We are addressing six lines of prophetic controversy that have occurred within the history of Adventism from 1798 until the present day.

Tuli kuyankhula pa mizere isanu ndi umodzi ya mkangano wa uneneri imene yachitika mkati mwa mbiri ya Chiadiventi kuyambira mu 1798 mpaka lero lino.

“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.

“Mu mateka no mu buhanuzi, Ijambo ry’Imana rigaragaza urugamba rurerure rwakomeje hagati y’ukuri n’ikinyoma. Urwo rugamba ruracyakomeje. Ibyabaye bizasubirwamo. Impaka za kera zizongera kubyutswa, kandi inyigisho nshya zizahora zivuka. Ariko ubwoko bw’Imana, bwagize uruhare, mu kwizera kwabo no mu isohozwa ry’ubuhanuzi, mu kwamamaza ubutumwa bw’abamarayika ba mbere, aba kabiri, n’aba gatatu, bazi aho bahagaze. Bafite ubunararibonye bw’agaciro karuta izahabu inoze. Bagomba guhagarara bashikamye nk’urutare, bakomeje badakebakeba ibyiringiro byabo bya mbere kugeza ku mperuka.” Selected Messages, book 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.

Mukaddem maqale, Romalı kudret haqqında birinci ve axır ihtilafı ele aldı; şimdi ise Uriah Smith ile James White arasında vuku bulan ihtilafı ele alacağız. Uriah Smith, otuz altıncı ayete kendi “hususi tefsir”ini dercetmiştir.

“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.

“IVESI 36. Mfalme atatenda kama apendavyo; naye atajiinua, na kujitukuza juu ya kila mungu, naye atasema mambo ya ajabu dhidi ya Mungu wa miungu, naye atafanikiwa hata ghadhabu itakapotimizwa; kwa maana lile lililokusudiwa litatendeka.

“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.

“Hapa mfalme anayeletwa hawezi kumaanisha mamlaka ileile iliyotajwa mwisho; yaani, mamlaka ya upapa; kwa maana maelezo hayo mahususi hayatathibitika yakitumiwa kwa mamlaka hiyo.” 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 alitambua ya kwamba mamlaka katika aya iliyotangulia ilikuwa “Roma ya kipapa,” lakini anadai kwamba sifa za aya ya thelathini na sita si sifa za kinabii zinazoitambulisha Roma ya kipapa. Dai hilo ni la uongo. Yapasa kukumbukwa kwamba katika uasi wa mwaka 1863, zile nyakati saba za Mambo ya Walawi sura ya ishirini na sita ziliwekwa kando, na kwa hiyo uwakilisho wa nyakati saba wa majedwali yote mawili ya Habakuki ulikataliwa. Chati ya 1843 na ile ya 1850 zote mbili zinaonyesha zile nyakati saba katikati kabisa ya chati hizo, na vielelezo vyote viwili vinaweka msalaba katikati ya mstari wa zile nyakati saba. Wakati nuru mpya ya zile nyakati saba ilipowasili mwaka 1856 na baadaye kukataliwa, hilo liliashiria kukataliwa kwa majedwali mawili ya Habakuki, na pia mamlaka ya Roho ya Unabii, ambayo kwa uwazi sana hutambulisha kwamba chati zote mbili ziliongozwa na Mungu.

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.

Kulingana na Dada White, udanganyifu wa mwisho wa Shetani ni kuifanya ushuhuda wa Roho wa Mungu kuwa bila nguvu; na hapa udanganyifu wa kwanza ulikuwa kuifanya ushuhuda wa Roho wa Mungu kuwa bila nguvu, na pia uliwakilisha kukataliwa kwa wakati mmoja kwa kweli za msingi zilizo kwenye ramani zile mbili, na hasa zaidi nyakati saba.

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.

1863-ի ապստամբության ժամանակ հենց Ուրիա Սմիթն էր, որ կազմեց 1863 թվականի կեղծ աղյուսակը, որով հեռացվեց յոթ ժամանակների գիծը։ Մինչև 1863 թվականը Ուրիա Սմիթը փակել էր իր աչքերը յոթ ժամանակների լույսի հանդեպ և անկարող էր տեսնել, որ կան երկու «զայրույթներ», որոնք Դանիելն է նույնացնում։ Այդ երկու զայրույթները ներկայացնում են յոթ ժամանակները Իսրայելի հյուսիսային թագավորության և Հուդայի հարավային թագավորության դեմ։ Առաջինը՝ հյուսիսի տասը ցեղերի դեմ, սկսվեց մ.թ.ա. 723 թվականին և ավարտվեց 1798 թվականին, իսկ երկրորդը սկսվեց մ.թ.ա. 677 թվականին և ավարտվեց 1844 թվականին։

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 aizira kwa Danieli mu chapitala eyiti kuti afotokoze masomphenya a marah, ndipo mogwirizana ndi ntchito yake, anapereka mboni yachiwiri ya chaka cha 1844. Zaka zikwi ziwiri ndi mazana atatu za mu chapitala eyiti ya Danieli zinatha mu 1844, ndipo momwemonso kunathanso kukwiya komaliza kwa ziwiri zija motsutsana ndi maufumu a kumpoto ndi a kumwera.

