We are addressing six lines of prophetic controversy that have occurred within the history of Adventism from 1798 until the present day.
Ñaime hína seis línea controversia profética rehegua ojehúva’ekue Adventismo rembiasakue ryepýpe 1798 guive ko árape peve.
“In history and prophecy the Word of God portrays the long continued conflict between truth and error. That conflict is yet in progress. Those things which have been, will be repeated. Old controversies will be revived, and new theories will be continually arising. But God’s people, who in their belief and fulfillment of prophecy have acted a part in the proclamation of the first, second, and third angels’ messages, know where they stand. They have an experience that is more precious than fine gold. They are to stand firm as a rock, holding the beginning of their confidence steadfast unto the end.” Selected Messages, book 2, 109.
“Tem biasýpe ha profecíape Tupã Ñe’ẽ ohechauka pe joavy pukukue oĩva añetegua ha jejavy apytépe. Upe joavy gueteri oiko hína. Umi mba’e oikova’ekue, ojehu jeýta. Umi ñorairõ yma guare oñembopyahúta, ha arandukuaa pyahu opu’ã meme va’erã. Péro Tupã retãyguakuéra, ijeroviápe ha profesía ñembyajhúpe oguerekova’ekue peteĩ tembiapo pe marandu peteĩha, mokõiha ha mbohapyha ánhel remimombe’úpe, oikuaa moõpa oñembo’y. Ha’ekuéra oguereko peteĩ jehasa hague iporãvéva óro porãitégui. Ha’ekuéra oñembo’yva’erã mbaretépe itaicha, ojokóvo hatã ijerovia ñepyrũme guive pe paha peve.” Selected Messages, lívro 2, 109.
The previous article addressed the first and last controversy about the Roman power, and we will now take up the controversy that occurred between Uriah Smith and James White. Uriah Smith inserted his own “private interpretation” into verse thirty-six.
Pe artíkulo mboyvegua ohecha vaʼekue pe peteĩha ha pe pahague joavy pe mburuvicha románo rehegua, ha koʼág̃a jahecháta pe joavy oikovaʼekue Uriah Smith ha James White apytépe. Uriah Smith omoinge ivera hag̃ua ipropia “ñemyesakã ijeheguíva” pe versíkulo mbohapy pa ha poteĩme.
“VERSE 36. And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done.
“VERSÍKULO 36. Ha pe mburuvicha ojapóta oipotaháicha; ha oñemomba’eguasúta ijehe, ha ombotuicháta ijehe opaichagua tupã ári, ha oñe’ẽta mba’e hechapyrãva Tupã tupãnguéra Jára rehe; ha osẽporãta pe pochy oñembotýva peve; mba’érehepa upe oñemoĩmava ojejapóta.”
“The king here introduced cannot denote the same power which was last noticed; namely, the papal power; for the specifications will not hold good if applied to that power.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 292.
“Pe mburuvicha ko’ápe oñemoingéva ndaikatúi he’ise pe mbarete peteĩchaite pe ipahápe oñeñe’ẽ vaʼekuéndi; hína, pe mbarete papal; peteĩteĩ umi mba’e oñemombe’úva ndohupytýi porãmo’ãiramo ojeporu hag̃ua upe mbarete rehe.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 292.
Smith acknowledged that the power in the previous verse was “papal Rome,” but claims the characteristics of verse thirty-six are not prophetic characteristics that identify papal Rome. That claim is false. It should be remembered that in the rebellion of 1863, the seven times of Leviticus chapter twenty-six was set aside, and therefore the representation of the seven times of both tables of Habakkuk was rejected. Both the 1843 and the 1850 charts illustrate the seven times in the very center of the charts, and both illustrations place the cross in the center of the line of the seven times. When the new light of the seven times arrived in 1856 and was thereafter rejected, it marked a rejection of Habakkuk’s two tables, and also the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy, which so clearly identifies that both charts were directed by God.
Smith omone’ẽkuri pe mbarete oñe’ẽva pe versíkulo mboyveguápe ha’eha “Roma papal”, péro he’i pe versíkulo treinta y seis rembiapo rechaukaha ndaha’éiha techaukaha profétika ohechakuaa hag̃ua Roma papal. Upéva japu. Tekotevẽ ñanemandu’a, pe pu’aka’ỹme oikova’ekue ary 1863-pe, umi siete tiempo Levítico kapítulo veintiséis-pe oñemoĩ hague ykére, ha upévare oñemboyke pe representación umi siete tiempo rehegua mokõive Habacuc tabla-pe. Mokõive kuatia’atã 1843 ha 1850 gua ohechauka umi siete tiempo pe mbytépeite umi kuatia’atãgui, ha mokõivéva ta’anga omoĩ pe kurusu mbytépe pe línea umi siete tiempo rehegua. Araka’e pe tesape pyahu umi siete tiempo rehegua og̃uahẽkuri ary 1856-pe ha upéi oñemboyke, upéva ohechauka peteĩ ñemboyke Habacuc mokõi tabla rehe, ha avei pe Espíritu de Profecía autorida rehe, pe omombe’u porãitereíva mokõive kuatia’atã ojedirihi hague Tupã rupive.
According to Sister White the last deception of Satan is to make of none effect the testimony of God’s Spirit, and here the first deception was to make of none effect the testimony of God’s Spirit, and it also represented a simultaneous rejection of the foundational truths upon the two charts, and more specifically the seven times.
Hermana White he’iháicha rire, Satanás rembiguái pytyvõ paha ha’e ojapo hag̃ua mba’eve’ỹrõ Tupã Espíritu testimonio; ha ko’ápe pe ñembotavy peteĩha ha’e va’ekue ojapo hag̃ua mba’eve’ỹrõ Tupã Espíritu testimonio, ha avei ohechauka peteĩ jeheja peteĩchaitepe guive umi añetegua ñepyrũrãva mokõi ta’ãngakuéra ári, ha iporãvévérõ ja’e, umi siete tiempos.
At the rebellion of 1863, it was none other than Uriah Smith that produced the 1863 counterfeit chart, which removed the line of the seven times. By 1863 Uriah Smith had closed his eyes to the light of the seven times, and was unable to see that there are two “indignations” which Daniel identifies. The two indignations represent the seven times against the northern kingdom of Israel, and the southern kingdom of Judah. The first against the ten northern tribes began in 723 BC and ended in 1798, and the second began in 677 BC and ended in 1844.
