When the little horn of Rome is represented in verses nine through twelve of Daniel chapter eight, it is a corrupted symbol for it is a symbol of transvestitism, a cross-dresser oscillating between male and female. It agrees with the Millerite understanding that Rome was represented by two phases, the first phase being the Roman statecraft and the second phase being the Roman churchcraft, but in the oscillation of genders in the verses, the little horn is out of the historical and prophetic sequence (corrupted). Yet each of the four verses represents history directly associated with either Roman statecraft or Roman churchcraft. Pagan Rome persecuted all who resisted its imperial authority, but the persecution of papal Rome (feminine) in verse ten, is specifically directed against heaven.
Rehefa aseho ao amin’ny andininy sivy ka hatramin’ny roa ambin’ny folo ao amin’ny toko fahavalon’i Daniela ny tandroka kely an’i Roma, dia tandindona voaolana izy, satria tandindon’ny fisalobonana fitafian’ny lahy sy ny vavy, mpisalotra fitafiana mifandimby eo amin’ny maha-lahy sy maha-vavy. Mifanaraka amin’ny fahatakaran’ny Millerita izany fa i Roma dia naseho tamin’ny dingana roa, ka ny dingana voalohany dia ny fitondram-panjakana romana, ary ny dingana faharoa dia ny fitondram-piangonana romana; nefa ao anatin’ny fifandimbiasan’ny lahy sy ny vavy ao amin’ireo andininy ireo dia ivelan’ny filaharana ara-tantara sy ara-paminaniana ny tandroka kely (voaolana). Kanefa ny tsirairay amin’ireo andininy efatra dia samy maneho tantara mifandray mivantana amin’ny fitondram-panjakana romana na amin’ny fitondram-piangonana romana. Nenjehin’i Roma jentilisa avokoa izay rehetra nanohitra ny fahefam-panjakany imperialy, fa ny fanenjehana nataon’i Roma papaly (vehivavy) ao amin’ny andininy faha-folo kosa dia mitodika manokana amin’ny lanitra.
In the Millerite understanding that Rome was the fourth and final kingdom, the oscillating from state to church to state to church again would not have been a concern. They had seen the mixture of iron and clay in the feet of Daniel chapter two, and simply understood it as two phases of Rome, with no concern to define a specific historical sequence of a fourth and fifth kingdom. They understood the same of chapter seven, where the horn that spake great things against the most High, had three horns plucked up from the original ten horns of the beast of Rome. Even if Miller did recognize the gender oscillation of verse nine through twelve, it would have been unimportant to his understanding of the fourth kingdom being Rome. In Millerite understanding the fourth kingdom ended in 1798, and the next prophetic event was the Second Coming of Christ.
Araka ny fahatakaran’ny Millerita fa i Roma no fanjakana fahefatra sady farany, dia tsy ho nisy ahiahy tamin’izy ireo ny fifandimbiasana miovaova avy amin’ny fanjakana ho amin’ny fiangonana, avy eo indray ho amin’ny fanjakana, ary avy eo ho amin’ny fiangonana indray. Efa hitany ny fifangaroan’ny vy sy ny tanimanga teo amin’ny tongotry ny Daniela toko faharoa, ary dia noheveriny tsotra izao ho dingana roa nandalovan’i Roma izany, nefa tsy nihevitra akory ny hamaritana filaharana ara-tantara manokana momba ny fanjakana fahefatra sy fahadimy. Toy izany koa no fahazoany ny toko fahafito, izay nilazana fa ilay tandroka niteny zavatra lehibe nanohitra ny Avo Indrindra dia nandravaka tamin’ny fanesorana tandroka telo avy tamin’ireo tandroka folo niandohan’ilay biby fiaran’i Roma. Na dia fantatr’i Miller aza angamba ny fifandimbiasan’ny maha-lahy sy maha-vavy ao amin’ny andininy sivy ka hatramin’ny roa ambin’ny folo, dia tsy ho nisy lanjany tamin’ny fahatakarany fa i Roma no fanjakana fahefatra izany. Araka ny fahatakaran’ny Millerita, dia nifarana tamin’ny 1798 ny fanjakana fahefatra, ary ny zava-niseho ara-paminaniana manaraka dia ny Fiavian’i Kristy Fanindroany.
The feminine horn identifies the woman who commits spiritual fornication with the masculine horn, and is represented in verses ten and twelve.
Ny tandroka amin’ny endrika maha‑vehivavy dia manondro ilay vehivavy izay manao fijangajangana ara-panahy miaraka amin’ilay tandroka amin’ny endrika maha‑lahy, ary aseho ao amin’ny andininy faha‑folo sy faha‑roambinifolo.
And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Daniel 8:10.
Ary nihalehibe izy, dia hatramin’ny tafiky ny lanitra aza; ary nandroaka ny sasany tamin’izany tafika izany sy tamin’ny kintana ho amin’ny tany izy ka nanitsakitsaka azy. Daniela 8:10.
The persecution of the papal power was directed against Christianity (the host of heaven), and in verse twelve papal Rome (feminine), receives the power to accomplish her murderous work through the transgression of fornicating with the kings of Europe.
Ny fanenjehana nataon’ny fahefan’ny papa dia nifantoka tamin’ny Kristianisma (ny tafiky ny lanitra), ary ao amin’ny andininy faha-roa ambin’ny folo dia i Roma papaly (vavy) no mandray hery hanatanteraka ny asany mpamono olona amin’ny alalan’ny fahadisoana, dia ny fijangajangana tamin’ny mpanjakan’i Eoropa.
And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered. Daniel 8:12.
Ary nisy tafika nomena azy hanoherana ny fanatitra isan’andro noho ny fandikan-dalàna; ary nariany tamin’ny tany ny fahamarinana; ary niasa izy ka nahomby. Daniela 8:12.
The “host” in the verse represents the military power that was given the papacy “against the daily.” The word “against” means “from”. From the pagan kings of Europe (pagan Rome), represented by “the daily,” military support (an host) was given to the papacy “by reason of transgression.” The combination of church and state, with the church in control of the relationship is the “transgression.” The wine of that transgression is Christian blood. Once the papacy had control of the armies of pagan Rome, papal Rome (“it”) “cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered.”