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.

Iye akati, Tarira, ndichakuzivisa zvichava pakupedzisira kwehasha idzodzo; nokuti pakatarwa nguva, kuguma kuchavapo. Danieri 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.

Enkomo ya mwisho yatanguliza kuwepo kwa enkomo ya kwanza. Ya mwisho ya maenkomo hayo mawili, ambayo ni usemi mwingine tu wa zile nyakati saba, ilifikia mwisho mwaka 1844, na enkomo ya kwanza ilifikia mwisho mwaka 1798. Aya ile ambayo Smith alidai haikuwa na ubainisho wowote wa mamlaka ya kipapa ilitaja mwaka ambao upapa ungepokea jeraha lake la mauti.

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.

Ningaluk aqlluni pijumajaminut, imminullu qutsitittiniqaqluni, imminullu angitigijaupluni tamarmik guutit qulangitillugit, ajajaaqtunik oqaaseqarumaarlunilu Guutiup guutituinnait qulanganut akerliulluni, iluatsitsiumaarlunilu uumiginninneq naammassineqarnissaata tungaanut; aalajangigaq naammassineqartussaammat. Danieli 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.

“Omwami” mu musyo gwa makumi asatu na mukaaga alibeera “nga akulaakulana okutuusa obusungu lwe bulituukirira.” Weetegereze Smith kye awandiika ku Danyeri essuula ey’omunaana, emyoyo amakumi abiri mu esatu n’amakumi abiri mu ena mu kitabo kye kimu mw’agamba nti obuyinza bwa bapapa tebulina biraga ebituufu okusobola okutuukiriza omusyo gwa makumi asatu na mukaaga.

“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.

“Vhesi 23. Ndjɛ mu ngungami gha uhamba wao, po ava nyateki ve uya mo uvhali, onkosi yimwe yombili yombunda, yi na ondunge yokutongolola omalombwelo ga zembwi, oyi ka holoka. 24. Ndele onkondo yayo oyi ka kala yina odjombo, ndele ka yi fi yondunge yayo mwene: ndele oyi ka hanauna nawa kwa yelela, ndele oyi ka yandja po, ndele oyi ka longo, ndele oyi ka hanauna ovanankondo novanhu vavapyu. 25. Ndele nomupangeli wayo wo, oyi ka etitha ounongo vopuxu vuyambuke mo meke layo: ndele oyi ka ikukulitha momutima wayo, ndele meumbo lohenda oyi ka hanauna ovanhu vahapu: oyi ka holoka yo omhinge noMukwaniilwa womakwaniilwa; ndele oyi ka nyanyulwa ihe nomake.

“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.

“Burwandu ubu busimbura imigabane ine y’ubwami bw’ihene mu gihe cy’imperuka cy’ubwami bwabo, ni ukuvuga hafi y’iherezo ry’urugendo rwabo. Nta gushidikanya, ni bwo bumwe n’amahembe mato avugwa mu murongo wa 9 n’iyakurikira. Nibishyirwa kuri Roma, nk’uko byasobanuwe mu bisobanuro ku murongo wa 9, byose bihinduka bihuje kandi bisobanutse.”

“‘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.

“‘위엄이 사나운 왕.’ 모세는 바로 이 동일한 세력으로부터 유대인들에게 임할 형벌을 예언하면서, 그것을 ‘용모가 사나운 한 민족’이라 부른다. 신 28:49, 50. 전쟁의 진을 갖춘 모습에 있어서 로마인들보다 더 위협적으로 보인 민족은 없었다. ‘오묘한 말을 깨닫는 자.’ 모세는 방금 언급한 성경 구절에서, ‘네가 그 방언을 알지 못하는’이라고 말한다. 이것은 유대인들과의 관련에서 바벨론인들, 페르시아인들, 혹은 그리스인들에게는 해당될 수 없었다. 이는 갈대아어와 그리스어가 팔레스타인에서 크든 작든 사용되고 있었기 때문이다. 그러나 라틴어의 경우는 그렇지 않았다.”

“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.

“Abatalekeli basoka pa kufika ku bwina bwabo.’ Mu ntanda yonse, ubumwenso pakati ka bantu ba Lesa na babo ababanyantila bwatwalililwe ukuloleshiwa. Cali pa mulandu wa mapulu ya bantu Bakwe e po baashitishiwe mu butekwa. Kandi ukutwalilila kwabo mu lubembu kwaletele cilango icakosa ukucila. Tapaali inshita iyo AbaYuda baali bononkele sana mu mibele ya bwina, nge calo, ukucila pa nshita iyo baingile mu bukatampe bwa baRoma.

“‘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.

