In Daniel chapter eight, Daniel is given a vision of the kingdoms of Bible prophecy, and thereafter he hears a heavenly dialogue represented by a question and an answer.
Nan Danyèl chapit uit la, yo bay Danyèl yon vizyon sou wayòm pwofesi biblik yo, epi apre sa li tande yon dyalòg selès ki prezante sou fòm yon kesyon ak yon repons.
Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel 8:13, 14.
Lè sa a, mwen tande yon sen t ap pale; epi yon lòt sen di sen sa a ki t ap pale a: Jiska kilè vizyon an va dire konsènan sakrifis kontinyèl la ak transgresyon devastasyon an, pou yo lage ni sanktyè a ni lame a pou yo pilonnen anba pye? Epi li di m: Jiska de mil twasan jou; apre sa, sanktyè a va pirifye. Daniel 8:13, 14.
The first twelve verses represent the vision, and verses thirteen and fourteen identify another vision. As with the two different Hebrew words that are both translated as “take away,” and the two different Hebrew words that are both translated as “sanctuary,” in Daniel chapter eight there are also two different Hebrew words, that are both translated as “vision.”
Douz premye vèsè yo reprezante vizyon an, epi vèsè trèz ak katòz yo idantifye yon lòt vizyon. Menm jan ak de mo ebre diferan yo, ki toude tradui pa “wete,” ak de mo ebre diferan yo, ki toude tradui pa “tanp lan,” nan chapit uit liv Dànyèl la gen tou de mo ebre diferan, ki toude tradui pa “vizyon.”
When it comes to the two words translated as “take away,” the theologians of Adventism argue that the words should both be understood to mean “remove.” When it comes to the two words translated as “sanctuary,” the theologians of Adventism argue that the words should both be understood to mean “God’s sanctuary”, and when it comes to the two words translated as “vision,” the theologians of Adventism, once again, gloss over the distinctions between the two words. The distinction was important enough to Daniel, that he purposely used two very different Hebrew words, so we should identify and uphold the distinction. The word “vision,” in verse thirteen is the Hebrew word “chazon,” and it means a dream, revelation, or oracle—a vision.
Lè n ap pale de de mo yo tradui kòm “retire,” teyolojyen Advantis yo soutni ke toude mo yo dwe konprann nan sans “wete.” Lè n ap pale de de mo yo tradui kòm “tanp,” teyolojyen Advantis yo soutni ke toude mo yo dwe konprann kòm “tanp Bondye a”; epi lè n ap pale de de mo yo tradui kòm “vizyon,” teyolojyen Advantis yo, yon lòt fwa ankò, pase sou diferans ki genyen ant de mo yo. Diferans lan te ase enpòtan pou Danyèl, jis nan pwen li te fè espre sèvi ak de mo ebre ki trè diferan; se poutèt sa nou dwe idantifye epi respekte distenksyon sa a. Mo “vizyon” ki nan vèsè trèz la se mo ebre “chazon,” epi li vle di yon rèv, yon revelasyon, oswa yon orak—yon vizyon.
The word “vision,” occurs ten times in Daniel chapter eight, but it represents two different Hebrew words. “Chazon,” that is located in verse thirteen, is also found in verse one, then twice in verse two, of course verse thirteen, and one time in verses fifteen, seventeen and twenty-six. Seven of the ten times the word “vision” occurs in Daniel chapter eight, it is the word “chazon,” simply meaning “a vision”.
Mo “vizyon” an parèt dis fwa nan chapit uit liv Danyèl la, men li reprezante de mo ebre diferan. “Chazon,” ki parèt nan vèsè trèz, jwenn tou nan vèsè youn, apre sa de fwa nan vèsè de, natirèlman nan vèsè trèz, epi yon fwa nan vèsè kenz, disèt ak vennsis. Sèt nan dis fwa mo “vizyon” an parèt nan chapit uit liv Danyèl la, se mo “chazon” an, ki senpleman vle di “yon vizyon”.
The other three times the word “vision” occurs in Daniel chapter eight, it is the Hebrew word “mareh,” meaning a view; or an appearance. In chapter eight, the Hebrew word “mareh,” is also translated one time not as “vision,” but as “appearance,” thus identifying more perfectly the meaning of the word. Why did Daniel use two different Hebrew words, that are so close in meaning that the translators would treat them as the same word? Does it matter?
Lòt twa fwa mo “vision” an parèt nan Danyèl chapit uit la, se mo ebre “mareh” la, ki vle di yon vizyon; oswa yon aparans. Nan chapit uit la, mo ebre “mareh” la tradui tou yon fwa pa kòm “vision,” men kòm “appearance,” konsa li idantifye pi pafètman sans mo a. Poukisa Danyèl te itilize de mo ebre diferan, ki tèlman pwòch nan sans yo, ke tradiktè yo ta trete yo kòm menm mo a? Èske sa gen enpòtans?
“Every principle in the word of God has its place, every fact its bearing. And the complete structure, in design and execution, bears testimony to its Author. Such a structure no mind but that of the Infinite could conceive or fashion.” Education, 123.
“Tout principe dans la parole de Dieu a sa place, chaque fait a sa portée. Et l’ensemble de l’édifice, dans sa conception et dans son accomplissement, rend témoignage à son Auteur. Un tel édifice, nul esprit, sinon celui de l’Infini, ne pouvait ni le concevoir ni le former.” Education, 123.
