texto; ipahápe aguahẽ 2 Tesalonicenses 2:7, 8-pe. ‘Pe tekoañámeguiguáva ñemimby niko omba’apóma voi; peteĩnte oĩ ko’ág̃a ojoko hag̃ua, ojeipe’a pe tapegui peve, ha upéi ojekuaaukáta pe hembiapo vaíva,’ h.a. Ha aguahẽvo upe texto-pe, ¡ajépa hesakã ha glorioso pe añetegua ojehecha! ¡Upépe oĩ! ¡Upéva hína pe ára ha ára! Máva piko, añetehápe, he’ise Pablo ‘upe ko’ág̃a ojokóva,’ térã ombohape’ỹva? ‘Kuimba’e angaipa rehegua’ ha ‘pe hembiapo vaíva’ rupive oñeñe’ẽ hína Papado rehe. Upéicharõ, mba’épa pe ojokóva Papado ojekuaauka hag̃ua? Añete, ha’e hína Paganismo; upéicharõ, ‘pe ára ha ára’ tekotevẽ he’ise Paganismo.” —William Miller, Second Advent Manual, página 66.” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 6 jasypokõi 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 he’iséva “pe ára ha káda día” rehegua Tesalonicenses-pe, Miller ohechakuaa va’ekueha pe añetegua tenondegua pe pasáhepe. Pablo omombe’úvo umi ndohayhúivape pe añetegua, ha upévare oikotaha hikuái ñembotavy mbarete poguýpe, katuete ohechauka hína pe añetegua ñemboyke pe sentido general-pe; ha pe añetegua oñe’ẽva rehe directamente pe pasáhepe ha’e pe añetegua “pe ára ha káda día” ohechaukaha Roma pagana.
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.
Tetépe resape hína nde resa; upévare nde resa ipotĩrõ, nde rete tuichakue henyhẽta tesakãgui. Ha nde resa ivaírõ, nde rete tuichakue henyhẽta pytũgui. Upéicharõ pe tesakã oĩva nderehe pytũramo, tuichaite pe pytũ! Avave ndaikatúi omba’apo mokõi járape g̃uarã; peteĩme niko ndaija’éimo’ãi ha pe ambuépe ohayhúta, térã peteĩre oñembo’ysýita ha pe ambuépe omboykéta. Peẽ ndaikatúi peiko Tupã ha mamón rembiguairõ. 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 mborayhu añeteguápe g̃uarã, térã peteĩ ñembyai añetegua rehe. Ndaipóri mbytegua. Pe jejavy mbarete oúva umi vírgen itavývare Mateo mokõipa po pegua oñemopyenda hína hikuái omboykégui pe tesape oguerekóva umi Miller rembiju, ohechaukáva pe jeha’ã paha. Israel yma guaréva jeha’ã paha ha’e va’ekue pe hapykuéri décima jeha’ã, ha umi Miller rembiju omimbi pa’ũ diez jeyve hetave ára pahápe. Pe símbolo ohechaukáva oñemboykeha umi Miller rembiju ha’e “pe ára ha ára”, umi Efraín ka’úvare ombojere va’ekue akã yvýre mbohapyha generación adventismo-pe. “Pe ára ha ára” ha’e peteĩ símbolo satánico paganis-mo rehegua. Umi ka’úva omoinge peteĩ rembiju japúva, oguerúva protestantismo apóstata-gui, omombe’úva “pe ára ha ára” ha’eha 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.
Míller oikuaa hag̃ua umi ita jeguakarã rehegua ipahápe ojejokóma pe tembiasakue rupive oñemopuʼã hague pype. Ojeroviávo pe Jejujey Mokõiha haʼeha pe mbaʼe oikótava proféticamente upe rire, pe kyhyje vaiete ojapovaʼekue papado rehe 1798-pe, ikatu hag̃uánte ohechauka pe irundyha ha pahague yvy arigua mburuvicha guasu Daniel mokoĩme guare. Míller ojejokove avei ikuaapy rehe “pe ára ha ára” rehegua, pórke hekopete omombeʼu haʼe jehechauka rupive oñemboguata hague chupe peteĩ tape poravopyre omoñeʼẽ hag̃ua, upépe heʼivaʼekue oiporu hague iBiblia, Cruden Concordance ha omoñeʼẽ hague avei algunos kuatiahaipyre marandu rehegua. Iñeʼẽmbyrãkue omoarandu hag̃ua upéicha, iñakãme mante oike vaʼekue.