Pe ñepu’ã vai guasúpe ary 1863-pe, ndaha’éi avave ambuéva síno Uriah Smith voi ojapóva’ekue pe kuatia ta’ãngamýi japu 1863-gua, omboguévo pe línea umi siete tiempos rehegua. Ary 1863 peve, Uriah Smith ombotyma va’ekue hesa pe tesape umi siete tiempos rehegua, ha ndaikatúi ohecha oĩha mokõi “indignaciones” Daniel ohechauka va’ekue. Ko’ã mokõi indignación orrepresenta umi siete tiempos pe rréino yvate gotyo Israel rehe, ha pe rréino ñemby gotyo Judá rehe. Peteĩha umi diez tribu yvate gotyoguáre oñepyrũ 723 a.C.-pe ha opa 1798-pe, ha mokõiha oñepyrũ 677 a.C.-pe ha opa 1844-pe.
Gabriel came to Daniel in chapter eight to explain the marah vision, and in connection with his work, he provided a second witness to 1844. The twenty-three hundred years of Daniel chapter eight ended in 1844, but so too did the last of the two indignations against the northern and southern kingdoms.
Gabriel ou Daniel rendápe mokõiha ñe’ẽme’ẽme, kapítulo 8-pe, omyesakã hag̃ua marah visión, ha hembiapo rehegua joajúpe, ome’ẽ avei mokõiha testígo 1844 rehe. Daniel kapítulo 8-pe oñeñe’ẽva mokõi sua y trescientos ary opahu 1844-pe; ha upeichaite avei opahu pe pahague umi mokõi pochy apytégui, umi tetãnguéra yvategua ha yvy gotyogua rehe.
And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. Daniel 8:19.
Ha he’i: Péina, aikuaaukáta ndéve mba’épa oikótava pe pochy pahaitepe; pe ára oñemoĩmava guive, pe paha og̃uahẽta. Daniel 8:19.
The last end presupposes a first end. The last of the two indignations, which is simply another expression of the seven times, ended in 1844, and the first indignation ended in 1798. The verse Smith claimed possessed no specifications of the papal power identified the year when the papacy would receive its deadly wound.
Pe pahá opaha presupone peteĩ opa ypygua. Pe pahá mokõi pochy apytégui, ha’éva simplemente ambue ñe’ẽjoaju umi siete tiempos rehegua, opa kuri 1844-pe, ha pe peteĩha pochy opa kuri 1798-pe. Pe versíkulo Smith he’i va’ekue ndoguerekoiha mba’eveichagua especificación poder papal rehegua, ohechauka pe ary pe papado ohupytytahápe iherida mortal.
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done. Daniel 11:36.
Ha pe rréi ojapóta ivoluntad he'iháicha; ha omomba'eguasuvéta ijehe, ha ombotuichavéta ijehe opaichagua tupã ári, ha oñe'ẽta mba'e hechapyrãva Tupã Tupãnguéra Jára rehe, ha oprosperáta pe pochy ojejapopa peve; mba'ére piko pe ojedetermináva ojejapóta. Daniel 11:36.
“The king” in verse thirty-six would “prosper till the indignation be accomplished.” Notice what Smith writes about Daniel chapter eight, verses twenty-three and twenty-four in the same book where he claims the papal power does not possess the correct attributes to fulfill verse thirty-six.
“Pe mburuvicha guasu” versíkulo treinta y seis-pe “oporomoakãporãta pe indignación oñembotývo peve”. Ema’ẽ mbaʼépa Smith ohai Daniel capítulo ocho, versíkulo veinte y tres ha veinte y cuatro rehe, upe kuatiañeʼẽ peteĩchaguápe haʼe heʼihápe pe pokatu papal ndorekoiha umi atributo añetéva omyenyhẽ hag̃ua versíkulo treinta y seis.
“VERSE 23. And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. 24. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. 25. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand: and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
“VERSÍCULO 23. Ha ipahápe iguikuéra rréino, umi transgresór kuéra oguahẽ vove henyhẽmbaitépe, opuʼãta peteĩ mburuvicha rova atãva ha oikuaáva ñeʼẽ ñemimby. 24. Ha ipokatu tuicháta, ha ndahaʼéi hag̃ua ipokatu tee rupi; ha ombyaíta hechapyrã hag̃uáicha, ha osẽ porãta, ha ombaʼapóta, ha ombyaíta umi mbarete guasu ha tavayguakuéra marangatu. 25. Ha iporiháicha avei ojapóta hag̃ua ñembotavy osẽ porã ipope; ha omombaʼeguasúta ijupe ikorasõme, ha pyʼaguapýpe ohundíta heta tapichápe; opuʼãta avei Mburuvicha kuéra Ruvicha rehe; ha oñembyaíta poʼỹre.
“This power succeeds to the four divisions of the goat kingdom in the latter time of their kingdom, that is, toward the termination of their career. It is, of course, the same as the little horn of verse 9 and onward. Apply it to Rome, as set forth in remarks on verse 9, and all is harmonious and clear.
“Ko pu'aka oĩ irundy ñemboja’ópe mburuvicha guasu kavara rehegua pe tiémpo pahápe ipoguýpe, ha’éva, hi’ãguio oñemohu’ãvo hikuái ikuatia rape. Katuete, kóva hína peteĩcha pe hatĩ michĩva ndive oñeñe’ẽva versíkulo 9 guive tenonderã. Emyesakã Roma rehe, he’iháicha oñemombe’u hag̃ua versíkulo 9 rehegua, ha opa mba’e ojoaju porã ha hesakã.”
“‘A king of fierce countenance.’ Moses, in predicting punishment to come upon the Jews from this same power, calls it ‘a nation of fierce countenance.’ Deut. 28:49, 50. No people made a more formidable appearance in warlike array than the Romans. ‘Understanding dark sentences.’ Moses, in the scripture just referred to, says, ‘Whose tongue thou shalt not understand.’ This could not be said of the Babylonians, Persians, or Greeks, in reference to the Jews; for the Chaldean and Greek languages were used to a greater or less extent in Palestine. This was not the case, however, with the Latin.
“‘Mburuvicha rova atãva.’ Moisés, oikuaauka hag̃ua pe ñembyasy oútava umi judío ári ko misma mbaretegui, henói chupe ‘peteĩ tetã rova atãva.’ Deut. 28:49, 50. Avave tavaygua ndohechaukái vaʼekue peteĩ jehecha tuichaitereíva ñorairõ renda-pe umi romano-kuéraicha. ‘Oikuaa ñeʼẽ ijetuʼúva.’ Moisés, pe Escritura oñeʼẽma haguepe, heʼi: ‘Iñeʼẽ ndaikatumoʼãi rentende.’ Kóva ndaikatúi oñeñeʼẽ umi babilonio, persa térã griego-kuéra rehe, umi judío-kuéra rehegua rupi; pe ñeʼẽ caldea ha griega niko ojeporu vaʼekue, hetave térã michĩveháicha, Palestina-pe. Upéicharõ jepe, ndaupéichai vaʼekue pe latín rehe.”