Ny “tafika” ao amin’ilay andininy dia maneho ny hery ara-miaramila izay nomena ny fahefan’ny papa “hanohitra ny fanatitra isan’andro.” Ny teny hoe “hanohitra” dia midika hoe “avy amin’”. Avy tamin’ireo mpanjaka jentilisa tany Eoropa (Roma jentilisa), izay asehon’ny hoe “ny fanatitra isan’andro,” no nanomezana fanohanana ara-miaramila (tafika) ho an’ny fahefan’ny papa “noho ny fandikan-dalàna.” Ny firaisan’ny fiangonana sy ny fanjakana, ka ny fiangonana no mifehy izany fifandraisana izany, no “fandikan-dalàna.” Ny divain’izany fandikan-dalàna izany dia ny ran’ny Kristiana. Raha vantany vao azon’ny fahefan’ny papa teo ambany fifehezany ny tafik’i Roma jentilisa, dia ny Roma papaly (“izy”) no “nanary ny fahamarinana tamin’ny tany; ary nanao araka izay sitrany izy ka nanan-karena.”
In Daniel chapter eleven, verse thirty-one, the giving of the armies to papal Rome is also represented:
Ao amin’ny Daniela toko fahiraika ambin’ny folo, andininy fahiraika amby telopolo, dia aseho koa ny fanolorana ny tafika ho an’i Roma papaly:
And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. Daniel 11:31.
Ary hisy sandry hijoro eo anilany, ka handoto ny fitoerana masina mahery izy, ary hanaisotra ny fanatitra isan’andro, ary hametraka ny fahavetavetana izay mahatonga fandravana. Daniela 11:31.
The verse is identifying the historical transition from pagan Rome to papal Rome. In the verse the “arms” are the European kings that began to stand up for the papacy beginning with Clovis, king of the Franks (France), in the year 496. The “arms” also polluted “the sanctuary of strength” (the city of Rome), through the continuous warfare from the fourth century onward to the year 538. The “arms” also removed the pagan resistance to the rise of the papacy, and by the year 508, the pagan resistance was finished.
Ny andininy dia manondro ny fifindrana ara-tantara avy amin’i Roma jentilisa ho amin’i Roma papaly. Ao amin’ilay andininy, ny “sandry” dia ireo mpanjaka eoropeana izay nanomboka nijoro ho an’ny fahefana papaly, nanomboka tamin’i Clovis, mpanjakan’ny Franks (France), tamin’ny taona 496. Ireo “sandry” ireo koa dia nandoto “ny fitoerana masina sady fiarovana” (ny tanànan’i Roma), tamin’ny alalan’ny ady mitohy hatramin’ny taonjato fahefatra ka hatramin’ny taona 538. Ireo “sandry” ireo koa dia nanala ny fanoherana jentilisa tamin’ny fiakaran’ny fahefana papaly, ary tamin’ny taona 508 dia tapitra ny fanoherana jentilisa.
The word translated as “take away,” is the Hebrew word “sur” and means “to remove”. The “arms” placed the “abomination that maketh desolate” (the papacy), on the throne of the earth in the year 538. When Daniel chapter eight, verse twelve identifies that “an host” was given to the feminine little horn, it is agreeing with the witness of verse thirty-one of chapter eleven. The book of Revelation also gives witness to the same truth in chapter thirteen.
Ny teny nadika hoe “hanaisotra” dia ny teny hebreo hoe “sur” ary midika hoe “manala”. Ny “sandry” no nametraka ny “fahavetavetana mahatonga fandravana” (ny papa), teo ambonin’ny seza fiandrianan’ny tany tamin’ny taona 538. Rehefa milaza ny Daniela toko fahavalo, andininy faha-roa ambin’ny folo, fa “tafik’olona” no nomena ilay tandroka kely vavy, dia mifanaraka amin’ny fanambaràn’ny andininy faha-iraika amby telopolo ao amin’ny toko faha-iraika ambin’ny folo izany. Ny bokin’ny Apokalypsy koa dia manamarina io fahamarinana io ihany ao amin’ny toko faha-telo ambin’ny folo.
And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. Revelation 13:2.
Ary ilay bibidia izay hitako dia tahaka ny leoparda, ary ny tongony dia tahaka ny tongotry ny bera, ary ny vavany tahaka ny vavan’ny liona; ary ilay dragona nanome azy ny heriny sy ny seza fiandrianany ary fahefana lehibe. Apokalypsy 13:2.
Sister White directly identifies the beast of verse two as the papacy, and that the dragon in the verse is pagan Rome. Pagan Rome gave three things to the papacy; “his power, and his seat, and great authority.”
Notondron’i White mivantana fa ny bibidia ao amin’ny andininy faha-roa dia ny papa, ary ny dragona ao amin’io andininy io dia i Roma jentilisa. Nomen’i Roma jentilisa zavatra telo ny papa: “ny heriny sy ny seza fiandrianany ary fahefana lehibe.”
The military power was given by pagan Rome beginning with Clovis in the year 496. The “seat” to rule from, was given to the papacy in the year 330, when the emperor Constantine moved his capitol to Constantinople, leaving his former capitol city of Rome to the control of the papal church. In the year 533, the emperor Justinian decreed that the pope was the head of the church and the corrector of heretics, turning his “great authority” over to the pope of Rome. Verse twelve of Daniel chapter eight, identifies the time when a “host” was given, and that prophetic truth is testified to on many witnesses. From that point in time (beginning in the year 496), the papacy “prospered.”