“‘에 안녕히, 그러나 그 자신의 권능으로 말미암지 아니하고.’ 로마인들의 성공은 크게는 그들의 동맹자들의 도움과, 그들이 언제나 기회를 엿보아 이용할 준비가 되어 있던 그들의 원수들 사이의 분열에 기인하였다. 교황권 로마 또한 자기가 영적 지배를 행사하던 세속 권력들을 통하여 강성하였다.

“‘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.

“‘U akashinda kwa njia ya kutisha.’ Bwana aliwaambia Wayahudi kwa kinywa cha nabii Ezekieli kwamba angewatia katika mikono ya watu waliokuwa ‘stadi wa kuharibu’; na kuchinjwa kwa Wayahudi milioni moja na laki moja wakati wa kuangamizwa kwa Yerusalemu na jeshi la Warumi, kulikuwa uthibitisho wa kutisha wa maneno ya nabii. Nayo Rumi katika awamu yake ya pili, yaani ya kipapa, iliwajibika kwa kifo cha mashahidi milioni hamsini.

“‘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.

“‘Ne nga ana e politikës së tij ai do të bëjë që mashtrimi të përparojë në dorën e tij.’ Roma është shquar mbi të gjitha fuqitë e tjera për një politikë mashtrimi, me anë të së cilës i solli kombet nën kontrollin e saj. Kjo është e vërtetë si për Romën pagane, ashtu edhe për Romën papnore. Dhe kështu, me anë të paqes, ajo shkatërroi shumë.

“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.

“Na Roma, hatimaye, katika nafsi ya mmoja wa watawala wake, ilisimama juu dhidi ya Mkuu wa wakuu, kwa kutoa hukumu ya mauti dhidi ya Yesu Kristo. ‘Lakini atavunjwa pasipo mkono,’ msemo unaotambulisha uangamivu wa mamlaka hii na kuipigwa kwa ile sanamu ya sura ya 2.” 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, di derbasan de du caran de rêzê da, diyar dike ku taybetmendiyên pêxemberî yên Rûmaya putperest û Rûmaya papal guheztinbar in, ji ber ku ew tenê diyardeyiya Rûmayê ne di her du qonaxên wê de, wek tevlîbûna hesin û axê di Daniel beşa duyemîn de, ku Sister White wan wek nîşanên desthilatdariya dêrê û desthilatdariya dewletê nas dike. Dema ku Daniel di wan ayetan de ku Smith wan vedibêje, nas dike ku Rûma “ê serkeve û bikar bîne,” û ku Rûma “ê hîleyê di destê xwe de bi serkeftin pêş bixe,” Smith dibêje ku di ayeta sî û şeşan de, “padîşah”ê ku “ê heta ku xezeb biqede serkeve,” taybetmendiyek pêxemberî ya her du Rûmaya putperest û Rûmaya papal nas dike. Paşê ew dibêje ku ti yek ji taybetmendiyên Rûmayê di ayeta sî û şeşan de bi hêza papal ve nayên gotin.

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.

Twamurejejwe kuri Smith mu gushyigikira kumenya ko Roma ari bo banyazi bashyiraho ibyerekanywe, kandi kimwe mu biranga bine by’ubuhanuzi biri mu murongo wa cumi na kane ni uko Roma yishyira hejuru.

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.

Na katika nyakati hizo wengi watasimama kumpinga mfalme wa kusini; tena, wanyang’anyi wa watu wako watajiinua ili kuthibitisha maono; lakini wataanguka. Danieli 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 agamba nti ebiragiro ebikwata ku kabaka mu lunyiriri olw’asatu mu mukaaga tebikwatagana na buyinza bwa bapaapa, newaakubadde nga edda yannyonnyola nti yali Rooma mu lunyiriri olw’ekkumi n’ena eyeegulumiza. Naye kabaka oyo mu lunyiriri olw’asatu mu mukaaga “alyegulumiza.” Era kabaka oyo yennyini mu lunyiriri olw’asatu mu mukaaga “alyogera ebyewuunyo ku Katonda wa bakatonda.” Mu Danyeri buyinza bwa bapaapa “bulyogera ebigambo ebikulu eri Oyo Ali Waggulu Ennyo,” era mu kitabo ky’Okubikkulirwa buyinza bwa bapaapa buvuma Oyo Ali Waggulu Ennyo.

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.

Na akapewa kinywa kinachonena maneno makuu na makufuru; naye akapewa mamlaka ya kuendelea miezi arobaini na miwili. Naye akafungua kinywa chake katika kumkufuru Mungu, kulikufuru jina lake, na maskani yake, na hao wakaao mbinguni. Ufunuo 13:5, 6.

Every prophetic specification of the papal power is identified in verse thirty-six.

Buli busonsoni bwa obunnabbi obukwata ku buyinza bwa obwapapa bwanjulwa mu lunyiriri olw’amakumi asatu mu mukaaga.

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.