“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-rõ guare, alee opaichagua tembiasakue ajuhúva; ha koʼág̃a katu ahayhu la Biblia. Upépe oñemboʼe Jesús rehe! Upéicharõ jepe, heta hendáicha la Biblia opyta hag̃ua chéve pytũmbýpe. Áño 1818 térã 1819-pe, añemongeta jave peteĩ che irũ ndive, ajapo vaʼekue ichupe peteĩ jehechajey, haʼe niko chekuaa ha ohendu vaʼekue che ñeʼẽ deísta-rõ guare, ha upéi oporandu chéve, heʼiséva porã hag̃uáicha: ‘Mbaʼépa ere ko téxto rehe, ha pe ambue rehe?’ ohechauka umi téxto yma guarére che ambohováiʼỹva deísta-rõ guare. Aikuaa mbaʼérepa haʼe ojapo upéva, ha ambohovái ichupe:—Rehejáiramo chéve tiempo, haʼéta ndéve mbaʼépa heʼise. ‘Mboy tiémpopa reipota?’ Ndakuaái, ha katu haʼéta ndéve, ambohovái, ndaikatúigui aguerovia Tupã omeʼẽ hague peteĩ revelación ndaikatúiva oñeikũmby. Upérõ ajapo che pyʼapýpe peteĩ mbaʼe: astudiáta che Biblia, agueroviávo ikatútaha aikuaa mbaʼépa heʼise Espíritu Santo. Ha pyaʼe asẽvo ko ñeimoʼãme, ou chéve ko pensamiento:—‘Eimérõ rejuhu peteĩ pasaje ndaikatúiva rentende, mbaʼépa rejapóta?’ Upérõ ou che akãme ko tape la Biblia ñemoarandu rehegua:—Ajagarráta umi ñeʼẽ umi pasaje-gua, ha ahapykuehóta Biblia pukukue javeve, ha péicha ajuhúta mbaʼépa heʼise. Areko vaʼekue Cruden’s Concordance, che aikuaa hag̃ua haʼeha iporãvéva ko yvy ape ári; upévare ajagarra upéva ha che Biblia, ha aguapy che mesápe, ha ndalee ambue mbaʼeve, umi marandu kuatiaʼípe michĩmi año hag̃uáicha, che añemoĩmbaitégui aikuaase 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 rembirekue ndaha’éi ojehechakuaa hag̃ua añoite imétodo de estudio rupive, ha avei ojehechauka chupekuéra revelación directa rupive 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 Ijángel ikatu hag̃uáicha omonguʼe peteĩ kokuehárape korasõ, peteĩ ndogueroviáiva’ekue la Biblia, ogueraha hag̃ua chupe oheka hag̃ua umi profesía. Ñandejára remimboukuéra oho jeýjeývo ovisita upe poravopyrepe, ombohape hag̃ua iñakãme ha oipeʼa hag̃ua iñentendimientope umi profesía ymaite guive iñypytũva’ekue Ñandejára tavayguakuérape g̃uarã. Oñemeʼẽ chupe añepyrũrã pe joajuha añeteguáva, ha oñemboguata chupe oheka hag̃ua joajuha joajuha, peve omaña hag̃ua ñemondýi porã ha mbaʼeporãme Ñandejára Ñeʼẽre. Upépe haʼe ohecha peteĩ joajuha añeteguáva iporãite hag̃uáicha. Upe Ñeʼẽ haʼe oguereko vaʼekue ndahaʼeiha Ñandejára pytu rupigua, koʼág̃a ojepeʼa ijehegui hesa renondépe iporã ha heko mimbipápe. Haʼe ohecha peteĩva Escritúrape omyesakãha ambuévape, ha peteĩ pasáhe oñemboty jave iñentendimientogui, ojuhu ambue hendápe pe Ñeʼẽme upe omyesakãva chupe. Haʼe omaʼẽ Ñandejára Ñeʼẽ marangature rehe vyʼápe ha temimoĩ guasúpe, 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.