The answer to the second question is Yes, that it really does matter why Daniel made the distinction, so it therefore becomes the responsibility of the student of prophecy to seek to understand the first question, which asks why Daniel made the distinction. The distinctions he made concerning the word translated as “sanctuary,” and the word translated as “take away,” have eternal consequences, so why would anyone expect less of an importance with the word translated as “vision?” “Every fact” has “its bearing” “in the word of God,” and impacts the prophetic “structure,” and the fulfillment of the prophecy when it is “executed.”
Repons pou dezyèm kestyon an se Wi, vrèman li gen enpòtans poukisa Dànyèl te fè distenksyon an; se poutèt sa, li vin responsablite etidyan pwofesi a pou chèche konprann premye kestyon an, ki mande poukisa Dànyèl te fè distenksyon an. Distenksyon li te fè yo konsènan mo yo tradui pa “tanp lan,” ak mo yo tradui pa “retire,” gen konsekans etènèl; kidonk, poukisa nenpòt moun ta espere mo yo tradui pa “vizyon” an gen mwens enpòtans? “Chak reyalite” gen “enfliyans pa li” “nan pawòl Bondye a,” epi li afekte “estrikti” pwofetik la, ansanm ak akonplisman pwofesi a lè li “egzekite.”
As we begin to consider the word “vision,” in chapter eight, a “fact” that has “bearing” on Daniel’s testimony, is who it was that answered the question of Daniel eight, verse thirteen with, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”
Kòm nou kòmanse konsidere mo « vizyon an », nan chapit uit la, yon « reyalite » ki gen « enpòtans » pou temwayaj Danyèl la, se kiyès ki te reponn kesyon ki nan Danyèl chapit uit, vèsè trèz la, ak pawòl sa yo: « Jiska de mil twasan jou; lè sa a, y ap netwaye tanp lan. »
There are four facts that have a direct “bearing” upon Daniel chapter eight, which I intend to address. One is that the vision of the Ulai River has been identified as a prophecy for the last days, and it is also the symbol of the “knowledge” of the book of Daniel which was “unsealed” at the “time of the end” in 1798.
Gen kat reyalite ki gen yon “enpak” dirèk sou chapit uit nan liv Danyèl la, e mwen gen entansyon trete yo. Youn se ke vizyon larivyè Oulay la te idantifye kòm yon pwofesi pou dènye jou yo, epi li se tou senbòl “konesans” liv Danyèl la ki te “louvri” nan “tan lafen an” an 1798.
“There is need of a much closer study of the Word of God. Especially should Daniel and the Revelation have attention as never before in the history of our work. We may have less to say in some lines, in regard to the Roman power and the papacy, but we should call attention to what the prophets and the apostles have written under the inspiration of the Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit has so shaped matters, both in the giving of the prophecy, and in the events portrayed, as to teach that the human agent is to be kept out of sight, hid in Christ, and the Lord God of heaven and His law are to be exalted.
“Gen yon nesesite pou yon etid ki pi pwòch anpil sou Pawòl Bondye a. Espesyalman, Daniel ak Revelasyon an ta dwe resevwa yon atansyon tankou pa janm anvan nan istwa travay nou an. Nou ka gen mwens pou nou di nan kèk domèn konsènan pouvwa women an ak papote a, men nou ta dwe atire atansyon sou sa pwofèt yo ak apot yo te ekri anba enspirasyon Lespri Bondye a. Sentespri a te òganize bagay yo konsa, ni nan bay pwofesi a, ni nan evènman ki dekri yo, pou anseye ke ajan imen an dwe rete andeyò je, kache nan Kris la, epi Senyè Bondye syèl la ansanm ak lalwa Li a dwe leve byen wo.”
“Read the book of Daniel. Call up, point by point, the history of the kingdoms there represented. Behold statesmen, councils, powerful armies, and see how God wrought to abase the pride of men, and lay human glory in the dust. God alone is represented as great. In the vision of the prophet He is seen casting down one mighty ruler and setting up another. He is revealed as the monarch of the universe, about to set up His everlasting kingdom—the Ancient of days, the living God, the Source of all wisdom, the Ruler of the present, the Revealer of the future. Read and understand how poor, how frail, how short-lived, how erring, how guilty, is man in lifting up his soul unto vanity.
“Li liv Dànyèl la. Fè vini nan lespri ou, pwen pa pwen, istwa wayòm yo ki reprezante ladan l yo. Gade chèf leta yo, konsèy yo, lame pwisan yo, epi wè kijan Bondye te aji pou rabese ògèy lèzòm, epi jete glwa imen nan pousyè a. Se Bondye sèl ki prezante kòm gran. Nan vizyon pwofèt la yo wè Li ap fè yon chèf pwisan desann epi Li mete yon lòt kanpe. Li revele kòm Monak linivè a, ki pral tabli wayòm etènèl Li a—Ansyen Jou yo, Bondye vivan an, Sous tout sajès, Souvren tan prezan an, Moun ki revele lavni an. Li epi konprann jan lòm pòv, jan li frajil, jan lavi li kout, jan li fasil pou l twonpe, jan li koupab, lè li leve nanm li bay vanite.”
“The Holy Spirit through Isaiah points us to God, the living God, as the chief object of attention—to God as revealed in Christ. ‘Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace’ [Isaiah 9:6].
“Sentespri a, pa mwayen Ezayi, dirije nou vè Bondye, Bondye vivan an, kòm prensipal objè atansyon nou—vè Bondye jan Li revele nan Kris la. ‘Paske yon timoun fèt pou nou, yon pitit gason ban nou; e gouvènman an va sou zepòl li; e y ap rele non li Mèvèy, Konseye, Bondye vanyan an, Papa etènèl la, Prens Lapè a’ [Ezayi 9:6].”