Bubwe mwene wa bufumu akakolesha bikolo byandi; kandi akebuluka, akeyezha kuluta milungu yonso, kandi akayowola bintu bya kuswisa ku lume lwa Mulungu wa milungu, kandi akashinda kufikila obukambwe bwamalikibwa; pantu ekyo ekyatongorebwa kyalekorwa. Danieli 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.

Abasobanuzi b’abantu incuro nyinshi ntibiringirwa, ariko abasobanuzi benshi b’Abadiventisiti bahamya ukuri kugaragara ko ari umurongo wa mirongo itatu n’itandatu intumwa Pawulo yasubiragamo mu magambo yayo avuye muri 2 Abatesalonike, ubwo yavugaga ku muntu w’icyaha.

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.

Atu wa muanji amukengelese ku njira iili yonse: pantu juuba jilyo kajika kwisa, kano kwakabako kubutuka kwa bengi patanshi, ne muntu wa bubi akasololelwe, mwana wa lubutu; uyo alwisana ne kwikakushisha mwine paulu wa byonse bya itwa Lesa, nangwa bya kupepwa; pakuti ena, nga ni Lesa, aikala mu tempile lya Lesa, ne kulangisha mwine ati yeye ni Lesa. 2 Tesalonika 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.

වර්ෂ තිස්හයේ මෙසේ සඳහන් වේ: “ඔහු තමන්ම උසස් කරගනී, සියලු දෙවියන්ට වඩා තමන්ම මහත් කරගනී,” එසේම පාවුල්ද මෙසේ කියයි: “අපරාධයේ මනුෂ්‍යයා, විනාශයේ පුත්‍රයා, ප්‍රකාශ වන්නේය; ඔහු දෙවියන් යයි හැඳින්වෙන සියල්ලට හෝ නමස්කාරයට ලක්වන සියල්ලට වඩා විරුද්ධව සිට තමන්ම උසස් කරගන්නේය.” පැහැදිලිවම, වර්ෂ තිස්හයේ රජු, වර්ෂ තිස්හයට පෙර තිබෙන වර්ෂයන්හි සාකච්ඡා කෙරෙන රජුට වඩා වෙනස්යැයි ප්‍රකාශ කිරීමට ස්මිත්ට කිසිදු අනාගතවාක්‍යමය අධිකාරියක් නොතිබුණි. ව්‍යාකරණානුකූලවද, ඔහුගේ දෝෂ සහිත අදාළකිරීම සඳහා ඔහුට කිසිදු සාධාරණ පදනමක් නොතිබුණි; තවද, වර්ෂ තිස්හය තුළ පාප්මය බලයට අයත් ලක්ෂණ කිසිවක් නොමැති බැවින් එසේ කළේයැයි ඔහු කළ ප්‍රකාශය, පුද්ගලික අර්ථකථනයක් ස්ථාපිත කිරීමට උත්සාහ කළ ශුද්ධ ලියවිල්ල විකෘති කිරීමක් විය.

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.

Tukwete ne lyebo lya buprofete ilya kuketekelwa ngani; ilyo mukucita bwino nga muliteelela, nga ku musuma uwaka pa ncende ya mfifi, ukufika ubushiku bwapambuka, ne ntanda ya lucelo ikafume mu mitima yenu: Mwaishiba ici intanshi, ukuti takuli buprofete ubwa mu Byandiko ubwa kulondolola kwa muntu umwine. Pantu buprofete tabwaishile kale ku bufwayo bwa muntu: lelo abantu abashila aba kwa Lesa balandile nga batendekelwe no Mupashi wa Mushilo. 2 Petro 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.

لە ماوەی ساڵەکانی ئەدوێنتیزمی لاودیسیا، زۆر لە ئەلهیی‌ناسان، پاستەران و نووسەرانی ئەدوێنتی هەبوون کە باسێان لەوە کردووە کە پێیان وایە بەکارهێنانی سمیس دروستە یان هەڵەیە. پاستەرێکی ئوسترالی، لوئیس وێر، کە ماوەیەکی زۆرە مردووە، زۆربەی خزمەتگوزاریی خۆی لە دژایەتی‌کردنی نموونەی پێشبینیی هەڵەی سمیسدا بەسەر برد. هۆکاری ئەم دژایەتییە تەنها ئەوە نەبوو کە سمیس لە کۆتاییدا ئەو پاشایەی کە لە ئایەتی چل و پێنجدا دێتە سەرەتاوەی خۆی بە تورکیا ناساند، بەڵکو سەکۆی سمیس هەروەها بەکارهێنانێکی هەڵە بۆ هەرمەگدۆنیش بەرهەم هێنا. لە ساڵانی هەشتاکاندا یان نزیک لەو کاتە، نووسەرێکی ئەدوێنتی کتێبێکی نووسی بە ناونیشانی، Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? ناوی نووسەرەکە دونالد مانسێلە، و کتێبەکە هێشتا بەردەستە.