Ny hery ara-tafika dia nomen’i Roma jentilisa nanomboka tamin’i Clovis tamin’ny taona 496. Ny “seza” hitondrana, dia nomena ny fahefam-papa tamin’ny taona 330, fony ny amperora Constantin no namindra ny renivohiny ho any Constantinople, ka namela ny tanànan’ny renivohiny teo aloha, dia Roma, ho eo ambany fifehezan’ny fiangonana papaly. Tamin’ny taona 533, ny amperora Justinian dia namoaka didy fa ny papa no lohan’ny fiangonana sy mpanitsy ny heretika, ka natolony tamin’ny papa tao Roma ny “fahefany lehibe.” Ny andininy faharoa ambin’ny folo ao amin’ny Daniela toko faha-valo dia manondro ny fotoana nanomezana “tafika,” ary izany fahamarinana ara-paminaniana izany dia hamafisin’ny vavolombelona maro. Hatramin’izay fotoana izay (nanomboka tamin’ny taona 496), dia “nandroso” ny fahefam-papa.
It would continue to “practice” and “prosper” until the end of the indignation against the northern kingdom of Israel ended in 1798, and the papacy received its deadly wound.
Hihazo hatrany amin’ny “hanao” sy “hahomby” izany mandra-pahatapitry ny fahatezerana tamin’ny fanjakana avaratr’i Isiraely tamin’ny 1798, ka nandray ny ratra nahafaty azy ny fahefan’ny papa.
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Daniel 11:36.
Ary ny mpanjaka hanao araka izay sitrapony; ary hanandra-tena izy ka hanandratra ny tenany ho ambonin’ny andriamanitra rehetra, ary hilaza zava-mahagaga hanohitra an’Andriamanitry ny andriamanitra, ary hambinina izy mandra-pahatanteraky ny fahatezerana; fa izay voatendry dia tsy maintsy ho tanteraka. Daniela 11:36.
Verse nine of chapter eight, describes masculine Rome (pagan Rome), and represents the three-step conquering process that pagan Rome accomplished, and which typified the three geographical areas that would be conquered in order for papal Rome to be established upon the throne of the earth, as represented by the three horns that were plucked up in chapter seven. Those two three-step conquering’s of pagan and papal Rome, represented the three geographical obstacles of modern Rome, in verses forty through forty-three of Daniel eleven. Then in chapter eight, verse eleven, the masculine little horn (pagan Rome) is again represented. In the verse, the sanctified logic is so sound, that the scornful men that rule Jerusalem were forced to introduce several theological lies in order to erect their counterfeit foundation.
Ny andininy fahasivy ao amin’ny toko fahavalo dia mamaritra an’i Roma lahy (Roma jentilisa), ary maneho ny dingana telo tamin’ny fandresena izay notanterahin’i Roma jentilisa, sady naneho mialoha ireo faritra ara-jeografia telo izay tsy maintsy ho resena mba hanorenana an’i Roma pápaly eo ambonin’ny seza fiandrianan’ny tany, araka ny asehon’ireo tandroka telo izay nongotana tao amin’ny toko fahafito. Ireo fandresena roa samy nisy dingana telo nataon’i Roma jentilisa sy Roma pápaly ireo dia naneho ireo sakana ara-jeografia telo an’i Roma maoderina, ao amin’ny andininy efapolo ka hatramin’ny telo amby efapolo ao amin’ny Daniela 11. Ary avy eo, ao amin’ny toko fahavalo, andininy faha-11, dia aseho indray ilay tandroka kely lahy (Roma jentilisa). Ao amin’io andininy io, ny lojika nohamasinina dia mafy orina tokoa, ka voatery nampiditra lainga ara-teolojia maro ireo lehilahy mpaneso izay manapaka an’i Jerosalema mba hananganany ny fanorenany sandoka.
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. Daniel 8:11.
Eny, izy nanandra-tena hatramin’ny Lehiben’ny tafika mihitsy; ary tamin’ny alalany no nanesorana ny fanatitra isan’andro, ary noravana ny fitoeran’ny fitoerany masina. Daniela 8:11.
As we begin to address the counterfeit coins and jewels that have been introduced to Adventism since 1863, it should be noted that there are two primary fields of supposed theological expertise which Adventism boasts of, as their basis for upholding the doctrines of apostate Protestantism and Catholicism. The claim that the modern theologians of Adventism make is that they are either experts in biblical history, or experts in biblical languages. Their application of the verse, reveals the prophetic word has become as a sealed book unto them, and also reveals that their claim of being experts of the biblical languages is simply the modern manifestation of Pharisaism.
Rehefa manomboka miatrika ireo vola madinika sy firavaka sandoka izay nampidirina tao amin’ny Advantisma hatramin’ny taona 1863 isika, dia tokony homarihina fa misy sehatra roa fototra amin’izay lazaina ho fahaiza-manao ara-teolojika izay ireharehan’ny Advantisma, ka ataony fototra iorenan’ny fanohanany ny fotopampianaran’ny Protestantisma nihemotra sy ny Katolisisma. Ny filazana ataon’ireo teolojiana maoderina ao amin’ny Advantisma dia hoe izy ireo dia na manam-pahaizana manokana amin’ny tantara ara-Baiboly, na manam-pahaizana manokana amin’ny fiteny ara-Baiboly. Ny fampiharany io andininy io dia mampiseho fa ny tenin’ny faminaniana dia tonga tahaka ny boky voaisy tombo-kase aminy, ary mampiseho koa fa ny filazany ho manam-pahaizana amin’ny fiteny ara-Baiboly dia fisehoana maoderina fotsiny amin’ny Fariseisma.
First is the disregard of the oscillation of the genders for the little horn in verse nine through twelve. If they were actually experts in the Hebrew language, they would not deny, or water down, the fact that Daniel purposely employed gender oscillation in the verses. The little horn is represented in both genders, and those genders go back and forth through the verses. The theologians try to cover this fact with rubbish and counterfeit coins, for it clearly identifies that verse eleven is identifying pagan, not papal Rome. They of course insist that the little horn of verse eleven is the pope, when it is actually pagan Rome.