“When the transgressors are come to the full.’ All along, the connection between God’s people and their oppressors is kept in view. It was on account of the transgressions of his people that they were sold into captivity. And their continuance in sin brought more severe punishment. At no time were the Jews more corrupt morally, as a nation, than at the time they came under the jurisdiction of the Romans.
“Oñembohysýi vove hembiapo vaihára kuéra.” Opaite peve, oñeñongatu ojehecha hag̃uáicha pe joaju Ñandejára tavayguakuéra ha umi ombojeguereko vai hag̃ua chupekuéra apytépe. Itavayguakuéra rembiapo vaikue rehe ae oñeme’ẽ chupekuéra tembiguái hag̃uáicha. Ha iñakãratã hag̃ua angaipápe ogueru peteĩ ñenupã ijetuʼuvéva. Arakaʼeve umi judío kuéra, tetãramo, noñembyaivéikuri tekoañeteguápe upe jave oike ramo guare hikuái umi romano kuéra poguýpe.
“‘Mighty, but not by his own power.’ The success of the Romans was owing largely to the aid of their allies, and divisions among their enemies, of which they were ever ready to take advantage. Papal Rome also was mighty by means of the secular powers over which she exercised spiritual control.
“‘Ipoderóso, péro ndaha’éi imbarete tee rupive.’ Umi Romano-kuéra jehupyty porã oukuri tuichaiterei iñirũnguéra pytyvõ rehe, ha avei umi joavy iñenemigo-kuéra apytépe, ha ha’ekuéra akóinte oĩkuri oipuru hag̃uáicha upe oportunidad. Roma Papal avei ipoderóso va’ekue umi mburuvicha reko yvy arigua rupive, hi’ári omotenonde hague ñangareko espiritual.”
“‘He shall destroy wonderfully.’ The Lord told the Jews by the prophet Ezekiel that he would deliver them to men who were ‘skilful to destroy;’ and the slaughter of eleven hundred thousand Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army, was a terrible confirmation of the prophet’s words. And Rome in its second, or papal, phase was responsible for the death of fifty millions of martyrs.
“‘Ombyai hechapyrã ñehundi.’ Ñandejára he’i va’ekue umi judíope proféta Ezequiel rupive ome’ẽtaha chupekuéra kuimba’épe ‘ikatúva ohundi hag̃ua;’ ha jejuka peteĩ sua cien mil judío rehegua, Jerusalén ñehundípe ehérsito romano po rupive, ha’e va’ekue peteĩ ñemoneĩ vaietereíva proféta ñe’ẽ rehe. Ha Roma, imokõihápe, térã papal, fase-pe, oguereko va’ekue responsabilidad cincuenta millones mártir ñemano rehe.”
“‘And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand.’ Rome has been distinguished above all other powers for a policy of craft, by means of which it brought the nations under its control. This is true of both pagan and papal Rome. And thus by peace it destroyed many.
“‘Ha iporã ñemongu’e rupi avei ombohekove porãta ñembotavy ipópe.’ Roma ojehechakuaa va’ekue opa ambue pu’aka ári, peteĩ política ñembotavy rehegua rupi, upéva rupive ogueru hag̃ua tetãnguéra ipo guýpe. Péva añete Roma pagána ha Roma papal mokõivévare. Ha péicha py’aguapýpe ohundipa heta tapichápe.”
“And Rome, finally, in the person of one of its governors, stood up against the Prince of princes, by giving sentence of death against Jesus Christ. ‘But he shall be broken without hand,’ an expression which identifies the destruction of this power with the smiting of the image of chapter 2.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 202–204.
“Ha Roma, ipahápe, peteĩva umi mburuvicha guasu oisãmbyhýva rupi, opu’ã Mburuvicha guasukuéra Ruvicha rehe, omoĩvo ñemano renda Jesucristo rehe. ‘Ha ojekytíta po’ỹre,’ peteĩ ñe’ẽjoaju ohechaukáva ko pu’aka ñehundi ojoajúha pe ta’anga oñembyaíva capítulo 2-pe.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 202–204.
Smith, twice in the passage, identifies that the prophetic characteristics of pagan and papal Rome are interchangeable, for they are simply the manifestation of Rome in its two phases, such as the mixture of iron and clay in Daniel chapter two, which Sister White identifies as symbols of churchcraft and statecraft. When Daniel identifies in the verses Smith is addressing–that Rome “shall prosper, and practice,” and that Rome “shall cause craft to prosper in his hand,”–Smith claims that in verse thirty-six that the “king” who “shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished,” identifies a prophetic characteristic of both pagan and papal Rome. Then he claims that none of the characteristics of Rome in verse thirty-six refer to the papal power.
Smith, mokõi jey pe pasáhepe, he’i umi característica profética Roma pagana ha papal rehegua ikatuha ojuehe ojepyru, pórke ha’e kuérante hína Roma jehechauka mokõi fasepe, pe mezcla hierro ha ñai’ũ reheguaicha Daniel capítulo mokõihápe, Sister White omombe’úva símbolo ramo iglesia rembiapo ha Estado rembiapo rehegua. Daniel omombe’u ramo umi versíkulope Smith oñe’ẽhína hese—Roma “oñakãrapu’ãta ha omba’apóta”, ha Roma “ojapóta craft oñakãrapu’ã hag̃ua ipope”—Smith he’i versíkulo treinta y seis-pe pe “mburuvicha guasu” “oñakãrapu’ãtava pe indignación oñemohu’ã peve” ohechauka peteĩ característica profética mokõivéva Roma pagana ha papal rehegua. Upéi he’i ndaiporiha ni peteĩva umi característica Roma rehegua versíkulo treinta y seis-pe oñe’ẽva pe pu’aka papal rehe.
We have referred to Smith in supporting the identification of Rome being the robbers who establish the vision, and one of the four prophetic characteristics in verse fourteen is that Rome exalts themselves.
Ña’ẽmaguasúpe roñe’ẽma kuri Smith rehe, oipytyvõ hag̃ua pe jehechakuaa hag̃ua Roma ha’eha umi mondaha omoañetéva pe visión, ha peteĩva umi irundy mba’e profética oĩva pe versículo catorcepe ha’e Roma omomba’eguasuha ijehe.