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, Birinci Dünya Savaşı’na ve İkinci Dünya Savaşı’na götüren tarihi izleyerek, bu iki savaşın da yaklaştığı görüldüğünde Adventist müjdecilerin, Armagedon’un ve dünyanın sonunun bir işareti olarak Türkiye’nin kelimesi kelimesine Yeruşalim’e yürümesi şeklindeki Smith’in sahte yorumunu kullanmaya başladıklarını gösterir. Kilise üyelik kayıtlarıyla, savaşların her biri yaklaşırken, Smith’in Armagedon hakkındaki kusurlu görüşünden çıkarılan müjdecilerin peygamberlik vurgusuna dayanılarak birçok canın Adventist kilisesinin üyeliğine kazandırıldığını ortaya koyar.

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.

Bango ntangu mambu yina ya bitumba yonso me mana, mpe bambikudulu yina ya bifu me lungisamaka ve, dibundu me zimbisa bandimi mingi kuluta yina bo zwaka na nzila ya ndakisa ya kimprofete yina Smith tungaka.

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.

Mu kutindira kwa Smith ubutumwa bw’ishingiro bw’Abamilleri, no kuba yari yiteguye guteza imbere ubusobanuro bwe bwite bw’umurongo wa mirongo itatu n’itandatu kugeza kuri mirongo ine n’itanu wo muri Daniyeli, imitekerereze ya Smith yabyaye urugero rw’ubuhanuzi rwashingiye ku biba muri iki gihe.

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.”

Danyele mukânda gwa ikumi na umwe, mu nshindano wa pakati pa Smith ne James White pa bwalo bwa mfumu udi ufika ku mapela ende mu mvensa wa ndeke wa dibwe adi, James White wakalombola mayele aa adyenzela mu bukese butangidile tshishimikidi tsha buprofete tsha Smith tsha mu musenga. White wakalongesha ne: “buprofete buleeta maalu a maalu-malonda, kadi maalu-malonda kaena aleeta buprofete to.”

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.

Eenevaandeliisi oaadiveentisime, vaani kaa iyasi yii yaa sohooruuwa anu pii waatongan dehiiwa sohoonara nde yimɓe fii tahanaaji, eɓe kuutori taarikiiji gonɗinɗi ngam hollirde moodel annabaaku Armagedon mo Smith, mo waɗiiru, tee golle maɓɓe, ɗum woni no barkinaa haa e ardude nde’e konuuji, waɗi asaro ɓurɗo e ndocci nde moodel annabaaku on hollitaama ɗum daranii e firtaare keeriijo gooto.

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.

Ndziweleni hi vaprofeta va mavunwa, lava taka eka n’wina va ambale minkumba ya tinyimpfu, kambe endzeni i timhisi leti dlayaka hi vorhisa. Mi ta va tiva hi mihandzu ya vona. Xana vanhu va tshovela mavhinya emitwaveni, kumbe makuwa emitshameni? Hilaha ku fanaka, murhi hinkwawo lowunene wu humesa mihandzu leyinene; kambe murhi lowubihaka wu humesa mihandzu leyo biha. Murhi lowunene a wu koti ku humesa mihandzu leyo biha, naswona murhi lowubihaka a wu koti ku humesa mihandzu leyinene. Murhi hinkwawo lowu nga humesiki mihandzu leyinene wa tsemiwa, wu hoxiwa endzilweni. Hikokwalaho, mi ta va tiva hi mihandzu ya vona. Matewu 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.

Ukutwa kwa Smith kuendeleza mtindo wa kibinafsi wa kinabii wa mfalme katika aya ya thelathini na sita kulizaa pia matumizi yasiyo sahihi ya pigo la sita na Harmagedoni.

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.

ئه‌نجه‌ڵی شه‌شه‌م جامەکەی خۆی به‌سه‌ر ڕووباری گه‌وره‌ی فوراتدا ڕشت؛ و ئاوه‌کەی وشک بوو، تاکو ڕێگای پاشاکانی ڕۆژهەڵات ئاماده‌بکرێت. و من سێ ڕۆحی پیس بینی وەک بۆق لە ده‌می ئاژدها و لە ده‌می ئاژه‌ڵه‌کە و لە ده‌می پێغه‌مبەری درۆزن ده‌رده‌چوون. چونکە ئەوان ڕۆحەکانی شەیتانن، پەرجوو دەکەن، و دەچن بۆ لای پاشاکانی زەوی و هەموو جیهان، تاکو ئەوان بۆ جەنگی ئەو ڕۆژە گه‌وره‌ی خودای هەموو دەسەڵاتدار کۆبکەنەوە. ئاگاداربن، من وەک دز دێم. خۆزگە بەوەی چاودێری دەکات و جلەکانی خۆی دەپارێزێت، نەوەک بە ڕووتی بڕوات و شەرمەزارییەکەی ببینن. و ئەوانی لە شوێنێک کۆکردەوە کە بە زمانی عیبرانی پێی دەوترێت هەرمەگدۆن. ئاشکراکردنەوەی یۆحەنا 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.”