“The light that Daniel received direct from God was given especially for these last days. The visions he saw by the banks of the Ulai and the Hiddekel, the great rivers of Shinar, are now in process of fulfillment, and all the events foretold will soon have come to pass.
“Limyè Danyèl te resevwa dirèkteman nan men Bondye a te bay espesyalman pou dènye jou sa yo. Vizyon li te wè bò rivaj Ulaï ak Hiddekel, gwo larivyè Sinear yo, yo kounye a nan pwosesis akonplisman, e tout evènman yo te predi yo pral byento rive.”
“Consider the circumstances of the Jewish nation when the prophecies of Daniel were given. The Israelites were in captivity, their temple had been destroyed, their temple service suspended. Their religion had centered in the ceremonies of the sacrificial system. They had made the outward forms all-important, while they had lost the spirit of true worship. Their services were corrupted with the traditions and practices of heathenism, and in the performance of the sacrificial rites they did not look beyond the shadow to the substance. They did not discern Christ, the true offering for the sins of men. The Lord wrought to bring the people into captivity, and to suspend the services in the temple, in order that the outward ceremonies might not become the sum total of their religion. Their principles and practices must be purged from heathenism. The ritual service ceased in order that heart service might be revived. The outward glory was removed that the spiritual might be revealed.
“Considérez les circonstances de la nation juive lorsque les prophéties de Daniel furent données. Les Israélites étaient en captivité, leur temple avait été détruit, leur service du temple suspendu. Leur religion était centrée sur les cérémonies du système sacrificiel. Ils avaient fait des formes extérieures l’élément essentiel, tandis qu’ils avaient perdu l’esprit du vrai culte. Leurs services étaient corrompus par les traditions et les pratiques du paganisme, et, dans l’accomplissement des rites sacrificiels, ils ne regardaient pas au-delà de l’ombre vers la réalité. Ils ne discernaient pas le Christ, la véritable offrande pour les péchés des hommes. Le Seigneur agit de manière à conduire le peuple en captivité et à suspendre les services du temple, afin que les cérémonies extérieures ne deviennent pas la somme totale de leur religion. Leurs principes et leurs pratiques devaient être purifiés du paganisme. Le service rituel cessa afin que le service du cœur fût ravivé. La gloire extérieure fut ôtée afin que la réalité spirituelle fût révélée. »
“In the land of their captivity, as the people turned unto the Lord with repentance, He manifested Himself unto them. They lacked the outward representation of His presence; but the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness shone into their minds and hearts. When they called unto God in their humiliation and distress, visions were given to His prophets which unfolded the events of the future—the overthrow of the oppressors of God’s people, the coming of the Redeemer, and the establishment of the everlasting kingdom.” Manuscript Releases, volume 16, 333–335.
“Nan peyi kote yo te an kaptivite a, pandan pèp la t ap tounen vin jwenn Seyè a ak repantans, Li te fè yo wè prezans Li. Yo pa t gen reprezantasyon ekstèn prezans Li; men reyon briyan Solèy Jistis la te klere nan lespri ak nan kè yo. Lè yo te rele Bondye nan imilyasyon yo ak nan detrès yo, yo te bay pwofèt Li yo vizyon ki te devwale evènman lavni yo—ranvèsman sila yo ki t ap oprime pèp Bondye a, vini Redanmtè a, ak tablisman wayòm etènèl la.” Manuscript Releases, volim 16, 333–335.
The “fact” that the vision of the Ulai River was given for the last days demands that a student of prophecy makes the effort to understand what it has foretold of the events represented in the vision. The prophetic “matters” associated with the vision of the Ulai River were “shaped” by the “Holy Spirit” “both in the giving of the prophecy, and in the events portrayed.” What was happening with a prophet when they receive a vision, as well as the events of prophecy the prophet identifies are to be studied, with the knowledge that both are a prophetic representation of what will be fulfilled in the last days. The previous passage emphasizes that we should recognize that Daniel was in the captivity of the “seven times.”
“Reyalite” vizyon larivyè Ulai a te bay pou dènye jou yo egzije pou yon etidyan pwofesi fè efò pou konprann sa li te anonse davans konsènan evènman yo ki reprezante nan vizyon an. “Bagay” pwofetik ki asosye ak vizyon larivyè Ulai a te “fòme” pa “Sentespri a” “ni nan bay pwofesi a, ni nan evènman yo dekri yo.” Sa k t ap pase ak yon pwofèt lè li resevwa yon vizyon, ansanm ak evènman pwofesi a pwofèt la idantifye yo, dwe etidye, avèk konesans ke toude se yon reprezantasyon pwofetik de sa ki pral akonpli nan dènye jou yo. Pasaj anvan an mete aksan sou lefèt ke nou ta dwe rekonèt ke Danyèl te nan kaptivite “sèt fwa” yo.
Daniel represents those who recognize their captivity at the conclusion of the three-and-a-half days of Revelation eleven, who then turn to the Lord with repentance, fulfill the Leviticus twenty-six prayer, separate the precious from the vile, and then the Lord fulfills his promise to gather those who have been scattered, as he manifests Himself unto them. Their “chief object of attention,” then is “God as revealed in Christ.”