And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall. Daniel 11:14.
Ha upe umi ára-pe heta opuʼãta ñemby gotyo rréi rehe; avei ne retãygua apytégui umi tekove vai oñemopuʼãta omopyendávo pe visión; haʼekuéra katu hoʼáta. Daniel 11:14.
Smith claims that the specifications of the king in verse thirty-six do not align with the papal power, though he earlier defended that it was Rome in verse fourteen that exalts itself. Yet the king in verse thirty-six “shall exalt himself.” That very same king in verse thirty-six would “speak marvelous things against the God of gods.” In Daniel the papal power “shall speak great words against the Most High,” and in the book of Revelation the papal power blasphemes against the Most High.
Smith he’i pe mburuvicha remimombe’upy kuatiañe’ẽ 36-pe ndojoajúiha pe pokatu papal ndive, jepémo tenonderã odefendéma hague ha’eha Roma kuatiañe’ẽ 14-pe pe oñemomba’eguasúva ijehegui. Upéicharõ jepe, pe mburuvicha kuatiañe’ẽ 36-pe “oñemomba’eguasúta ijehegui.” Upe mburuvichaete voi kuatiañe’ẽ 36-pe “he’íta mba’e hechapyrãva Tupã Tupãnguéra ári.” Daniel-pe pe pokatu papal “he’íta ñe’ẽ guasu Yvatetegua ári,” ha Apocalipsis arandukápe pe pokatu papal oñe’ẽ vai Yvatetegua rehe.
And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. Revelation 13:5, 6.
Ha oñeme’ẽ chupe peteĩ juru oñeʼẽ hag̃ua mbaʼe guasu ha ñeʼẽ vai hag̃ua; ha oñeme’ẽ avei chupe pokatu ombaʼapo hag̃ua irundy pa mokõi jasy pukukue. Ha oipeʼa ijuru oñeʼẽ vai hag̃ua Tupã rehe, oñeʼẽ vai hag̃ua héra rehe, itabernáculo rehe, ha umi oikóva yvágape rehe. Apocalipsis 13:5, 6.
Every prophetic specification of the papal power is identified in verse thirty-six.
Opaite mba’e oñemombeʼúva profetikamente pe pokatu papal rehegua ojekuaa hag̃ua versíkulo treinta y seis-pe.
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done. Daniel 11:36.
Ha pe mburuvicha guasu ojapóta hembipota rupiete; ha omomba'eguasúta ijehe, ha ombotuicháta ijehe opaite tupã ári, ha ñe'ẽ hechapyrãva he'íta Tupã kuéra Tupã rehe, ha oñemotenondéta pe pochy ojejapopa peve; mba'ére piko upe ojehechaukáva oikóta katuete. Daniel 11:36.
Human commentators are many times unreliable, but many Adventist commentators give witness to the obvious truth that it was verse thirty-six which the apostle Paul was paraphrasing from 2 Thessalonians, when he addressed the man of sin.
Hetaiterei oĩva ndohovái jepi, hákatu heta comentarista Adventista omombe’u porã pe añetegua hesakãva: ha’e hague pe versíkulo mbohapypa’ẽ (36) apóstol Pablo ombojoajúva he’ívo iñe’ẽme 2 Tesalonicenses-gui, oñe’ẽrõ guare pe kuimba’e angaipa rehe.
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thessalonians 2:2, 3.
Ani peneñembotavy avavépe mba’eveichagua rupi: pe ára ndog̃uahẽmo’ãi, oikoraẽ’ỹre pe jehekýi guasu, ha ojehechauka hag̃ua pe kuimba’e angaipa rehegua, pe ñehundi ra’y; upéva oñemoĩ ha oñembotuicha opa mba’e Tupã héravare térã oñemomba’eguasúva ári; upéicha hag̃uáicha, ha’e Tupãicha oguapy Tupã róga marangatúpe, ohechaukávo ijehegui ha’eha Tupã. 2 Tesalonicenses 2:2, 3.
Verse thirty-six states that “he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god,” and Paul says “that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.” Clearly Smith had no prophetic authority to claim that the king of verse thirty-six was different from the king under discussion in the verses leading to verse thirty-six. Grammatically he had no justification for making his flawed application, and his claim that he did so because verse thirty-six possesses no characteristics of the papal power was a wresting of the Scripture in an attempt to establish a private interpretation.
Pe versíkulo treinta y seis he’i: “ha’e oñemomba’eguasúta ha ombotuicháta ijehe opa tupã ári”, ha Pablo he’i: “tojekuaauka pe kuimba’e angaipa rehegua, pe ñehundírã ra’y; pe oñemoĩva ha oñemomba’eguasúva opa mba’e oñehenóivagui Tupã térã oñemomba’eguasúva ári.” Ojekuaa porã Smith ndorekói hague mburuvicha’ỹ profétika hag̃ua he’i hag̃ua pe mburuvicha versíkulo treinta y seis pegua iñambueha pe mburuvichágui oñehesa’ỹijóva umi versíkulo ogueraháva versíkulo treinta y seis peve. Gramátikamente ndorekói va’ekue mba’eveichagua tekojoja ojapo hag̃ua pe porupyrã jejavýva, ha iñe’ẽ hag̃ua ojapo hague upéva versíkulo treinta y seis ndoguerekóigui mba’eveichagua techaukaha pe pokatu papál rehegua, ha’e va’ekue peteĩ jepokuaa vai Escritúrare, oñeha’ã hag̃uáicha omopyenda peteĩ interpretación privada.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:19–21.
Oreko avei peteĩ ñe’ẽ marandu profétikava añetetéve; ha pejapo porã peñatendéramo hese, peteĩ mba’e resape omimbi hag̃uáicha peteĩ tenda pytũmbýpe, pe ára hesakã peve, ha pe mbyja ko’ẽmegua osẽ peve pene korasõme: Peikuaávo ko mba’e tenonderãite, ndaipóriha mavave profecía Ñandejára Ñe’ẽmegua ojehechakuaáva avave ijeheguínte. Yma guive, profecía ndouíriva’ekue yvypóra rembipota rupi; síno Ñandejára kuimba’e marangatu oñe’ẽkuri Espíritu Santo omongu’éicha chupekuéra. 2 Pedro 1:19–21.