جیسا کہ ہم پہلے اشارہ کر چکے ہیں، چھٹی آفت انسانی مہلتِ توبہ کے اختتام کے بعد آتی ہے؛ لہٰذا “اپنے لباس محفوظ رکھنے” میں جو تنبیہ پائی جاتی ہے، اُس کا تعلق ضرور ایک ایسے آزمائشی مسئلہ سے ہے جو اُس وقت سے پہلے پیش آتا ہے جب میکائیل کھڑا ہوتا ہے، انسانی مہلتِ توبہ ختم ہو جاتی ہے، اور پہلی آفت شروع ہوتی ہے۔ چھٹی آفت اژدہا، حیوان، اور جھوٹے نبی کی سرگرمیوں کی نشان دہی کرتی ہے، اور یہی وہ سہ گانہ اتحاد ہے جو عنقریب آنے والے سنڈے لاء کے وقت اکٹھا ہوتا ہے۔ یہ سہ گانہ اتحاد جدید روم ہے، اور وہ علامت جو جدید روم کے اس سہ گانہ اتحاد کی پہچان کراتی اور اسے قائم کرتی ہے، “تیرے لوگوں کے ڈاکو” ہیں، جو “رویا کو قائم کرنے کے لیے اپنے آپ کو بلند کرتے ہیں” اور “گر پڑتے ہیں۔”

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.

चौथल पीड़ाक चेतावनी, जखन बुझल जाइत अछि, तखन एक आत्मा केँ अपन वस्त्र बनाए राखए देत अछि; मुदा यदि एकरा अस्वीकार कएल जाइत अछि, तँ ई एक आत्मा केँ नग्न छोड़ि दैत अछि, आ ई लाओदिकीया-स्वभावक पाँच गुणसभ मे सँ एक अछि। ओ प्रतीक जे ओहि चेतावनी केँ स्थापित करैत अछि, से तोहर लोकक डाकूसभ छथि, जे अपनाकेँ उच्च करैत छथि आ अन्ततः पतित भ’ जाइत छथि। सुलैमान कहलनि जे यदि परमेश्‍वरक लोकसभ लग ओ दर्शन नहि होइ, तँ ओ नष्ट भ’ जाइत छथि।

Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. Proverbs 29:18.

Ekunwa obubono, abantu babula: naye oyo akwata amateeka, alina omukisa. Engero 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.

Ijambo ry’Igiheburayo risobanura “kurimbuka” ni “kwambura ubusa”, kandi Yohana yaranditse ati: “Hahirwa ūri maso, kandi akabika imyenda yiwe, kugira ngo ntagende yambaye ubusa, kandi ngo babone isoni ziwe.” Smith yari yibeshye ku Vyerekeye Umwami wo mu Buraruko, kandi urwo rufatiro rw’ikinyoma rwa kihanuzwe rwamushoboje gutsimbataza imikoreshereze ya kihanuzwe iyo, nimba yemerwa, itera ubwambure, na bwo bukaba ikimenyetso c’Abalayodikiya, abo basesemwa bava mu kanwa k’Umwami.

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:

سمِث کو اپنے اُس نئے باطل تعین کے حق میں، جو اُس نے شمال کے بادشاہ کے بارے میں پیش کیا تھا، نبیہ کے شوہر جیمز وائٹ کے خلاف استدلال کرنے میں کوئی دشواری نہ تھی۔ ایڈونٹسٹ مؤرخین، اور سسٹر وائٹ، اُن کے اس مشہور اختلافِ رائے کا ذکر کرتے ہیں۔ ایلن وائٹ نے اپنے شوہر اور سمِث دونوں کو ملامت کی کہ دانی ایل باب گیارہ میں شمال کے بادشاہ سے کس کی نمائندگی مراد ہے، اس بارے میں اُن کے اختلافِ رائے کو عوامی دائرے میں آنے دیا گیا۔ 1844 کی عظیم مایوسی کے بعد پہلی ہی ایڈونٹسٹ اشاعت میں، جیمز وائٹ نے لکھا:

“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.