Hermana White heʼi vove “Tupã ombou Itupãremimbou” Miller rendápe, upéva ohechauka Gabriel hague pe remimbou oñemondovaʼekue Miller rendápe; “Itupãremimbou” niko ñeʼẽ ojeporúva Gabriel rehe.
“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 ha’e Gabriel, añembo’yva Tupã renondépe,’ ohechauka ha’e ojapyhyha peteĩ tenda tuicha jeroviapy ha yvate rehegua yvágape. Oguahẽrõ guare peteĩ marandu reheve Daniel-pe, he’i: ‘Ndaipóri avave oñemoĩva che ykére ko’ã mba’épe, ndaha’éiramo Miguel [Cristo] nde Ruvicha.’ Daniel 10:21. Gabriel rehegua, pe Salvador he’i Apocalípsis-pe, he’ívo ‘Ha’e omondo ha oikuaauka hag̃ua i ánhel rupive hembiguái Juan-pe.’ Apocalípsis 1:1.” The Desire of Ages, 99.
Gabriel and the other angels were sent to guide Miller’s mind and “open 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 had come into his mind. When God brings truth to our mind, it is divine revelation as opposed to arriving at truth through the process of rightly dividing the Bible. Miller did both, but divine revelation had to be part of how Miller came to understand the subject of “the daily.”
Gabriel ha ambue ánhelkuéra ambue rehegua oñemondo vaʼekue oisãmbyhy hag̃ua Miller apytuʼũ ha “oavri hag̃ua iñentendimientópe umi profesía oĩ vaʼekue tapiaite pytũmby Tupã tavayguakuérape guarã”. Imarandu ndahaʼéi vaʼekue añónte ojepysovaʼekue iñemoarandu rapére, síno avei peteĩ jehechauka hag̃ua Tupãgui. Pe método voi haʼe oipurúva ikatu hag̃uáicha oikuaa hag̃ua la Biblia ou vaʼekue iñapytuʼũme. Tupã ogueru jave añetegua ñane apytuʼũme, upéva haʼe jehechauka Tupãgua, ha ndahaʼéi jaheguahẽva añeteguápe pe proceso rupive ñambojaʼo porãvo la Biblia. Miller ojapo vaʼekue mokõivéva, péro pe jehechauka Tupãgua tekotevẽkuri oike avei mbaʼéichapa Miller oikuaávo pe tema hérava “the daily”.
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 not have seen the distinction between “miqdash” and “qodesh” which are both translated as “sanctuary.”
Míller ndohechakuaamo’ãikuri pe osila hag̃ua pe jénero rehegua Daniel arandukápe, capítulo ocho, versículos nueve guive doce peve, pórke ha’e oguereko va’ekue añoite la Biblia ha peteĩ concordancia ndaiporihápe mba’eveichagua marandu ñe’ẽnguéra bíblicas rehegua. Ndohechamo’ãi va’ekue pe joavy “sur” ha “rum” apytépe, mokõivéva oñembohasáva “take away” ramo. Ndohechamo’ãi va’ekue avei pe joavy “miqdash” ha “qodesh” apytépe, mokõivéva oñembohasáva “sanctuary” ramo.
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, 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.
Ha’e ndohechamo’ãi kuri pe añetegua ñe’ẽ “tamid” rehegua, ojejuhúva cien cuatro jey la Bíblia-pe. Pe añetegua ndaikatúi va’ekue ha’e ohecha (ha upéva avei hína pe añetegua ha’e ohecha va’ekue) ha’e kóva: umi cien cuatro jey ñe’ẽ hebreo “tamid” ojepuruha la Bíblia-pe, Daniel aranduka-pente añoite pe ñe’ẽ hebreo “tamid” ojepuru téra ramo. “Tamid” ha’e pe ñe’ẽ hebreo he’iséva “meme”, ha oñemoñe’ẽ “pe ára ha ára” ramo Daniel aranduka-pe.