Through the years of Laodicean Adventism there have been many Adventist theologians, pastors and authors who have addressed whether they think Smith’s application is correct or incorrect. An Australian pastor, Louis Were, who is long deceased, spent the majority of his ministry in opposing Smith’s false prophetic model. The reason for his opposition was not simply that Smith ultimately identified the king that comes to his end in verse forty-five as Turkey, but Smith’s platform also produced an incorrect application of Armageddon. In the 1980’s or thereabout an Adventist author penned a book titled, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? The author’s name is Donald Mansell, and the book is still available.
Ary ohasa Laodicéa pegua Adventismo aja, heta teólogo adventista, pastor ha autor oñembohovái hag̃ua pe porandu rehe: haʼekuéra oimoʼãpa Smith rembiapo jeiporuha hekoitépe térã nahániri. Peteĩ pastor australiano, hérava Louis Were, ymaite guive omanóma, ombaʼapo hetave iministerio pukukue jave oĩ hag̃ua Smith modelo profético japu rehe. Ndahaʼéi peteĩnte mbaʼére añónte ombohováiva, péva hína Smith ipahápe omboherahague pe mburuvicha oguahẽva ipahápe versíkulo cuarenta y cinco-pe Turquía ramo; síno avei Smith plataforma ogueru peteĩ jeiporu vai Armagedón rehegua. Ary 1980 rupi térã upéichaite, peteĩ autor adventista ohai peteĩ aranduka hérava, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Pe autor réra hína Donald Mansell, ha pe aranduka gueteri ojeguereko.
Mansell tracks the history leading up to World War One and World War Two showing that when both those wars were seen to be approaching the Adventist evangelists began to employ Smith’s false application of Turkey marching to literal Jerusalem as a sign of Armageddon and the end of the world. He demonstrates by church membership roles that as each of the wars approached many souls were brought into the membership of the Adventist church, based upon the evangelist’s prophetic emphasis drawn from Smith’s flawed view of Armageddon.
Mansell omombe’u pe tembiasakue ogueraha vaʼekue Primera Guerra Mundial ha Segunda Guerra Mundial peve, ohechaukávo mokõive umi ñorairõ guasu ojehechakuaa ramo oñembojaha, umi maranduhára adventista oñepyrũ hague oiporu Smith rembiapo japu: Turquía oguataha Jerusalén literal peve techaukaha ramo Armagedón rehegua ha arapaha. Haʼe ohechauka tupao membresía rysýi rupive, káda peteĩ umi ñorairõ oñembojávo, heta ánga oike hague Iglesia Adventista membresíape, oñemopyendáva umi maranduhára énfasis profético rehe, osẽva Smith remiandu vai Armagedón rehegua guive.
When either war ended, and the flawed predictions were not fulfilled, the church lost more members than they had gained from the prophetic model that was constructed by Smith.
Opa hag̃ua umi ñorairõ, ha umi marandu-profético jejavy rehegua ndojehupytýi riremínte, tupão okañy hetave tapicha umi oganávagui pe modelo profético Smith omopu’ã vaʼekuégui.
Through Smith’s rejection of the foundational message of the Millerites, and his willingness to promote his private interpretation of verse thirty-six to forty-five of Daniel, Smith’s logic produced a prophetic model based upon current events.
Smith omboykére rupi pe marandu ypykue umi Millerita rehegua, ha hi’ãgui omotenonde hag̃ua iñe’ẽmbyrã tee Daniel-pe, versíkulo treinta y seis guive cuarenta y cinco peve rehe, Smith lógica oguenohẽ peteĩ modelo profético oñemopyendáva umi mba’e oikóva ko’ág̃a rupi ári.
In the argument between Smith and James White over the king who comes to his end in the last verse of Daniel eleven, James White presented a logic that succinctly represented Smith’s sandy prophetic foundation. White taught that “prophecy produces history, but history does not produce prophecy.”
Ñorairõme oĩva Smith ha James White apytépe mburuvicha oguahẽva ipaha peve rehegua Daniel 11 pahaite versíkulope, James White omoĩ peteĩ lógica mbykyhápe ohechaukáva Smith fundamento profético yvyku’íva. White ombo’e vaekue “profesía ogueru tembiasakue, ha tembiasakue ndoguerúi profesía.”
The evangelists of Adventism that worked before both wars employed the developing history to present Smith’s flawed prophetic model of Armageddon, and their work, which seemed so blessed leading up to the wars, produced a net loss when the prophetic model was demonstrated to be based upon a private interpretation.
Umi evangelista adventista ombaʼapóva mokõi ñorairõ guasu mboyve oiporu vaʼekue tembiasakue oñemotenondéva omoĩ hag̃ua Smith marandu profético jejavykue Armagedón rehegua, ha hembiapo, ojehecha vaʼekue tuichaiterei jehovasapy ramo umi ñorairõ peve, ogueru ipahápe peteĩ pérdida neta oñemombeʼu rire pe modelo profético oñemopyenda hague peteĩ interpretación privada ári.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:15–20.
Peñeñangareko proféta japuha rehe, ouva pene rendápe ovecha aope, ha ipype katu jaguarete ñarõ oguereko jejopy hag̃ua. Peẽ peikuaáta chupekuéra hi’a rupi. Oñembyaty piko uva ñuatĩgui, térã ígo karuguágui? Péicha avei opa yvyra porã ogueru hi’a porã; ha yvyra ivaíva ogueru hi’a vai. Peteĩ yvyra porã ndaikatúi ogueru hi’a vai, ha peteĩ yvyra ivaíva ndaikatúi ogueru hi’a porã. Opa yvyra ndoguerúiva hi’a porã oñekytĩ ha oñemombo tata ryepýpe. Upévare peikuaáta chupekuéra hi’a rupi. Mateo 7:15–20.
Smith’s willingness to promote a private prophetic model of the king in verse thirty-six bore the fruit of also creating an incorrect application of the sixth plague and Armageddon.
Smith reko oime hag̃uáicha omyasãi hag̃ua peteĩ modelo profético privado pe mburuvicha rehegua versíkulo mbohapy pa’ẽ hag̃uare, ogueru avei hi’a hag̃ua peteĩ aplicación vai pe sexta plaga ha Armagedón rehe.
And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared. And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. Revelation 16:12–16.