“യേശു എഴുന്നേറ്റു വാതിൽ അടച്ചു തന്റെ രാജ്യം കൈക്കൊൾവാൻ പുരാതനനായവന്റെ അടുക്കൽ ക്രി.വ. 1844-ലെ ഏഴാം മാസത്തിൽ വന്നു എന്നതു ഞാൻ പൂർണ്ണമായി വിശ്വസിക്കുന്നു. ലൂക്കാ 13:25; മത്തായി 25:10; ദാനിയേൽ 7:13,14 കാണുക. എന്നാൽ ദാനിയേൽ 12:1-ൽ പറയുന്ന മിഖായേലിന്റെ എഴുന്നേൽപ്പ് മറ്റൊരു ഉദ്ദേശ്യത്തിനായുള്ള മറ്റൊരു സംഭവമായി കാണപ്പെടുന്നു. 1844-ൽ അവന്റെ എഴുന്നേൽപ്പ് വാതിൽ അടയ്ക്കുവാനും, തന്റെ രാജ്യം കൈക്കൊൾവാനും, ഭരിക്കാനുള്ള അധികാരം ലഭിക്കുവാനും തന്റെ പിതാവിന്റെ അടുക്കൽ വരുവാനും ആയിരുന്നു; എന്നാൽ മിഖായേലിന്റെ എഴുന്നേൽപ്പ്, അവന്നു ഇതിനകം ഉള്ള രാജാധികാരം ദുഷ്ടന്മാരുടെ നാശത്തിലും തന്റെ ജനത്തിന്റെ വിടുതലിലും പ്രകടമാക്കുവാനാകുന്നു. അദ്ധ്യായം 11-ലെ അവസാന ശക്തി തന്റെ അവസാനത്തിലേക്കു വരികയും അവന്നു സഹായിപ്പാൻ ആരുമില്ലാതിരിക്കയും ചെയ്യുന്ന സമയത്താണ് മിഖായേൽ എഴുന്നേൽക്കേണ്ടത്. ഈ ശക്തിയാണ് ദൈവത്തിന്റെ സത്യസഭയെ ചവിട്ടിക്കളയുന്ന അവസാന ശക്തി; സത്യസഭ ഇന്നും സകല ക്രൈസ്തവലോകത്താലും ചവിട്ടിക്കളയപ്പെടുകയും പുറത്താക്കപ്പെടുകയും ചെയ്യുന്നതിനാൽ, അവസാന പീഡനശക്തി ഇനിയും ‘തന്റെ അവസാനത്തിലേക്കു വന്നിട്ടില്ല’ എന്നു അതിൽനിന്നു അനുഗമിക്കുന്നു; മിഖായേലും എഴുന്നേറ്റിട്ടില്ല. വിശുദ്ധന്മാരെ ചവിട്ടിക്കളയുന്ന ഈ അവസാന ശക്തി വെളിപ്പാട് 13:11-18-ൽ ദൃശ്യമാക്കപ്പെട്ടിരിക്കുന്നു. അവന്റെ സംഖ്യ 666 ആകുന്നു.” 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.

Smith ayaa markii uu soo bandhigay waxa uu ugu yeedhay “iftiin cusub” oo ku saabsan mawduuca “xooggii ugu dambeeyey ee Daanyeel cutubka kow iyo tobnaad,” James White waxa uu aragtidii Smith u arkay, ma aha iftiin cusub, balse weerar lagu hayo aasaaska. Muranka ku saabsan Rooma oo ah boqorka woqooyi ee Daanyeel kow iyo tobnaad, kaas oo dhex maray Uriah Smith iyo James White, waxa uu leeyahay sifooyin gaar ah oo annaga, innagoo ah ardayda waxsii sheegidda, ay tahay in aynu isu geyno murannadii kale ee taariikhda Adventist-ka ee ku saabsanaa astaanta Rooma.

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.

Kimwe muri ibyo biranga ni ugushyiraho ubusobanuro bwihariye. Ikindi kiranga ni uko gukoresha ubwo busobanuro bwihariye bisaba kugoreka ikibonezamvugo cyoroheje, kuko Smith atirengagije gusa ko buri kimenyetso cy’ubuhanuzi kiri mu murongo wa mirongo itatu n’itandatu kivuga kuri Roma, ahubwo yanirengagije ko imiterere y’ikibonezamvugo isaba ko umwami wo mu murongo wa mirongo itatu n’itandatu agomba kuba ari wa mwami umwe ugaragazwa mu gice kibanziriza uwo murongo.

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.”

Mwingine ni kwamba tafsiri ya binafsi ilikuwa ni kukataliwa kwa kweli za msingi. Mwingine ni kwamba inawakilisha kukataliwa kwa mamlaka ya Roho ya Unabii. Sifa nyingine ni kwamba wazo la kwanza lenye kasoro kuhusu Roma litaongoza kwenye kielelezo cha kiunabii kisichomruhusu mtu kuziweka salama mavazi yake anapokaribia kufungwa kwa muda wa rehema kwa wanadamu. Jingine lilikuwa ni utayari wa kuitangaza hadharani tafsiri yake ya binafsi. Mwingine ni kwamba tafsiri ya binafsi daima hutambulishwa kuwa ni nuru mpya. Sifa hizi zote zinawakilishwa ndani ya mjadala wa sasa kuhusu “wanyang’anyi wa watu wako.”

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.

Muru gatatala gwa nyuma gwa Roma, gugo kwageragetiirwe ni gatatala ka mbere ka Roma karikumenya “abanyagi b’ab’ihanga ryawe,” bwe kagaitwa hamwe n’omurongo gw’obunabbi ogw’amatatala ga Uriah Smith na James White, nitwo turireeba ngu ekibiina kimwe kiriba kyombeka omu ngero yaakyo ey’obunabbi ku kusoborora okw’omuntu ku bwe, okukanga amazima ag’omusingi.