Danyèl reprezante sila yo ki rekonèt kaptivite yo nan fen twa jou edmi Revelasyon onz la, epi ki lè sa a tounen vin jwenn Senyè a avèk repantans, akonpli priyè Levitik vennsis la, separe sa ki presye a ak sa ki vilye a, epi apre sa Senyè a akonpli pwomès li pou l rasanble sila yo ki te gaye yo, pandan li manifeste tèt li ba yo. Lè sa a, “objè prensipal atansyon” yo se “Bondye jan li revele nan Kris la.”
The “bearing” of the vision of the Ulai River, and how it contributes to the “structure” of the prophetic message which was “designed” by Christ, is the first “fact” we have briefly considered, and the passage cited identifies that our chief object should be the revelation of God, as “revealed in Christ.” In Daniel chapter eight, Christ is not presented as He was by Isaiah, when Isaiah identified that Christ’s “name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” In Daniel chapter eight, God is revealed in Christ as Palmoni, meaning the Wonderful Numberer, or the Numberer of Secrets.
“Pòtman” vizyon larivyè Oulayi a, ak fason li kontribye nan “estrikti” mesaj pwofetik la ki te “konsevwa” pa Kris la, se premye “reyalite” nou te konsidere yon ti tan; epi pasaj ki site a montre ke prensipal objektif nou dwe genyen se revelasyon Bondye a, jan li “revele nan Kris la.” Nan Danyèl chapit uit, Kris la pa prezante jan Ezayi te prezante L, lè Ezayi te fè konnen ke “yo pral rele non li Mèveye, Konseye, Bondye vanyan an, Papa etènèl la, Prens lapè a.” Nan Danyèl chapit uit, Bondye revele nan Kris la kòm Palmoni, ki vle di Mèveye ki Konte a, oswa Sila a ki Konte Sekrè yo.
That “fact” demands that the “bearing” of the name “Palmoni” must be sought for, along with how that name contributes to the “structure” and “design” of the prophecy. A third “fact” in Daniel chapter eight, that should be recognized, is that it is in that chapter that the central doctrinal pillar of the Millerite movement is set forth. Miller’s brightest jewel was found in verse fourteen, and we should seek to understand the “bearing” that “fact” has upon the vision of the Ulai River, that is now in the process of fulfillment.
“Reyalite” sa a mande pou yo chèche “pòte” non “Palmoni” a, ansanm ak fason non sa a kontribye nan “estrikti” ak “konsepsyon” pwofesi a. Yon twazyèm “reyalite” nan Danyèl chapit uit, ki ta dwe rekonèt, se ke se nan chapit sa a poto santral doktrinal mouvman Millerit la prezante. Pi klere bijou Miller la te jwenn nan vèsè katòz, e nou ta dwe chèche konprann “pòte” ke “reyalite” sa a genyen sou vizyon Rivyè Ulayi a, ki kounye a nan pwosesis akonplisman.
In Miller’s dream, when the casket was placed upon the table in the center of his room, it shone with the brightness of the sun, but in the last days the casket is larger and shines ten times brighter than it shone when initially placed upon Miller’s table. What is it about the vision of the Ulai River, that includes the central pillar to the Millerite movement, that increases the light of that doctrine by ten times in the last days? What is revealed in the last days that was not revealed at the time of the end in 1798? What are “the events” of the vision of the Ulai River, which Sister White says “are now in the process of fulfillment?”
Nan rèv Miller la, lè yo te mete bwat la sou tab ki te nan mitan chanm li a, li te klere ak limyè solèy la; men nan dènye jou yo bwat la vin pi gwo e li klere dis fwa pi plis pase jan li te klere lè yo te mete l sou tab Miller la okòmansman. Ki sa ki genyen nan vizyon larivyè Ulai a, ki gen ladan poto santral mouvman Millerit la, ki fè limyè doktrin sa a ogmante dis fwa nan dènye jou yo? Ki sa ki revele nan dènye jou yo ki pa t revele nan tan lafen an an 1798? Ki sa ki “evènman yo” nan vizyon larivyè Ulai a, ke Sè White di “kounye a yo nan pwosesis akonplisman?”
If we candidly bring these first three facts together (the vision of the Ulai, Christ revealed as Palmoni and the central doctrinal pillar), we should be willing to accept a simple premise that will impact our study of the vision of the Ulai River. Those combined facts inform those who wish to see that the message that was unsealed in 1798 was a message that was “hung upon time.” Without the element of predictive time prophecy Miller’s message would not have existed.
Si nous rapprochons franchement ces trois premiers faits (la vision de l’Ulaï, le Christ révélé comme Palmoni et le pilier doctrinal central), nous devrions être disposés à accepter une prémisse simple qui influera sur notre étude de la vision du fleuve Ulaï. Ces faits réunis montrent à ceux qui veulent voir que le message qui fut descellé en 1798 était un message « suspendu au temps ». Sans l’élément de la prophétie temporelle prédictive, le message de Miller n’aurait pas existé.
The fourth “fact” that has bearing on this chapter is that the Millerites presented a message based upon prophetic time. To emphasize this fact, God was revealed in Christ, in verse thirteen and fourteen as the Wonderful Numberer (Palmoni). The idea that the vision consisted of only identifying October 22, 1844, as the conclusion of the twenty-three hundred days of verse fourteen, is to throw cold water on the revelation of God being revealed through Christ as Palmoni.