Ha pe sexto ánhel oñohẽ ivíala pe ysyry guasu Éufrates ári; ha ijykuéra seca, ikatu hag̃uáicha oñembosako’i tape umi mburuvichakuéra kuarahyresẽguio ou hag̃ua. Ha ahecha mbohapy espíritu ky’a juky’ỹva, juky’ỹva ju’i kuéraicha, osẽva dragón jurúgui, mymba jurúgui, ha maranduhára japu jurúgui. Ha’ekuéra niko aña kuéra espíritu, ojapóva techaukaha hechapyrãva, osẽva yvy ruvichakuéra rendápe ha opaite yvy ape ári oikóva rendápe, ombyaty hag̃ua chupekuéra ñorairõrãme upe ára guasu Tupã Ipu’akapáva pegua. Péina, aju mondahaicha. Ojehovasáva pe opáyva ha oñangarekóva ijaóre, ani hag̃uáicha oguata opívo ha ojehecha hẽre. Ha ombyaty chupekuéra peteĩ hendápe, hebreo ñe’ẽme hérava Armagedón. Apocalipsis 16:12–16.
As we have previously pointed out, the sixth plague comes after the close of human probation, so the warning contained to keep your garments, must refer to a testing issue that occurs before Michael stands up and human probation closes and the first plague begins. The sixth plague identifies the activities of the dragon, the beast and the false prophet, who are the threefold union that comes together at the soon-coming Sunday law. That threefold union is Modern Rome, and the symbol that identifies and establishes the threefold union of Modern Rome, are the “robbers of thy people,” who “exalt themselves to establish the vision” and “fall.”
Jahechaháicha rohechauka haguéicha yma, pe mbohapyha plága riregua, pe poteĩha plága ou rire yvypóra aravo paha oñembotýma rire; upévare pe ñe’ẽmondo oĩva pype—“eñangareko nde ao rehe”—tekotevẽ oñe’ẽ peteĩ mba’e oñeha’ãha ha oikóva upe mboyve Michael opu’ã mboyve, ha yvypóra aravo paha oñemboty mboyve, ha pe peteĩha plága oñepyrũ mboyve. Pe poteĩha plága ohechauka pe dragón, pe mymba ha pe proféta japu rembiapo, ha umíva hína pe mbohapy joaju oúva oñondive pe aranduka Domingo rehegua pya’etéma ou hag̃uápe. Upe mbohapy joaju hína Roma Moderna, ha pe símbolo ohechakuaa ha omopyenda hag̃ua pe mbohapy joaju Roma Moderna rehegua, ha’e hína “nde retãyguakuéra mondaha”, umi “opu’ãva omopyenda hag̃ua pe visión” ha “ho’áva.”
The warning of the sixth plague, when understood, allows a soul to keep his garments, but if it is rejected it leaves a soul naked, which is one of the five attributes of a Laodicean. The symbol that establishes that warning is the robbers of thy people, who exalt themselves and ultimately fall. Solomon said if God’s people do not have that vision, they perish.
Pe sextoha plága ñe’ẽmondýi, oñentendéramo, oheja peteĩ ánga oñongatu hag̃ua ijao; ha oñemboykéramo, oheja peteĩ ánga opytávo opívo, ha upéva ha’e peteĩ umi po atributo orekóva peteĩ Laodiceagua. Pe símbolo omopyenda hag̃ua upe ñe’ẽmondýi ha’e nde retãyguakuéra mondaha, oñemomba’eguasúva ijehe, ha ipahápe ho’a. Salomón he’i vaekue Tupã retayguakuéra ndorekóiramo upe visión, oñehundiha.
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. Proverbs 29:18.
Oĩhápe ndaipóri visión, upépe tavayguakuéra oñehundi; ha pe oñangarekóva pe léire, ovyʼa haʼe. Proverbios 29:18.
The Hebrew word “perish” means “to make naked”, and John recorded, “Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.” Smith was wrong on the King of the North, and that false prophetic foundation allowed him to develop a prophetic application that, if accepted, produces nakedness, which is a symbol of the Laodiceans, who are spewed out of the mouth of the Lord.
Pe ñe’ẽ hebreo “perish” he’ise “ojejapo opívo”, ha Juan ohai va’ekue: “Ovy’aite pe oma’ẽ porãva ha oñangarekóva ijaóre, ani hag̃ua oguata opívo ha hikuái ohecha hag̃ua henda vai.” Smith ojavy va’ekue pe Mburuvicha Yvate gotyo rehe, ha upe pyenda maranduhára japu rehegua ome’ẽ chupe pa’ũ omboguata hag̃ua peteĩ aplicación profética ha’éva, oñemoneĩramo, ogueru opívoha, ha upéva ha’e peteĩ símbolo umi Laodiceaguápe guarã, umi oñemosẽva Ñandejára jurúgui.
Smith had no problem arguing his new false identification of the King of the North against the prophetess’ husband James White. Adventist historians, and Sister White, address their famous disagreement. Ellen White rebuked both her husband and Smith for allowing their difference of opinion on who was represented by the king of the north in Daniel eleven, to be put into the public domain. In the very first Adventist publication after the Great Disappointment of 1844, James White wrote:
Smith ndahasýi voi omoñe’ẽ hag̃ua heko pyahu japu rehegua pe Mburuvicha Yvateguáva Yvategua rehe, profetísa ména James White rovake. Umi historiógrafo adventista, ha Sister White avei, oñe’ẽ hikuái ijoavykue herakuãitévare. Ellen White omongavaju mokõivépe, iména ha Smithpe, ohejávo pe ijoavy oñondivepa hag̃ua mba’éichapa ojehechauka pe mburuvicha yvategua yvategua Daniel kapítulo once-pe, osẽ hag̃ua tetãygua renondépe. Pe peteĩha kuatia Adventista osẽva rire pe Tuicha Jejavy 1844-pe, James White ohai:
“That Jesus rose up, and shut the door, and came to the Ancient of days, to receive his kingdom, at the 7th month, 1844, I fully believe. See Luke 13:25; Matthew 25:10; Daniel 7:13,14. But the standing up of Michael, Daniel 12:1, appears to be another event, for another purpose. His rising up in 1844, was to shut the door, and come to his Father, to receive his kingdom, and power to reign; but Michael’s standing up, is to manifest his kingly power, which he already has, in the destruction of the wicked, and in the deliverance of his people. Michael is to stand up at the time that the last power in chapter 11, comes to his end, and none to help him. This power is the last that treads down the true church of God: and as the true church is still trodden down, and cast out by all christendom, it follows that the last oppressive power has not ‘come to his end;’ and Michael has not stood up. This last power that treads down the saints is brought to view in Revelation 13:11-18. His number is 666.” James White, A Word to the Little Flock, 8.