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.

Ukukana kwa kweli za msingi kwa namna ya moja kwa moja kunawakilisha kukataa mamlaka ya Roho ya Unabii, ambayo hutetea kwa uthabiti mkubwa kweli hizo za msingi. Kundi hilo pia litakuwa tayari kuwasilisha hadharani mtazamo wao, bila kujali mashaka yoyote yanayoweza kuinuliwa kuhusu athari ambayo fundisho hilo linaweza kuwa nayo juu ya watu wa Mungu ulimwenguni kote.

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.

1844용 直後, 재림운동의 첫째 세대 안에서, 로마에 관한 또 다른 논쟁이 제기되었다. 그 논쟁은 계속하여 격동되다가, 마침내 그릇된 견해가 재림운동의 셋째 세대에서 받아들여지게 되었다. 우리는 지금 line upon line의 모형 안에서 고찰하고 있는 여섯 노선 가운데 넷째로서 “daily”의 논쟁을 살펴볼 것이다.

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.”

Lê berî ku em xeta çaremîn a nîqaşên Romayê dest pê bikin, pêdivî ye ku were bîranîn ku di gotara berê de, dema ku em ayeta dehemîn a Daniel beşa yanzdehan didan ber çavan, me ev gotibû: “Ayeta dehemîn jî bi awayekî rasterast ‘heft deman’ ên Leviticus bist û şeşan bi dîroka veşartî re girêdide, lê ew xeta rastiyê li derveyî tiştê ye ku em li vir pêşkêş dikin.”

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.

Uriya Smith alikuwa kiongozi katika kuzikataa zile nyakati saba mwaka wa 1863. Alikuwa amekataa kuongezeka kwa ujuzi juu ya suala hilo lililowasilishwa katika makala kuhusu jambo hilo, zilizoandikwa na Hiram Edson na kuchapishwa katika Review mwaka wa 1856. Athari za Smith kuhusishwa na vuguvugu lililowasilisha zile nyakati saba, lakini ambalo baadaye lilikataa kuongezeka kwa ujuzi juu ya suala hilo hilo, pia ziko nje ya mada ya sifa za utangulizi wa Smith wa kile alichodai kuwa ni nuru mpya kuhusu suala la mfalme wa kaskazini; lakini tutakapohitimisha muhtasari wetu wa mstari wa mabishano ya Waadventista kuhusu Roma, tutarudi tena kwenye umuhimu wa aya ya kumi ya sura ya kumi na moja ya Danieli, na pia kwenye kile kinachowakilishwa na kukataa kwa Smith ujumbe wa Laodekia uliowasili mwaka wa 1856 pamoja na kuongezeka kwa ujuzi juu ya zile nyakati saba.

“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.

“Wĩtĩkio witũ, o na ũhoro wa ndũmĩrĩri cia mũmbi wa mbere, wa kerĩ, na wa gatatũ, warĩ wa ma. Njĩra-nene iria twahingĩtie ndĩgĩnyitanwo. O na ingĩ hōsi cia jahannamu ciagerageke kũciruta kuuma mũsingĩ wao, na kũgĩa na thayũ mũno na meciiria atĩ nĩmahota, no matihoota. Inya cia ũhoro-ũyũ wa ma nĩiciikaraga ciamarĩirie ta irĩma cia tene na tene, itingĩinagwo na hinya wothe wa andũ hamwe na wa Satani na mbũri yake. No tũhote kũruta maũndũ maingĩ mũno, na twagĩrĩirwo nĩ gũikara tũrĩ kũrĩrĩria Maandĩko hingo ciothe nĩguo tũone kana maũndũ maya nĩ ma.” 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.

“Bulembo bunene bwa solo, bwetu busonika kisika kyetu mu masolo a buprofete, bufwanine kulamikibwa na bokebi bonso, kudi bua kabuyiibwa ne kusendiibwa mu bisika byabwo na mfundilu yisakidila tshisobu pamue ne mutuya wa bukole bua mushindu wa solo.” *Selected Messages*, buku 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

“Mu kiseera kino amagezi n’amaanyi mangi galikozesebwa okutabulatabula okukkiriza kwaffe ku nsonga y’Ekifo Ekitukuvu; naye tetulina kusagasagana. Tewali n’akatono akalina okusimbulwa ku musingi gw’okukkiriza kwaffe. Amazima gakyaali mazima. Abo abafuuka abatategeerekeka mu mutima balyesowola mu ndowooza ez’obulimba, era ku nkomerero balyesanga nga tebakkiriza ku bikwata ku bujulizi obw’omu biseera ebyayita bwe twafuna ku ekyo kye mazima. Obubonero obw’edda obw’oku kkubo bulina okukuumibwa, tuleme okubula obulagirizi bwaffe.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55