Voalohany dia ny fanaovana tsinontsinona ny fifandimbiasan’ny lahy sy vavy ara-pitsipika momba ilay tandroka kely ao amin’ny andininy faha-sivy ka hatramin’ny faha-roa ambin’ny folo. Raha tena manampahaizana tokoa izy ireo amin’ny teny Hebreo, dia tsy handà, na hampihena, ny zava-misy fa i Daniela dia ninia nampiasa izany fifandimbiasan’ny lahy sy vavy izany tao amin’ireo andininy ireo. Ilay tandroka kely dia aseho amin’ny lahy sy ny vavy samy hafa, ary mifamadibadika manerana ireo andininy ireo izany. Ny teolojiana dia miezaka manarona izany zava-misy izany amin’ny fako sy vola sandoka, satria mazava tsara fa ny andininy faha-iraika ambin’ny folo dia manondro an’i Roma mpanompo sampy, fa tsy an’i Roma papa. Mazava ho azy fa izy ireo dia manizingizina fa ilay tandroka kely ao amin’ny andininy faha-iraika ambin’ny folo dia ny papa, nefa i Roma mpanompo sampy no izy marina.
Once it is acknowledged that two of the four little horn verses are male and two are female, then it is simple to incorporate the biblical truth that a woman in Bible prophecy represents a church, and a man represents a state. Knowing this allows all who wish to see, that the little horn of verse eleven, is masculine Rome (pagan Rome), not feminine Rome (papal Rome).
Rehefa ekena fa e lahy ny roa amin’ireo andininy efatra momba ilay tandroka kely ary vavy ny roa hafa, dia mora ny mampiditra ao ny fahamarinana ara-Baiboly fa ny vehivavy ao amin’ny faminaniana ara-Baiboly dia maneho fiangonana, ary ny lehilahy kosa maneho fanjakana. Ny fahafantarana izany dia mamela izay rehetra maniry hahita hahafantatra fa ilay tandroka kely ao amin’ny andininy faha-11 dia Roma lahy (Roma mpanompo sampy), fa tsy Roma vavy (Roma papaly).
The verse then is understood as teaching that pagan Rome (he) magnified himself to the prince of the host, as did pagan Rome when it placed the prince of the host upon the cross of Calvary. Not only did pagan Rome magnify itself against Christ at the cross, the verse goes on to say that by him (pagan Rome) “the daily sacrifice was taken away.”
Koa ny andininy dia azo takarina ho mampianatra fa i Roma mpanompo sampy (izy) nanandra-tena ho amin’ny Andrianan’ny tafika, tahaka izay nataon’i Roma mpanompo sampy rehefa nametraka ny Andrianan’ny tafika teo amin’ny hazo fijalian’i Kalvary izy. Tsy vitan’ny hoe nanandra-tena hanohitra an’i Kristy teo amin’ny hazo fijaliana i Roma mpanompo sampy, fa mbola tohizin’ilay andininy koa fa tamin’ny alalany (i Roma mpanompo sampy) no “nesorina ny fanatitra isan’andro.”
In the book of Daniel there are two Hebrew words that are both translated as “take away.” The words are “sur” and “rum”. Both words are used in the sanctuary service. Sur means to take away or remove, and when the ashes from the altar in the sanctuary were removed, the word used to describe the removal of the ashes is “sur”. The word “rum” means to lift up and exalt, and when the priest in the sanctuary was to lift up a wave offering, he was to “rum” (lift up) the offering. In verse eleven, pagan Rome (“the daily”) would “rum” (take away) paganism by lifting up and exalting the religion of paganism.
Ao amin’ny bokin’i Daniela dia misy teny hebreo roa izay samy adika hoe “esorina”. Ireo teny ireo dia “sur” sy “rum”. Samy ampiasaina ao amin’ny fanompoam-pivavahana ao amin’ny fitoerana masina izy roa tonta. Ny hoe sur dia midika hoe manaisotra na manala, ary rehefa nesorina ny lavenona teo amin’ny alitara tao amin’ny fitoerana masina, ny teny nampiasaina hilazana izany fanesorana ny lavenona izany dia “sur”. Ny teny hoe “rum” kosa dia midika hoe manandratra sy manome voninahitra, ary rehefa tokony hanandratra fanatitra ahetsiketsika ny mpisorona tao amin’ny fitoerana masina, dia tokony “rum” (hanandratra) ny fanatitra izy. Ao amin’ny andininy faha-iraika ambin’ny folo, Roma jentilisa (“ny isan’andro”) dia “rum” (hanaisotra) ny fanompoan-tsampy amin’ny alalan’ny fanandratana sy fanomezam-boninahitra ny fivavahan’ny fanompoan-tsampy.
Pagan Rome would lift up and exalt the religion of paganism. The Adventist theologians that profess an expertise of biblical languages choose to treat every occurrence of “take away” in the book of Daniel as “remove”. They fail to acknowledge the distinct and precise writing of Daniel, and thus place themselves above the prophet Daniel.
Ny Roma jentilisa dia hanandratra sy hanome voninahitra ny fivavahana jentilisa. Ny teolojiana Advantista izay milaza fa manam-pahaizana manokana amin’ny fiteny ara-baiboly dia misafidy ny handika ny fisehoan’ny hoe “hesorina” rehetra ao amin’ny bokin’i Daniela ho “esorina”. Tsy manaiky ny fanoratana miavaka sy tena marim-pototra nataon’i Daniela izy ireo, ka amin’izany dia mametraka ny tenany ho ambonin’i Daniela mpaminany.
The theologians that profess to understand the biblical languages provide arguments to justify why Daniel intended to mean the same thing, when he employed two different words. They provide long and tedious word studies to uphold their false claims. The theologians that profess to understand biblical history, argue that the false application is based upon recognizing that in different periods of history the same word might mean something different, and therefore when Daniel employed two different words, only a historical expert can identify what Daniel actually meant. It is important to identify these two false methods for they are employed often by the theologians who seek to hide from the methodology of “line upon line.”