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.”
Pe lívro Daniel-pe añónte ojepuru pe ñe’ẽ téraicha, ha ambue noventa y nueve jey ojepuru adverbioicha. Upévare, umi traduktór ojejapóva Biblia King James-pegua oñembohovái ramo Daniel oipurúvo pe ñe’ẽ po jey téraicha, ha opaite ambue Escritúra haihára oipurúramo noventa y nueve jey adverbioicha, pe prueba pohýi rupi oñembojerekuéra omyatyrõ hag̃ua Daniel jepuru pe ñe’ẽ rehe téraicha. Ikatu hag̃uáicha omyatyrõ Daniel-pe, omoĩve hikuái pe ñe’ẽ “sacrificio” Ñe’ẽme, ha péicha ombohasa peteĩ téra adverbio-rã. Ha upéi, ikatu hag̃uáicha omyatyrõ umi traduktór-pe, Ellen White oñeinspira hag̃ua ohaikuaa hag̃ua ha’e, “ahecha pe ‘Daily’ rehegua, pe ñe’ẽ ‘sacrifice’ oñemoĩhague yvypóra arandu rupive, ha ndaha’éi pe texto pegua; ha Ñandejára ome’ẽ hague pe hechapyre añetéva hese umi ome’ẽ vaekuépe pe juicio aravo sapukái.”
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, ijehegui rupi voi, oheka hína kuri ontende hag̃ua “pe ára ha ára”, ha upéva ipahápe ontende 2 Tesalonicenses-pe. Ha avei, ijehegui rupi voi, peteĩ ñe’ẽ ontende hag̃ua ohecha vaʼekue opa hendápe upe ñe’ẽ ojepuru haguépe, ha upe ñe’ẽ ojepuru ambue noventa y nueve jey Biblia-pe. Upéicharõ jepe, ijehegui “pe ára ha ára” rehegua heʼi hína ojuhu hague ndahaʼei ambue hendápe, síno Daniel arandukápe año, heʼírõ guare: “Alee hag̃ua asegi, ha ndaikatúi ajuhu ambue káso ipype ojejuhuha [pe ára ha ára], ndahaʼéiramo Daniel-pe.” Miller oguahẽ umi joya-kuérape ndahaʼéi iñambueʼỹ hag̃uáicha iñemoarandu rape rupínte año, síno avei peteĩ revelación divina 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”.
Kóva rehe ae pe iñentendimiento “pe ára ha ára” rehegua heko porã, ha katu oĩ vaʼekue ipyʼaguapyʼỹme. Ndaikatúi ohechakuaa, umi cinco jey “pe ára ha ára” oñemombeʼu hag̃ua Daniel aranduka ryepýpe, peteĩ umi mbohapy jey “pe ára ha ára” “oñemboguejy”hápe, oguerekoha peteĩ heʼise ambuéva umi mokõi ambuévagui. Peteĩ jey “pe ára ha ára” ojepuru pe ñeʼẽ hebrea “rum” ndive, ha umi mokõi ambue jey ojepuru pe ñeʼẽ hebrea “sur” ndive. Mokõivéva ñeʼẽ oñembohasa “oñemboguejy” hag̃ua, ha katu “rum” Daniel kapítulo poapy, versíkulo once-pe, heʼise “ojeyupi ha oñemombaʼeguasu”, ha kapítulo once, versíkulo treinta y uno-pe, ha kapítulo doce, versíkulo once-pe, pe ñeʼẽ “sur” heʼise “oñemboguejy hag̃ua”.