Katriyèm “reyalite” ki gen rapò ak chapit sa a se ke Millerit yo te prezante yon mesaj ki te baze sou tan pwofetik. Pou mete aksan sou reyalite sa a, Bondye te revele nan Kris la, nan vèsè trèz ak katòz, kòm Mèveye Moun ki Resansè a (Palmoni). Lide ki fè konnen vizyon an te sèlman konsiste nan idantifye 22 oktòb 1844 kòm konklizyon de mil twa san jou vèsè katòz la, se voye dlo frèt sou revelasyon Bondye k ap revele atravè Kris la kòm Palmoni.
The theologians of Adventism have diligently worked to bury the significance of the question of verse thirteen of Daniel chapter eight in order to produce the flavor in their dish of fables, that they have determined will keep the unlearned with the itching ears, from being concerned about the truths connected with the central pillar of Adventism.
Teolojyen Advantis yo te travay avèk dilijans pou antere siyifikasyon kesyon vèsè trèz nan chapit uit liv Danyèl la, pou yo ka bay plat fab yo a gou yo te deside a, yon gou ki va kenbe moun ki pa gen konesans, ki gen zòrèy k ap grate, pou yo pa pran swen verite ki konekte ak poto santral Advantis la.
“The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith was the declaration, ‘Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.’ [Daniel 8:14.] These had been familiar words to all believers in the Lord’s soon coming. By the lips of thousands was this prophecy repeated as the watchword of their faith. All felt that upon the events therein foretold depended their brightest expectations and most cherished hopes. These prophetic days had been shown to terminate in the autumn of 1844. In common with the rest of the Christian world, Adventists then held that the earth, or some portion of it, was the sanctuary. They understood that the cleansing of the sanctuary was the purification of the earth by the fires of the last great day, and that this would take place at the second advent. Hence the conclusion that Christ would return to the earth in 1844.
“Ekriti a ki, pi wo pase tout lòt yo, te sèvi ansanm kòm fondasyon ak poto mitan lafwa Advent la, se te deklarasyon sa a: ‘Jouk de mil twasan jou; lè sa a, y ap pirifye sanktyè a.’ [Daniel 8:14.] Pawòl sa yo te deja byen konnen pou tout moun ki te kwè nan retou byento Senyè a. Pa bouch dè milye moun, pwofesi sa a te repete kòm deviz lafwa yo. Tout moun te santi ke sou evènman yo te predi ladan l yo te depann pi bèl atant yo ak espwa yo te pi renmen yo. Yo te montre ke jou pwofetik sa yo t ap fini nan sezon otòn ane 1844. Menm jan ak rès mond kretyen an, Adventis yo, lè sa a, te kwè ke tè a, oswa yon pati ladan l, se te sanktyè a. Yo te konprann ke pirifikasyon sanktyè a se te pirifikasyon tè a pa dife gran dènye jou a, e ke sa t ap fèt nan dezyèm avènman an. Se poutèt sa yo te rive nan konklizyon ke Kris t ap retounen sou tè a an 1844.”
“But the appointed time had passed, and the Lord had not appeared. The believers knew that God’s Word could not fail; their interpretation of the prophecy must be at fault; but where was the mistake? Many rashly cut the knot of difficulty by denying that the 2300 days ended in 1844. No reason could be given for this, except that Christ had not come at the time they expected him. They argued that if the prophetic days had ended in 1844, Christ would then have returned to cleanse the sanctuary by the purification of the earth by fire; and that since he had not come, the days could not have ended.
“Men lè tan ki te fikse a te pase, epi Senyè a pa t parèt. Kwayan yo te konnen Pawòl Bondye a pa t ka febli; fòk se nan entèpretasyon yo te bay pwofesi a erè a te ye; men kote erè a te ye? Anpil moun, avèk prese san reflechi, te koupe ne difikilte a lè yo te demanti ke 2300 jou yo te fini an 1844. Yo pa t ka bay okenn rezon pou sa, eksepte lefèt ke Kris pa t vini nan tan yo te espere l la. Yo te fè konnen ke si jou pwofetik yo te fini an 1844, lè sa a Kris ta dwe retounen pou l netwaye Tanp lan pa pirifikasyon tè a avèk dife; e kòm li pa t vini, jou yo pa t ka fini.”
“To accept this conclusion was to renounce the former reckoning of the prophetic periods. The 2300 days had been found to begin when the commandment of Artaxerxes for the restoration and building of Jerusalem went into effect, in the autumn of B. C. 457. Taking this as the starting-point, there was perfect harmony in the application of all the events foretold in the explanation of that period in Daniel 9:25–27. Sixty-nine weeks, the first 483 of the 2300 years, were to reach to the Messiah, the Anointed One; and Christ’s baptism and anointing by the Holy Spirit, A. D. 27, exactly fulfilled the specification. In the midst of the seventieth week, Messiah was to be cut off. Three and a half years after his baptism, Christ was crucified, in the spring of A. D. 31. The seventy weeks, or 490 years, were to pertain especially to the Jews. At the expiration of this period, the nation sealed its rejection of Christ by the persecution of his disciples, and the apostles turned to the Gentiles, A. D. 34. The first 490 years of the 2300 having then ended, 1810 years would remain. From A. D. 34, 1810 years extend to 1844. ‘Then,’ said the angel, ‘shall the sanctuary be cleansed.’ All the preceding specifications of the prophecy had been unquestionably fulfilled at the time appointed. With this reckoning, all was clear and harmonious, except that it was not seen that any event answering to the cleansing of the sanctuary had taken place in 1844. To deny that the days ended at that time was to involve the whole question in confusion, and to renounce positions which had been established by unmistakable fulfillments of prophecy.