Ireo teolojiana izay milaza fa mahatakatra ny fiteny ara-Baiboly dia manolotra adihevitra mba hanamarinana ny antony nilazan’izy ireo fa Daniela dia nikasa hilaza zavatra iray ihany, rehefa nampiasa teny roa samy hafa izy. Manolotra fandinihana teny lava sy mandreraka izy ireo mba hanohanana ny filazana diso ataony. Ireo teolojiana izay milaza fa mahatakatra ny tantara ara-Baiboly kosa dia miady hevitra fa ny fampiharana diso dia miorina amin’ny fanekena fa amin’ny vanim-potoana samy hafa eo amin’ny tantara dia mety hanana heviny hafa ny teny iray ihany, ka noho izany, rehefa nampiasa teny roa samy hafa i Daniela, dia manam-pahaizana momba ny tantara irery ihany no afaka mamantatra izay tena tian’i Daniela holazaina. Zava-dehibe ny mamantatra ireo fomba diso roa ireo, satria ampiasain’ireo teolojiana mitady hiafina amin’ny fomba fiasa hoe “andalana eo ambonin’ny andalana” matetika izy ireo.
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. Daniel 8:11.
Eny, niandratra ny tenany hatrany amin’ny Lehiben’ny antokon’ny miaramila izy; ary taminy no nanesorana ny fanatitra isan’andro, sady narodana ny fitoeran’ny fitoerany masina. Daniela 8:11.
The word translated as “taken away” in the verse means to “lift up and exalt”. It does not mean to remove. This fact creates confusion and contradiction for the Adventist theologians, for their premises do not hold up under a simple evaluation of the verse, when the actual definition of the word Daniel used is applied to the verse. They argue the little horn of the verse is papal Rome, and therefore the verse would read that “by him” (papal Rome) “the daily was taken away.”
Ny teny nadika hoe “nalaina” ao amin’ilay andininy dia midika hoe “asandratra sy omem-boninahitra”. Tsy midika hoe esorina izany. Io zava-misy io no miteraka fisavoritahana sy fifanohitra ho an’ireo teolojiana Advantista, satria tsy maharitra eo anatrehan’ny fandinihana tsotra an’ilay andininy ny foto-keviny, raha ampiharina amin’ilay andininy ny tena famaritana ny teny nampiasain’i Daniela. Milaza izy ireo fa ny tandroka kely ao amin’ilay andininy dia Roma papaly, ka noho izany dia ho toy izao no vakin’ilay andininy: fa “taminy” (Roma papaly) no “nanandratana ny isan’andro.”
They of course have no problem including the added word that Sister White states directly was added by human wisdom and does not apply to the text.
Mazava ho azy fa tsy manan-java-manahirana izy ireo amin’ny fampidirana ilay teny nampiana izay ambaran’i Rahavavy White mivantana fa nampian’ny fahendren’olombelona ary tsy mihatra amin’ilay andininy.
“Then I saw in relation to the ‘daily’ (Daniel 8:12) that the word ‘sacrifice’ was supplied by man’s wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry.” Early Writings, 74.
“Avy eo dia hitako, mikasika ny ‘isan’andro’ (Daniela 8:12), fa ny teny hoe ‘fanatitra’ dia nampidirin’ny fahendren’olombelona, ka tsy anisan’ny lahatsoratra, ary nomen’ny Tompo ny fahatakarana marina momba izany ireo izay nanao ny antso ny amin’ny ora fitsarana.” Early Writings, 74.
They identify “the daily” as Christ’s sanctuary ministry, so the “daily sacrifice” upholds the concept that “the daily” is Christ sacrificial work in the heavenly sanctuary. But inspiration identifies that the word “sacrifice” “does not belong to the text”.
Izy ireo dia manondro ny “isan’andro” ho asa fanompoan’i Kristy ao amin’ny fitoerana masina, ka ny “fanatitra isan’andro” dia manohana ny hevitra fa ny “isan’andro” dia ny asa fanatitr’i Kristy ao amin’ny fitoerana masina any an-danitra. Kanefa ny tsindrimandry dia milaza fa ny teny hoe “fanatitra” dia “tsy anisan’ny lahatsoratra”.
When the drunkards of Ephraim identify “the daily” as Christ’s sanctuary work, the verse would then read, “by him” (papal Rome) “the daily was taken away,” or it would read, “by the papal power, Christ’s sanctuary ministry was taken away.” They actually teach this falsehood. They insist that through the darkness of the papal rule the true understanding of Christ’s sanctuary ministry was removed from the minds of men.
Rehefa manondro ny “isan’andro” ho asan’i Kristy ao amin’ny fitoerana masina ireo mamoan’i Efraima, dia izao no hovakina amin’ilay andininy: “noesorina taminy” (Roma papaly) “ny isan’andro,” na hovakina hoe: “tamin’ny alalan’ny fahefana papaly no nanesorana ny fanompoan’i Kristy ao amin’ny fitoerana masina.” Io lainga io tokoa no ampianariny. Misisika izy ireo fa tamin’ny alalan’ny haizin’ny fitondrana papaly no nanesorana tao an-tsain’ny olona ny fahatakarana marina ny amin’ny fanompoan’i Kristy ao amin’ny fitoerana masina.
Yet the word translated as “take away,” does not mean to remove, it means to lift up and exalt. If the professed experts of biblical languages would correctly apply the meaning of the Hebrew word “rum,” to the passage, their rendition would need to say, “by the papal power, Christ’s sanctuary ministry was lifted up and exalted.” When did the papacy ever lift up and exalt Christ?
Kanefa ny teny nadika hoe “hanala” dia tsy midika hoe hanesorana, fa midika hoe hanandratra sy hanome voninahitra. Raha ampihariny araka ny tokony ho izy amin’io andalan-teny io ny hevitry ny teny hebreo hoe “rum” ireo izay milaza tena ho manampahaizana amin’ny fitenin’ny Baiboly, dia tsy maintsy ho toy izao ny fandikany: “tamin’ny alalan’ny fahefan’ny papa no nanandratana sy nanomezam-boninahitra ny asa fanompoan’i Kristy ao amin’ny fitoerana masina.” Oviana moa ny fahefana papaly no mba nanandratra sy nanome voninahitra an’i Kristy?
They seek to impose the definition of the Hebrew word “sur” upon the Hebrew word “rum.” Daniel uses the word “sur,” which means to remove, in connection with “the daily” in two other verses, but in verse eleven, Daniel chose the word “rum” meaning to lift up and exalt. Not only is the dish of fables concerning this verse foolishness because of the wresting of the meaning of the word translated as “take away,” but there was never a time when Christ’s sanctuary ministry was in any way removed from men.