“Jesús opu’ã hague, omboty hag̃ua okẽ, ha ou hag̃ua pe Antiguo de días rendápe, ohupyty hag̃ua irreino, pe mes 7ha-pe, ary 1844-pe, upéva agueroviaite. Ehecha Lucas 13:25; Mateo 25:10; Daniel 7:13,14. Ha Miguel opu’ã hag̃ua, Daniel 12:1-pe, ojehecha ambue mba’eha, ambue propósito hag̃ua. Ipu’ã 1844-pe va’ekue, omboty hag̃ua okẽ, ha ou hag̃ua Itúa rendápe, ohupyty hag̃ua irreino, ha pokatu ogoverna hag̃ua; ha Miguel opu’ã hag̃ua katu, ohechauka hag̃ua ipokatu mburuvicharã, orekóma va’ekue, umi añáme oñehundi haguépe, ha ipuévlo ñemosãsópe. Miguel opu’ã va’erã upe ára pe pahaguéva mbarete capítulo 11-pe oguahẽvo ipahápe, ha ndaipóri avave oipytyvõva chupe. Ko mbarete hína pe pahaguéva opyrũva Tupã iglesia añetéva ári; ha pe iglesia añetéva gueteri oñepyrũ guýpe, ha oñemosẽ okápe opa cristiandad rupive, upévare ojehechakuaa pe paha mbarete jojahare ndoúi gueteri ‘ipahápe’; ha Miguel ndopu’ãi gueteri. Ko paha mbarete opyrũva umi santo ári ojehechauka Apocalipsis 13:11-18-pe. Inúmero hína 666.” James White, A Word to the Little Flock, 8.
When Smith introduced his so-called “new light” on the subject of “the last power in Daniel chapter eleven,” James White saw Smith’s application, not as new light, but as an attack upon the foundations. The controversy of Rome as the king of the north in Daniel eleven that took place between Uriah Smith and James White possesses specific attributes, that as students of prophecy, we are to bring together with the other controversies of Adventist history concerning the symbol of Rome.
Oguerahávo jave Smith pe “tesape pyahu” hérava pe mba’e “pu’aka paha Daniel capítulo once-pe” rehegua, James White ohecha Smith rembiaporã ndaha’éiha tesape pyahu ramo, síno peteĩ ñeha’ã omongu’i hag̃ua umi pyenda. Pe ñorairõ marandu rehegua Roma ha’eha mburuvicha yvate gotyogua Daniel once-pe, oikova’ekue Uriah Smith ha James White apytépe, oguereko umi tekome’ẽ poravopyre, ha ñande, maranduhára profecía rehegua ramo, jajuhu va’erã ha ñambyaty va’erã ambue ñorairõ marandu rehegua historia Adventista-pe oĩva Roma símbolo rehe.
One of those attributes is the introduction of a private interpretation. Another attribute is that the application of the private interpretation requires a wresting of simple grammar, for Smith not only disregarded that every prophetic attribute in verse thirty-six addresses Rome, but he disregarded that the grammatical structure demands that the king of verse thirty-six must be the same king as represented in the previous passage.
Peteĩ umi mba’e tee apytégui hína pe moingekove peteĩ interpretación privada rehegua. Ambue mba’e tee katu ha’e pe aplicación pe interpretación privada rehegua oikotevẽha oñemombo hag̃ua pe gramática isãsóvape, pórke Smith ndaha’éi año disregarda hague mayma mba’e tee profétika versíkulo mbohapypa poteĩme oñe’ẽha Róma rehe, ha’e avei disregarda pe estructura gramatical ojerureha pe mburuvicha versíkulo mbohapypa poteĩmegua toiko va’erãha upe mburuvicha peteĩva oñerrepresentáva pe pasáhe mboyveguápe.
Another is that the private interpretation was a rejection of foundational truths. Another is that it represents a rejection of the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy. Another characteristic is that the first flawed idea concerning Rome will lead to a prophetic model that disallows a person from keeping his garments as they approach the close of human probation. Another was the willingness to promote his private interpretation publicly. Another is that the private interpretation is invariably identified as new light. All of these attributes are represented within the current discussion of the “robbers of thy people.”
Ambue katu ha’e pe interpretación privada ha’e hague peteĩ ñemboyke añeteguakuéra ypykuégui. Ambue katu ha’e ohechauka peteĩ ñemboyke Espíritu de Profecía autoridágui. Ambue característica ha’e pe peteĩha idea vai Roma rehegua ogueraha hag̃ua peteĩ modelo profético ndohejái va’erã peteĩ tapicha oñongatu ijao oñemboja aja yvypóra prueba rembe’ýpe. Ambue katu ha’e pe disposición omyasãi hag̃ua hembiapo interpretación privada opavave renondépe. Ambue katu ha’e pe interpretación privada oñemohenda memeha tesape pyahu ramo. Ko’ãva opaite atributo ojehechauka ko’ág̃a guive pe discusión ojejapóvape “nde retãyguakuéra mondahakuéra” rehe.
When the last controversy of Rome, which was typified by the first controversy of Rome identifying the “robbers of thy people,” is brought together with the prophetic line of Uriah Smith’s and James White’s controversy we will see that one class will be building their prophetic model upon a private interpretation, which rejects foundational truth.
Pe tĩ opa hag̃ua Roma pe ñorairõ paha, ojehechauka vaʼekue peteĩ taʼãnga ramo Roma pe ñorairõ peteĩha rupive, omoĩva peteĩ téra “nde retãygua mondaha kuéra” rehe, ha oñembojoaju vove Uriah Smith ha James White ñorairõ línea profética ndive, jahecháta peteĩ aty omopuʼãha hína i modelo profético peteĩ interpretación privada ári, omboykéva pe añetegua fundacional.
The rejection of the foundational truths automatically represents a rejection of the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy, which so soundly defends those foundational truths. That class will also be willing to present their view publicly, regardless of any concerns that may be raised about the impact the teaching might have upon God’s people around the globe.
Peñemboyke hag̃ua umi añetegua ypykuéra rehegua ha’e ijeheguiete peteĩ ñemboyke Espíritu de Profecía pokatu rehegua, upéva oñangareko mbarete porãva umi añetegua ypykuéra rehe. Pe aty upéva avei oĩta oĩ hag̃uáicha oikuave’ẽ hag̃ua hembiapo ñemimo’ã opavave renondépe, oñemomba’éỹre mba’eveichagua jepy’apy ikatúva oñemopu’ã pe mba’éichapa ko mbo’epy ikatu hag̃uáicha ohupyty Tupã retãygua kuérape arapy tuichakue javeve.