“Pou aksepte konklizyon sa a, se te renonse ak ansyen kalkil peryòd pwofetik yo. Yo te jwenn 2300 jou yo te kòmanse lè kòmandman Atagzès la pou restorasyon ak rebati Jerizalèm te antre an vigè, nan sezon otòn ane 457 anvan Jezikri. Lè yo pran sa kòm pwen depa a, te gen yon amoni pafè nan aplikasyon tout evènman yo te anonse davans nan eksplikasyon peryòd sa a nan Danyèl 9:25–27. Swasantnèf semèn, premye 483 ane nan 2300 ane yo, te dwe rive jouk sou Mesi a, Sila ki Wen an; epi batèm Kris la ansanm ak onksyon li pa Sentespri a, nan ane 27 aprè Jezikri, te akonpli espesifikasyon an egzakteman. Nan mitan swasanndizyèm semèn nan, Mesi a te dwe retranche. Twa ane edmi apre batèm li, Kris la te kloure sou kwa, nan prentan ane 31 aprè Jezikri. Swasanndis semèn yo, oswa 490 ane yo, te dwe konsène espesyalman Jwif yo. Lè peryòd sa a te rive nan ekspirasyon li, nasyon an te sele rejè li te fè Kris la pa pèsekisyon disip li yo, epi apot yo te vire al jwenn moun lòt nasyon yo, nan ane 34 aprè Jezikri. Lè premye 490 ane nan 2300 yo te fini konsa, 1810 ane t ap rete. Depi ane 34 aprè Jezikri, 1810 ane yo pwolonje rive jouk 1844. ‘Lè sa a,’ zanj lan te di, ‘tanp lan va pirifye.’ Tout espesifikasyon ki te vini anvan yo nan pwofesi a te, san okenn dout, akonpli nan tan ki te fikse a. Avèk kalkil sa a, tout bagay te klè e ann amoni, eksepte lefètke yo pa t wè okenn evènman ki te koresponn ak pirifikasyon tanp lan te rive an 1844. Pou demanti ke jou yo te fini nan epòk sa a, se te lage tout kestyon an nan konfizyon, epi renonse ak pozisyon ki te deja tabli pa akonplisman pwofesi ki pa t ka fè okenn erè sou yo.”
“But God had led his people in the great Advent movement; his power and glory had attended the work, and he would not permit it to end in darkness and disappointment, to be reproached as a false and fanatical excitement. He would not leave his word involved in doubt and uncertainty. Though many abandoned their former reckoning of the prophetic periods, and denied the correctness of the movement based thereon, others were unwilling to renounce points of faith and experience that were sustained by the Scriptures and by the witness of the Spirit of God. They believed that they had adopted sound principles of interpretation in their study of the prophecies, and that it was their duty to hold fast the truths already gained, and to continue the same course of Biblical research. With earnest prayer they reviewed their position, and studied the Scriptures to discover their mistake. As they could see no error in their reckoning of the prophetic periods, they were led to examine more closely the subject of the sanctuary.” The Great Controversy, 409, 410.
“Men, Bondye te dirije pèp li a nan gran mouvman Advantis la; puisans li ak glwa li te akonpaye travay la, e li pa t ap pèmèt li fini nan tenèb ak desepsyon, pou yo ta denonse l kòm yon eksitasyon fo ak fanatik. Li pa t ap kite pawòl li a rete anvlope nan dout ak ensètitid. Malgre anpil moun te abandone kalkil yo te fè anvan sou peryòd pwofetik yo, e yo te nye jistès mouvman ki te baze sou sa, lòt moun pa t vle renonse ni a pwen lafwa yo ni a eksperyans yo, bagay Ekriti yo ak temwayaj Lespri Bondye a te soutni. Yo te kwè yo te adopte bon prensip entèpretasyon nan etid yo sou pwofesi yo, e ke se te devwa yo pou yo kenbe fèm verite yo te deja resevwa yo, epi pou yo kontinye nan menm demach rechèch biblik la. Avèk priyè sensè, yo te revize pozisyon yo, epi yo te etidye Ekriti yo pou dekouvri erè yo. Kòm yo pa t ka wè okenn erè nan kalkil yo te fè sou peryòd pwofetik yo, yo te vin pouse pou yo egzaminen sijè sanktyè a pi byen.” The Great Controversy, 409, 410.
We have been informed by Sister White, in the same passage where the vision of the Ulai River is identified, that there “is need of a much closer study of the Word of God.” The theologians will present the subject of “prophetic periods” in the previous passage from The Great Controversy, as if the “prophetic periods” Sister White is limiting her commentary to, is the five prophecies that are represented within the twenty-three hundred year prophecy. After all, they claim, four of those prophecies are specifically addressed in the passage. But a “much closer study” of the subject demonstrates that the term “prophetic periods” in the plural, in Sister White’s writings more accurately refers to the two prophecies that were to be fulfilled on October 22, 1844.
Nan menm pasaj kote vizyon Rivyè Oulayi a idantifye a, Sè White fè nou konnen ke “gen bezwen pou yon etid pi pre toujou sou Pawòl Bondye a.” Teolojyen yo pral prezante sijè “peryòd pwofetik” la nan pasaj anvan an ki soti nan The Great Controversy a, tankou si “peryòd pwofetik” Sè White ap limite kòmantè li a se senk pwofesi ki reprezante andedan pwofesi de mil twasan ane a. Dayè, yo pretann, kat nan pwofesi sa yo adrese espesyalman nan pasaj la. Men, yon “etid pi pre toujou” sou sijè a montre ke ekspresyon “peryòd pwofetik” la, nan pliryèl, nan ekriti Sè White yo, pi egzakteman fè referans ak de pwofesi ki te dwe akonpli nan dat 22 oktòb 1844.