Mikatsaka ny hampihatra amin’ny teny hebreo hoe “rum” ny famaritana ny teny hebreo hoe “sur” izy ireo. Mampiasa ny teny hoe “sur” i Daniela, izay midika hoe manaisotra, mifandray amin’“ny isan’andro” ao amin’ny andininy roa hafa; fa ao amin’ny andininy faha‑iraika ambin’ny folo kosa, i Daniela dia nifidy ny teny hoe “rum”, izay midika hoe manandratra sy manome voninahitra. Tsy vitan’izany fa hadalana ihany koa io fitambaram-pampianarana foronina momba io andininy io io noho ny fanodinkodinana ny hevitry ny teny nadika hoe “esorina”, ary tsy mbola nisy velively fotoana izay nanesorana tamin’ny olona tamin’ny lafiny inona na tamin’ny lafiny inona ny asa fanompoan’i Kristy tao amin’ny fitoerany masina.
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:24, 25.
Fa ity Lehilahy ity kosa, noho Izy mitoetra mandrakizay, dia manana fisoronana tsy miova. Koa amin’izany dia mahavonjy hatramin’ny farany izay manatona an’Andriamanitra amin’ny alalany Izy, satria velona mandrakariva hanao fifonana ho azy ireo Izy. Hebreo 7:24, 25.
To claim, as the Adventist theologians do, in an attempt to prop up their false application of the verse, that there was a period of time when the papacy exercised some type of power to remove Christ’s sanctuary intercession is absurd!
Ny filazana, araka ny ataon’ireo teolojiana Advantista, amin’ny fiezahana hanohana ny fampiharany diso io andininy io, fa nisy fotoana izay nampiharan’ny papasia karazana fahefana hanesorana ny fanelanelanan’i Kristy ao amin’ny fitoerany masina, dia hadalana!
But the theologians do not teach that the verse identifies that the papacy lifted up and exalted Christ’s sanctuary ministry. They avoid the meaning of Daniel’s words, and the inspired counsel of Ellen White, to teach what they choose to teach in spite of the testimony of Daniel’s words.
Kanefa tsy mampianatra ireo teolojiana fa io andininy io no manambara fa ny fahefan’ny papaly dia nanandratra sy nampisandratra ny asa fanompoan’i Kristy ao amin’ny fitoerana masina. Ialany ny hevitry ny tenin’i Daniela sy ny torohevitra nentanin’i Ellen White, mba hampianatra izay fidiny hampianarina na dia eo aza ny porofon’ny tenin’i Daniela.
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. Daniel 8:11.
Eny, izy dia nanandratra ny tenany hatramin’ny Andrianan’ny tafika aza; ary taminy no nanaisotra ny fanatitra isan’andro, ary noravana ny fitoeran’ny fitoerany masina. Daniela 8:11.
The theologians teach that the verse means “by the papal power, Christ’s sanctuary ministry was removed,” and the removal of Christ’s sanctuary ministry from the minds of men is supported by the fact that in association with the removal, the place of Christ’s “sanctuary was cast down.” There is not one verse in God’s Word that identifies the heavenly sanctuary, which is where Christ performs his intercession, has ever been cast down. Nor is there any biblical passage that identifies that heaven itself, which is the “place of his sanctuary”, is ever cast down. Once again, the theologians place themselves above the prophet Daniel, for they insist that “the place of his sanctuary” in the verse is referring to God’s sanctuary, in spite of the fact that Daniel teaches directly opposite of that idea.
Ny teôlôjiana dia mampianatra fa ny andininy dia midika hoe: “tamin’ny alalan’ny fahefan’ny papa dia nesorina ny fanompoan’i Kristy ao amin’ny fitoerana masina,” ary ny fanesorana ny fanompoan’i Kristy ao amin’ny fitoerana masina hiala ao an-tsain’ny olona dia tohanan’ny zava-misy fa, mifandray amin’izany fanesorana izany, ny toerana misy ny “fitoerany masina” an’i Kristy dia “naongana.” Tsy misy na dia andininy iray aza ao amin’ny Tenin’Andriamanitra izay milaza fa ny fitoerana masina any an-danitra, izay anaovan’i Kristy ny fanelanelanany, dia efa naongana akory. Ary tsy misy andalan-teny ara-Baiboly koa izay milaza fa ny lanitra mihitsy, izay “toeran’ny fitoerany masina”, dia efa naongana. Indray mandeha indray, ireo teôlôjiana dia mametraka ny tenany ho ambonin’i Daniela mpaminany, satria minia manizingizina izy ireo fa ny hoe “toeran’ny fitoerany masina” ao amin’ilay andininy dia manondro ny fitoerana masin’Andriamanitra, na dia eo aza ny zava-misy fa i Daniela dia mampianatra mivantana ny mifanohitra amin’izany hevitra izany.
The professed experts of the Hebrew language insist that in the verse the Hebrew word “rum,” needs to be understood with the meaning of the Hebrew word “sur.” They also insist that the Hebrew word “miqdash” needs to be understood as the Hebrew word “qodesh.” “Miqdash” and “qodash” are both translated simply as “sanctuary” in the book of Daniel, yet they have different meanings. “Miqdash” represents any sanctuary, whether it is God’s sanctuary or a pagan sanctuary. It is the general word for sanctuary, but “qodesh” is only used in the Bible to represent God’s sanctuary.
Ireo manam-pahaizana lazaina momba ny teny Hebreo dia manizingizina fa ao amin’io andininy io, ny teny Hebreo hoe “rum” dia tsy maintsy takarina amin’ny hevitr’ilay teny Hebreo hoe “sur.” Manizingizina koa izy ireo fa ny teny Hebreo hoe “miqdash” dia tsy maintsy takarina ho toy ny teny Hebreo hoe “qodesh.” Ny “miqdash” sy ny “qodesh” dia samy adika tsotra hoe “toerana masina” ao amin’ny bokin’i Daniela, kanefa samy manana ny heviny avy izy ireo. Ny “miqdash” dia manondro izay toerana masina rehetra, na fitoeran’Andriamanitra izany na fitoerana jentilisa. Izy no teny ankapobe ilazana ny toerana masina, fa ny “qodesh” kosa dia ampiasaina ao amin’ny Baiboly ihany mba hanehoana ny fitoeran’Andriamanitra.