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 okaru ha ho’u tembi’u Babiloniagua, oñe’ẽjoja hikuái, taha’e pe eipe’ávo peteĩ mba’e térã pe emopu’ãvo peteĩ mba’e, mokõivéva ohechauka peteĩichagua jeipe’a, upévare mokõive ñe’ẽ oikuaava’erã oguerekóva peteĩchagua he’iséva. Ha’ekuéra he’i umi mbohapy jey “pe ára ha ára”, oje’eha “ojeipe’a” ramo, akóinte he’ise jeipe’a; ha péicha ojapóvo, ohechauka hikuái Daniel ojapo hague ñangareko’ỹ iñe’ẽ poravópe. Ndoje’éi upéva hesakã hag̃uáicha, ha katu ñe’ẽ rehegua ñemoĩ rupive ombo’e hikuái Daniel oiporavova’erãmo’ãha ñe’ẽ “sur” umi mbohapy jey ojehu hag̃uépe, pórke umi teólogo remiandu hag̃uáicha ha’e raka’e ohe’iséva peteĩchante káda jey “pe ára ha ára” “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 of 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 the opposite understanding of the modern theologians.
Haʼekuéra ojapo upeicha avei ñeʼẽnguéra “miqdash” ha “qodesh” rehe, mokõivéva oñembohasáva “santuario” ramo, capítulo ocho versículo once guive catorce peve. Káda jevy oñeñeʼẽhápe “santuario” rehe umi irundy versículo-pe, haʼekuéra oñembopyʼaguasu opavave ohechauka hag̃ua Tupã santuario rehe. Jey hag̃ua inferéncia rupive, Daniel oipurúvaʼerãmoʼãnte “qodesh” umi mbohapy jevy oñeñeʼẽhápe, ha ndahaʼéi “miqdash” versículo once-pe. Miller ndoikuaáiramo jepe umi ñeʼẽnguéra apytépe oĩha peteĩ joavy, umi teólogo moderno katu oikuaa, ha upéicharõ jepe, haʼekuéra oñembopyʼaguasu ndaipori hag̃uáicha oñemoneĩva mbaʼeveichagua joavy. Upéicharõ jepe, Miller, ndohechakuaáiva umi joavy oĩva umi ñeʼẽnguéra apytépe, og̃uahẽ vaʼekue peteĩ entendimiento ojoavy hag̃ua umi teólogo moderno-gui.
The reality is that Daniel was an extremely careful writer, who knew the Hebrew language and was judged as ten times smarter than all the other wise men of Babylon who were very smart men in their society in their own right. 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.
Añeteguasú ningo Daniel haʼe hague peteĩ haihára ipyʼaguapýva ha oñangarekóva eterei, oikuaáva pe ñeʼẽ hebrea, ha oñehesaʼỹijógui ojeʼe hese iñaranduveha pa jey opaite Babilóniape aranduha ambuégui, kuimbaʼe iñaranduetévagui ave ijeheguiete isosiedápe. Oĩramo peteĩ oikuaáva pe tembiaporã porãite pe ñeʼẽ hebrea rehegua, ha mbaʼéichapa ojehechauka vaʼerã hekópe upe tembiasakue particular-pe, upéva haʼe vaʼekue Daniel. Daniel oipurúramo ñeʼẽ iñambuéva, upéva haʼe kuri ogueraha hag̃ua heʼiséva iñambuéva, haʼe voi ohekáva kyreʼỹme ohechauka hag̃ua. Ojehechakuaáramo Daniel ojeporu hag̃uáicha iñambuéva umi ñeʼẽ oñembohasáva “santuario” térã “peʼa” ramo, umíva omombarete Miller entendimiento rehegua “pe ára ha ára” rehe, upe Miller ohechakuaákuri pe pasáhe mismo-pe, upépe Pablo ohechauka hag̃ua umi omboykéva añetegua ojeheja hag̃uáicha toñembotavy 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 laity 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 those whose soul is lifted up in Habakkuk two, and they are the foolish virgins of Matthew twenty-five. 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 ohayhúva pe añetegua ha oguerovia pe japu omoheñóiva mbotavy guasu, umívape avei ojehechauka Efraín ka’u jáicha, ha’e hag̃ua mokõi aty rupi. Peteĩ aty ha’e pe ñemoarandu ruvicha kuéra, ha pe ambue aty ha’e pe tavaygua ndojekuaáiva mba’e, ohendútava añoite umi arandu ombo’éva chupekuéra. Ha’ekuéra hína umi okañýva japu guýpe, ha ojapóva peteĩ ñe’ẽme’ẽ ñemanóndi. Ha’ekuéra hína umi ikorasõ oñemopu’ãva Habacuc mokõihápe, ha ha’ekuéra hína umi kuñataĩ tavýva Mateo veinticinco-pe. Ha’ekuéra hína umi omboykéva umi añetegua pyenda rehegua pe sueño Miller mba’éva, osẽva hendy hag̃ua pa ary pukukue hesakãve hag̃ua pahápe (ohechaukáva pe décima ha paha prueba Israel moderno rehegua), yma guaréicha ojehechaukáva pe décima ha paha prueba Israel yma guaréva rehegua.