There are five specific time prophecies that Gabriel identified for Daniel that are part of the twenty-three hundred years. The first identifies forty-nine years, when the “streets and walls would be built in troublous times.” The second was Christ’s baptism after four hundred and eighty-three years from the starting point of 457 BC. The third was His crucifixion, the fourth identified when the gospel would go to the Gentiles at the end of the four hundred and ninety-years that were set apart especially for the Jewish nation, and the fifth, and only the fifth, time prophecy, ended on October 22, 1844. The previous four time prophecies ended well before 1844. So, what does Sister White actually mean when she uses the expression “prophetic periods” in the plural, that were to end in 1844?
Gen senk pwofesi tan presi Gabriyèl te idantifye pou Danyèl ki fè pati de mil twasan ane yo. Premye a idantifye karantnèf ane, lè “lari yo ak miray yo t ap bati nan tan twoub.” Dezyèm nan se te batèm Kris la apre katsan katrevenntwa ane apati pwen depa a, 457 av. J.-K. Twazyèm nan se te krisifiksyon Li; katriyèm nan te idantifye lè levanjil la t ap ale bay moun lòt nasyon yo nan fen katsan katrevendis ane yo ki te mete apa espesyalman pou nasyon jwif la; epi senkyèm nan, e se sèlman senkyèm nan, pwofesi tan an, te fini 22 oktòb 1844. Kat pwofesi tan ki te vini anvan yo te fini byen lontan anvan 1844. Donk, kisa Sè White vle di an reyalite lè li sèvi ak ekspresyon “peryòd pwofetik yo” nan pliryèl la, ki te dwe fini an 1844?
Addressing the first disappointment of the Millerites she identifies the answer to that question:
Lè l ap adrese premye desepsyon Mileris yo, li idantifye repons pou kesyon sa a:
“I saw the people of God joyful in expectation, looking for their Lord. But God designed to prove them. His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of the prophetic periods. Those who were looking for their Lord did not discover this mistake, and the most learned men who opposed the time also failed to see it. God designed that His people should meet with a disappointment. The time passed, and those who had looked with joyful expectation for their Saviour were sad and disheartened, while those who had not loved the appearing of Jesus, but embraced the message through fear, were pleased that He did not come at the time of expectation. Their profession had not affected the heart and purified the life. The passing of the time was well calculated to reveal such hearts. They were the first to turn and ridicule the sorrowful, disappointed ones who really loved the appearing of their Saviour. I saw the wisdom of God in proving His people and giving them a searching test to discover those who would shrink and turn back in the hour of trial.
“Mwen te wè pèp Bondye a ap tann avèk lajwa, yo t ap chèche Seyè yo. Men, Bondye te gen lide pou l pwouve yo. Men li te kouvri yon erè nan kalkil peryòd pwofetik yo. Moun ki t ap tann Seyè yo pa t dekouvri erè sa a, e menm mesye ki te pi save yo, ki t ap opoze tan an, pa t rive wè li tou. Bondye te gen lide pou pèp Li a ta rankontre yon dezapwentman. Tan an te pase, epi moun ki te tann Sovè yo avèk yon atant plen lajwa te vin tris e dekouraje, tandiske moun ki pa t renmen aparisyon Jezi a, men ki te asepte mesaj la pa lakrent, te kontan dèske Li pa t vini nan tan yo te espere a. Pwofesyon yo pa t touche kè a ni pirifye lavi a. Pase tan an te byen kalkile pou revele kalite kè konsa. Se yo menm ki te premye vire do epi pase nan rizib sou moun ki te tris, ki te dezapwente yo, ki te vrèman renmen aparisyon Sovè yo. Mwen te wè sajès Bondye nan lefèt ke Li t ap pwouve pèp Li a epi Li t ap ba yo yon tès fouyan pou dekouvri sila yo ki t ap fè bak epi vire tounen nan lè eprèv la.”
“Jesus and all the heavenly host looked with sympathy and love upon those who had with sweet expectation longed to see Him whom their souls loved. Angels were hovering around them, to sustain them in the hour of their trial. Those who had neglected to receive the heavenly message were left in darkness, and God’s anger was kindled against them, because they would not receive the light which He had sent them from heaven. Those faithful, disappointed ones, who could not understand why their Lord did not come, were not left in darkness. Again they were led to their Bibles to search the prophetic periods. The hand of the Lord was removed from the figures, and the mistake was explained. They saw that the prophetic periods reached to 1844, and that the same evidence which they had presented to show that the prophetic periods closed in 1843, proved that they would terminate in 1844.” Early Writings, 235–237.
“Jezi ak tout lame selès la te gade avèk senpati ak lanmou sou moun sa yo ki, avèk yon dous atant, te anvi wè Sila a nanm yo te renmen an. Zanj yo t ap plane bò kote yo, pou soutni yo nan lè eprèv yo. Moun sa yo ki te neglije resevwa mesaj ki soti nan syèl la te rete nan fènwa, epi kòlè Bondye te limen kont yo, paske yo pa t vle resevwa limyè Li te voye ba yo soti nan syèl la. Moun fidèl sa yo, ki te desi, e ki pa t kapab konprann poukisa Seyè yo a pa t vini, pa t rete nan fènwa. Yon lòt fwa ankò yo te mennen yo nan Bib yo pou yo fouye peryòd pwofetik yo. Men Seyè a te retire sou chif yo, epi erè a te esplike. Yo te wè peryòd pwofetik yo te rive jis nan 1844, e menm prèv yo te prezante pou montre peryòd pwofetik yo te fini an 1843, te pwouve yo t ap bout an 1844.” Early Writings, 235–237.