Daniel knew the difference between a pagan sanctuary and God’s sanctuary. If Daniel was going to identify a pagan sanctuary, he would use the word “miqdash.” It is amazing to me that the supposed experts of the Hebrew language never address the fact that in four consecutive verses, Daniel uses both words three times. Daniel’s usage of the two Hebrew words, both translated as “sanctuary” defines the meaning Daniel intended to be understood.
Daniel dia nahafantatra ny maha-samihafa ny fitoerana masina jentilisa sy ny fitoerana masin’Andriamanitra. Raha hanondro fitoerana masina jentilisa i Daniel, dia ny teny hoe “miqdash” no hampiasainy. Mahagaga ahy fa ireo lazaina ho manam-pahaizana amin’ny teny hebreo dia tsy mba miresaka velively ny zava-misy fa ao anatin’ny andininy efatra mifanesy, dia samy ampiasain’i Daniel in-telo ireo teny roa ireo. Ny fampiasan’i Daniel ireo teny hebreo roa ireo, izay samy adika hoe “fitoerana masina”, no mamaritra ny hevitra nokasain’i Daniel ho takarina.
Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel 8:11–14.
Eny, nanandratra ny tenany hatrany amin’ny Lehiben’ny tafika aza izy; ary noho izy dia nesorina ny fanatitra isan’andro, ary nazerany ny fitoeran’ny fitoerany masina. Ary nomena azy ny tafika hanohitra ny fanatitra isan’andro noho ny fandikan-dalàna; ary nariany tamin’ny tany ny fahamarinana; ary nanao araka ny sitrapony izy ka nahomby. Dia reko nisy masina iray niteny, ary hoy ny masina iray hafa tamin’ilay masina anankiray izay niteny hoe: Mandra-pahoviana no haharetan’ny fahitana ny amin’ny fanatitra isan’andro sy ny fandikan-dalàna mahatsiravina, ka hanolorana ny fitoerana masina sy ny tafika mba hohitsakitsahina? Ary hoy izy tamiko: Hatra amin’ny andro roa arivo sy telon-jato; dia hodiovina ny fitoerana masina. Daniela 8:11–14.
In the very passage that includes the foundation of Adventism, Daniel employs two different Hebrew words that are both translated as “sanctuary.” In verses thirteen and fourteen Daniel chose to use the Hebrew word for “sanctuary,” that is only used biblically to identify God’s sanctuary, but in verse eleven, Daniel used the general or generic Hebrew word that can be God’s sanctuary, or it can be a pagan sanctuary.
Ao anatin’io andalan-teny io indrindra, izay ahitana ny fototry ny Advantisma, dia teny hebreo roa samy hafa no ampiasain’i Daniela, nefa samy adika hoe “toerana masina.” Ao amin’ny andininy fahatelo ambin’ny folo sy fahefatra ambin’ny folo, dia nofidin’i Daniela ny hampiasa ilay teny hebreo hoe “toerana masina” izay ampiasaina ao amin’ny Soratra Masina ihany mba hilazana ny toerana masin’Andriamanitra; fa ao amin’ny andininy fahiraika ambin’ny folo kosa, dia nampiasa ilay teny hebreo ankapobeny na iombonana izy, izay mety manondro ny toerana masin’Andriamanitra, na koa toerana masina jentilisa.
If Daniel had wanted to identify the “sanctuary” in verse eleven, as God’s sanctuary, he would have used the same Hebrew word that he used twice within the next three verses. It is absolutely clear that Daniel was making a distinction between a pagan sanctuary in verse eleven, and God’s sanctuary in verses thirteen and fourteen! But the drunkards of Ephraim argue that the “place of his sanctuary” that was “cast down,” in verse eleven, was the place of God’s sanctuary, though they avoid the word “place.”
Raha naniry hanondro ny “toerana masina” ao amin’ny andininy faha-iraika ambin’ny folo ho toy ny fitoeran’Andriamanitra i Daniela, dia ilay teny Hebreo nampiasainy indroa tao anatin’ireo andininy telo manaraka ihany no ho nampiasainy. Mazava tanteraka fa nanavaka i Daniela ny fitoerana mpanompo sampy ao amin’ny andininy faha-iraika ambin’ny folo sy ny fitoeran’Andriamanitra ao amin’ny andininy faha-telo ambin’ny folo sy faha-efatra ambin’ny folo! Nefa ny mpisotro mamon’i Efraima dia milaza fa ny “toeran’ny fitoerany masina” izay “nariana,” ao amin’ny andininy faha-iraika ambin’ny folo, dia ny toeran’ny fitoeran’Andriamanitra, na dia ialany aza ny teny hoe “toerana.”
They teach that the papacy took away Christ’s ministry of intercession and cast down the truth of the heavenly sanctuary. But Daniel was clear that the “sanctuary” in verse eleven, was not God’s sanctuary, but a pagan sanctuary. Daniel was just as clear that it was not the “sanctuary” that was cast down, but “the place” of his sanctuary.
Mampianatra izy ireo fa nesorin’ny papa ny asa fanompoan’i Kristy amin’ny fifonana, ary nariany ho amin’ny tany ny fahamarinan’ny fitoerana masina any an-danitra. Kanefa nanambara mazava i Daniela fa ny “fitoerana masina” ao amin’ny andininy faha-iraika ambin’ny folo dia tsy ny fitoerana masin’Andriamanitra, fa fitoerana masina jentilisa. Toy izany koa no nanazavan’i Daniela mazava fa tsy ny “fitoerana masina” no nariana ho amin’ny tany, fa “ny fitoerana” misy ny fitoerany masina.