Immediately after 1844, in the first generation of Adventism, another controversy about Rome was introduced. That controversy continued to be agitated, until the false view was accepted in the third generation of Adventism. We will consider the controversy of the “daily” as the fourth of six lines we are now considering in the model of line upon line.
1844 riregua upepete, Adventismo ñepyrũha ñemoñare peteĩha ryepýpe, oñemoinge ambue ñorairõ Rome rehegua. Upe ñorairõ oñembohory ha oñemoakãraku meme, pe jehecha japu oñemoneĩ meve Adventismo ñemoñare mbohapyhápe. Jahecháta pe ñorairõ “ara ha ára pegua” rehegua, irundyha ramo umi poteĩ apytégui ko’ág̃a ñahesañu’ũva pe ta’anga líneape ári línea rupive.
But before we take up the fourth line of the controversies of Rome, it needs to be remembered that in the previous article, when we were addressing verse ten of Daniel chapter eleven, we stated “Verse ten also directly connects the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six to the hidden history, but that line of truth is outside what we are here setting forth.”
Ha katu, jajapyhy mboyve Roma ñe’ẽjoavy rehegua línea irundyha, tekotevẽ ñanemandu’a pe artículo mboyveguápe, ñañe’ẽrõ guare Daniel capítulo once versículo diez rehe, ja’e hague: “Pe versículo diez avei ombojoaju hag̃uaichaite pe ‘siete tiempos’ Levítico veintiséis pegua pe tembiasakue kañymby rehe, ha katu upe añetegua línea oĩ okápe ko’ápe ñamyesakãva’ekuegui.”
Uriah Smith was the leader in rejecting the seven times in 1863. He had rejected the increase of knowledge upon that subject that was presented in the articles on the subject, penned by Hiram Edson and published in the Review in 1856. The implications of Smith being associated with a movement that presented the seven times, but who thereafter rejected an increase of knowledge upon that very subject is also outside of the subject of the characteristics of Smith’s introduction of what he claimed was new light on the subject of the king of the north, but when we conclude our overview of the line of the Adventist controversies of Rome, we will return to both the significance of verse ten of chapter eleven of Daniel, and also what is represented by Smith’s rejection of the Laodicean message that arrived in 1856 with the increase of knowledge on the seven times.
Uriah Smith haʼe vaʼekue pe tenondegua omboykévo umi siete tiempos ary 1863-pe. Haʼe omboykéma vaʼekue pe ñemoakãrapuʼã arandu upe mbaʼére, oñepresentáva umi artículo upe tema rehegua, Hiram Edson ohai vaʼekue ha oñemoherakuã vaʼekue Review-pe ary 1856-pe. Umi mbaʼe ojehechaukáva Smith oñembojoajúvo peteĩ movimiento ohechaukáva umi siete tiempos rehe, ha upéi katu omboykéva peteĩ ñemoakãrapuʼã arandu upe tema etei rehe, upéva avei oĩ okápe pe tema oñeñeʼẽva Smith omoñepyrũ hague umi mbaʼe haʼe heʼíva hague tesape pyahuha pe mburuvicha yvate gotyo rehegua, ha roikememéta vove ñane jehechajoja rehe pe línea umi controversia adventista Roma rehegua, jajevy jeýta mokõivéva-pe: pe mbaʼe tuicháva Daniel capítulo once versículo diez rehegua, ha avei pe mbaʼe ojejoguáva Smith omboyke haguére pe mensaje Laodiceagua oguahẽ vaʼekue ary 1856-pe pe ñemoakãrapuʼã arandu reheve umi siete tiempos rehegua.
“Our faith in reference to the messages of the first, second, and third angels was correct. The great waymarks we have passed are immovable. Although the hosts of hell may try to tear them from their foundation, and triumph in the thought that they have succeeded, yet they do not succeed. These pillars of truth stand firm as the eternal hills, unmoved by all the efforts of men combined with those of Satan and his host. We can learn much, and should be constantly searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so.” Evangelism, 223.
“Ore jerovia umi marandu peteĩha, mokõiha ha mbohapyha ánhel rehegua hína kuri añetete. Umi tuicha techaukaha ñande jahasava’ekue ndikatúi oñemongu’e. Jepe añaretã atykuéra oñeha’ãramo omondoho hag̃ua umíva ijypykuégui, ha ovy’áramo pe apytu’ũme oku’éma hague, upéicharõ jepe ndaikatúi ojapo upéva. Ko’ã añeteguáva yta guasu opyta mbarete umi yvyty opa’ỹvaicha, ndojeguerovái opa umi kuimba’e rembiapo oñondive Satanás ha iñaty ndive. Ikatu ñañemoarandu heta mba’ére, ha tekotevẽ jaseka meme Ñandejára Ñe’ẽme jahecha hag̃ua ko’ã mba’e upéicha piko.” Evangelism, 223.
“The great waymarks of truth, showing us our bearings in prophetic history, are to be carefully guarded, lest they be torn down, and replaced with theories that would bring confusion rather than genuine light.” Selected Messages, book 2, 101, 102.
“Umi mbaʼe guasu añetegua rehegua, ohechaukáva ñandéve ñande renda historia profética-pe, ñañangarekova’erã hesekuéra kyre’ỹme, ani hag̃ua oñembyai, ha oñemoĩ hendaguépe teoría-kuéra oguerútava sarambi tesaráipe rangue tesape añetetéva.” Selected Messages, libro 2, 101, 102.
“At this time many efforts will be made to unsettle our faith in the sanctuary question; but we must not waver. Not a pin is to be moved from the foundations of our faith. Truth is still truth. Those who become uncertain will drift into erroneous theories, and will finally find themselves infidel in regard to the past evidence we have had of what is truth. The old waymarks must be preserved, that we lose not our bearings.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55
“Ko tiempope heta ñeha’ã ojejapóta omokangy hag̃ua ñande jerovia pe santuario rehegua porandúpe; hákatu ndajaikytĩriva’erã. Ni peteĩ tachuela jepe ndojei hag̃ua ñande jerovia pyenda-kuéragui. Pe añetegua gueteri ha’e añetegua. Umi oiko va’ekue ndaipýri porãiva katu oguejýta mba’e’apo vai apytépe, ha ipahápe ojejuhúta hikuái ijerovia’ỹ hag̃uáicha umi mba’e rechaukaha yma guarépe jaguerekóvape mba’épa pe añetegua. Umi yma guare techaukaha tapére oñeñongatuva’erã, ani hag̃ua ñañemokañy ñande rape guive.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55