The “prophetic periods” were the “prophetic periods” that “reached to 1844,” which the Millerites had initially believed reached to 1843. The “prophetic periods” that reached to 1844, were three prophetic periods,” and all are represented upon Habakkuk’s tables. One of the three periods simply “touches” 1844, and the other two reach to October 22, 1844. The thirteen hundred and thirty-five days reached to the very first day of 1844, when the first disappointment of the Millerites arrived, and the tarrying time of both Habakkuk chapter two, and of the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew twenty-five began.
“Peryòd pwofetik” yo se te “peryòd pwofetik” ki “rive jouk 1844,” ke Millerit yo te okòmansman kwè yo te rive jouk 1843. “Peryòd pwofetik” ki te rive jouk 1844 yo, se te twa peryòd pwofetik,” epi yo tout reprezante sou tab Habakik yo. Youn nan twa peryòd yo senpleman “manyen” 1844, epi de lòt yo rive jouk 22 oktòb 1844. Mil twasan trannsenk jou yo te rive jouk nan premye jou menm nan 1844, lè premye desepsyon Millerit yo te rive, epi tan reta a te kòmanse, ni nan Habakik chapit de, ni nan parabòl dis vyèj yo nan Matye venkatrèz.
The twenty-three hundred days of Daniel chapter eight, verse fourteen reached to October 22, 1844, and the twenty-five hundred and twenty years, of the “seven times” against the southern kingdom of Judah ended there as well. Palmoni introduces himself as the Wonderful Numberer in verse thirteen of Daniel eight, and the prophetic “structure” and “design” that he then set forth included at least ten interconnected time prophecies.
De mil tresan jou yo nan Danyèl chapit uit, vèsè katòz la, te rive jouk 22 oktòb 1844, epi de mil senk san ven ane yo, nan “sèt fwa” yo kont wayòm sid Jida a, te fini la tou. Palmoni prezante tèt li kòm Mèveye Moun k ap Konte a nan vèsè trèz Danyèl uit la, epi “estrikti” ak “konsepsyon” pwofetik li te mete devan apre sa a te gen ladan l omwen dis pwofesi tan ki te konekte youn ak lòt.
We will begin to consider these truths further in the next article.
N ap kòmanse egzamine verite sa yo pi plis nan atik ki vin apre a.
“Christ gave to the world a lesson that should be engraved on mind and soul. ‘This is life eternal,’ he said, ‘that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.’ But Satan works on human minds, saying, Do this or that action, and ye shall be as gods. By deceptive reasoning he led Adam and Eve to doubt God’s word, and to supply its place with a theory that led to transgression and disobedience. And his sophistry is doing today what it did in Eden. When Christ came to our world, he selected humble fishermen as the foundation of his church. To these disciples he tried to explain the nature of his kingdom and mission. But their limited comprehension imposed a restraint upon him. They had been receiving the sayings of the scribes and Pharisees, and therefore much of what they believed was untrue. And though Christ had many things to say to them, they were unable to hear much of what he longed to communicate.
“Kris te bay lemonn nan en leson ki devret grave dan lespri ek dan lame. ‘Sa se lavi eternel,’ li ti dir, ‘ki zot konn twa, sel vre Bondye, ek Zezi Kris, ki to finn anvwaye.’ Me Satan pe travay lor lespri imen, an dizan, Fer sa ouswa lot aksion, ek zot pou vinn kouma bann bondie. Atraver enn rezonnman tronper, li ti amenn Adam ek Ev pou dout Parol Bondye, ek pou ranplas li par enn teori ki ti mennen ver transgresion ek dezobeisans. Ek so sofism pe fer zordi seki li ti fer dan Edenn. Kan Kris ti vini dan nou lemonn, li ti swazir bann peser umil kouma fondasion so legliz. Li ti sey explik sa bann disip-la natir so rwayom ek so mision. Me zot konpreansion limite ti met enn restriksion lor li. Zot ti pe resevwar bann parol bann skrib ek bann Farizien, e alor boukou parmi seki zot ti krwar ti fos. Ek mem si Kris ti ena boukou keksoz pou dir zot, zot pa ti kapav tann boukou ladan ki li ti anvi kominik zot.”
“Christ finds the religionists of this time so full of erroneous sentiments that there is no room in their minds for the truth. With the education given, teachers mingle the sentiments of infidel authors. Thus they have sown tares in the minds of the youth. They give utterance to sentiments that should not be presented to young or old, never thinking of what kind of seed they are sowing, or of the harvest they will have to garner as the result.” Review and Herald, July 3, 1900.
“Kris jwenn relijye yo nan tan sa a tèlman plen ak santiman erone, ke pa gen plas nan lespri yo pou laverite. Avèk edikasyon yo bay la, anseyan yo melanje santiman ekriven enfidèl yo. Konsa yo simen move zèb nan lespri jèn yo. Yo bay ekspresyon a santiman ki pa ta dwe prezante ni devan jèn ni devan granmoun, san yo pa janm reflechi sou ki kalite semans y ap simen, ni sou rekòt y ap gen pou ranmase kòm rezilta.” Review and Herald, 3 jiyè 1900.