We will continue this study in the next article.
Romoinge hag̃ua ko ñehesa’ỹijo pe artículo oútavape.
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. 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 Ñandejára he’i Moiséspe: Mboy araka’e peve ko tetãgua chembopochýta? ha mboy araka’e peve ndojeroviamo’ãi cherehe opa umi techaukaha ajapova’ekue ijapytepekuéra reheve? Ahupíta chupekuéra mba’asy vai reheve, ha aipe’áta chuguikuéra ijerovia hag̃uã yvy rehegua, ha ndehegui ajapóta peteĩ tetã tuichavéva ha mbaretevéva chuguikuéra gui. Upémarõ Moisés he’i Ñandejárape: Upéicharõ umi Egiptoygua ohendúta, (nde ningo nde pu’akapýpe reguenohẽ ko tetãgua ijapytegui) ha omombe’úta ko yvy rupi oikóva kuérape; ha’ekuéra ningo ohendúma nde, Ñandejára, reĩha ko tetãgua apytépe, nde, Ñandejára, rejechaha rova rova, ha nde arai opytaha hi’ári, ha nde rehoha henonderãkuéra, ára hag̃ua peteĩ arai yvytýpe, ha pyhare hag̃ua peteĩ tata yvytýpe. Ko’ág̃a, rehejukáramo opa ko tetãgua peteĩ kuimba’éicha, upéicharõ umi tetã nguéra ohenduva’ekue ne herakuã porã rehe oñe’ẽta he’ívo: Ñandejára ndaikatúigui ogueraha ko tetãgua pe yvýpe ome’ẽ hague iñe’ẽme’ẽ hag̃ua chupekuéra, upévare ojuka chupekuéra desiértope. Ha ko’ág̃a, ajerure ndéve, che Ruvicha pu’aka tojechauka tuicha, he’iháicha nde ereva’ekue: Ñandejára ipasiénsia puku ha iporiahuvereko tuicha, operdona tekoañáme ha tembiapo vaipe, ha araka’eve ndohejáiva reko vaire ojejapova’ekue oñembohasa’ỹre; ohechaukáva túvakuéra rembiapo vai ta’ýra kuérape peve, mbohapyha ha irundyha ñemoñarépe. Eperdona, ajerure ndéve, ko tetãgua tekoañáme, nde poriahuvereko tuichakue he’iháicha, ha rejapo haguéicha perdón ko tetãguápe Egipto guive ko’ág̃a peve. Ha Ñandejára he’i: Aperdonáma nde ñe’ẽ he’iháicha; ha che aikove añetetéicha, opa yvy henyhẽta Ñandejára gloria rehe. Umi kuimba’e ohechava’ekue che gloria ha che mba’eporã hechapyrã, ajapova’ekue Egíptope ha desiértope, ha ko’ág̃a chembojere ija hag̃ua ko diez jey, ha nohendúiva che ñe’ẽ; añetehápe, ha’ekuéra ndohechamo’ãi pe yvy ha’éva ahura va’ekue ituvakuérape, ni peteĩva umi chembopochýva ndohechamo’ãi upéva. Ha katu che rembiguái Caleb, ambue espíritu orekógui hendive ha che rapykue oho hag̃ua ipy’aite guive, chupe agueraháta pe yvýpe oike hague, ha iñemoñare ohupytyta upéva. Números 14:11–24.