Refusing to acknowledge the purposeful gender oscillation of verses nine through twelve, the modern theologians adopted the definition of “the daily” that originated within apostate Protestantism, and began to construct a foundation upon the sand of human conjecture, tradition and custom. When they arrive at verse eleven, they even reject the inspired counsel of Sister White that identified that Miller’s understanding of “the daily” as paganism was correct, and begin to employ the art of misdirection and conjecture to defend their love of Catholic and Protestant theology.
Noho ny fandavany ny hanaiky ny fifandimbiasan’ny lahy sy vavy izay natao an-kendrena ao amin’ny andininy sivy ka hatramin’ny roa ambin’ny folo, dia noraisin’ireo teolojiana maoderina ny famaritana ny “isan’andro” izay niandoha tao amin’ny Protestanta nihemotra tamin’ny finoana, ka nanomboka nanorina fototra teo ambonin’ny fasiky ny vinavinan’olombelona, ny lovan-tsofina ary ny fanao. Rehefa tonga amin’ny andininy iraika ambin’ny folo izy ireo, dia laviny aza ny torohevitra nentanim-panahy avy amin’i Rahavavy White izay nanondro fa marina ny fahatakaran’i Miller ny “isan’andro” ho fanompoan-tsampy, ka manomboka mampiasa ny hai-kanto amin’ny famitahana lalana sy ny vinavina hiarovany ny fitiavany ny teolojia katolika sy protestanta.
They change pagan Rome into papal Rome in the verse, and they force the definition of “remove” upon the word that means “lift up and exalt”. They define the satanic symbol of “the daily”, as a godly symbol, and then insist that a pagan temple is God’s temple, while avoiding the direct reference to “the place” of the sanctuary. And the “unlearned” (as Isaiah identifies them), who will only understand if the “learned” tell them it is so, accept the dish of fables unto their own destruction.
Ovàn’izy ireo ho Roma papaly ao amin’ilay andininy ny Roma jentilisa, ary tereny amin’ilay teny izay midika hoe “manandratra sy manome voninahitra” ny hevitr’ilay famaritana hoe “manala”. Faritany ho tandindona araka an’Andriamanitra ilay tandindona satanika atao hoe “ny isan’andro”, ary avy eo dia lazainy mafy fa tempolin’Andriamanitra ny tempoly jentilisa, sady ialàn’izy ireo ny filazana mivantana ny amin’“ny toerana” misy ny fitoerana masina. Ary ireo “tsy nianatra” (araka ny amaritan’i Isaia azy), izay tsy hahazo afa-tsy raha lazain’ireo “nianatra” aminy fa izany tokoa, dia manaiky izany lovia feno angano izany ho amin’ny fandringanana ny tenany ihany.
We will continue our consideration of the increase of the knowledge represented as the jewels in Miller’s dream in the next article.
Ao amin’ny lahatsoratra manaraka no hanohizantsika ny fandinihantsika ny fitomboan’ny fahalalana, izay aseho ho toy ny firavaka sarobidy ao amin’ny nofin’i Miller.
“The apostle Paul warns us that ‘some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.’ This is what we may expect. Our greatest trials will come because of that class who have once advocated the truth, but who turn from it to the world, and trample it under their feet in hate and derision. God has a work for his faithful servants to do. The attacks of the enemy must be met with the truth of his word. Falsehood must be unmasked, its true character must be revealed, and the light of the law of Jehovah must shine forth into the moral darkness of the world. We are to present the claims of his word. We shall not be held guiltless if we neglect this solemn duty. But while we stand in defense of the truth, let us not stand in defense of self, and make a great ado because we are called to bear reproach and misrepresentation. Let us not pity ourselves, but be very jealous for the law of the Most High.
“Mampitandrina antsika ny apostoly Paoly fa ‘ny sasany hiala amin’ny finoana, ka hitandrina fanahy mamitaka sy fampianaran’ny demonia.’ Izany no zavatra azontsika antenaina. Ny fizahan-toetra lehibe indrindra ho antsika dia hipoitra noho io antokon’olona izay efa niaro ny fahamarinana fahiny, nefa miala aminy ka mitodika ho amin’izao tontolo izao, ary manitsakitsaka izany eo ambanin’ny tongony amin’ny fankahalana sy fanesoana. Manana asa hataon’ny mpanompony mahatoky Andriamanitra. Ny fanafihan’ny fahavalo dia tsy maintsy toherina amin’ny fahamarinan’ny teniny. Tsy maintsy esorina ny saron’ny lainga, tsy maintsy ambara ny tena toetrany, ary tsy maintsy hamirapiratra ao anatin’ny haizina ara-pitondrantena maneran-tany ny fahazavan’ny lalàn’i Jehovah. Tsy maintsy asehontsika ny fitakian’ny teniny. Tsy hohelohina ho tsy manan-tsiny isika raha tsy miraharaha izany adidy manetriketrika izany. Kanefa raha mijoro hiaro ny fahamarinana isika, aoka tsy hijoro hiaro ny tenantsika, na hanao tabataba lehibe satria antsoina hitondra fanaratsiana sy fanolanana ny hevitsika isika. Aoka tsy hiantra tena isika, fa hahay hiaro amin-kafanam-po indrindra ny lalàn’Ilay Avo Indrindra.”
“Says the apostle, ‘The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.’ On every side we see men easily led captive by the delusive imaginations of those who make void the word of God; but when the truth is brought before them, they are filled with impatience and anger. But the exhortation of the apostle to the servant of God is, ‘Watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.’ In his day some left the cause of the Lord. He writes, ‘Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world;’ and again, he says, ‘Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.’
Hoy ny apostoly hoe: “Ho avy ny andro izay tsy hiaretan’izy ireo ny fampianarana tsy misy kilema; fa araka ny filàny sy ny fitsiriritany ihany no hanangonany mpampianatra ho an’ny tenany, satria mangidihidy ny sofiny; ary havadiny hiala amin’ny fahamarinana ny sofiny, ka hitodika any amin’ny anganongano izy.” Na aiza na aiza no ijerentsika dia hita fa mora baboina ny olona noho ny fisainana mamitaka ataon’ireo izay manafoana ny tenin’Andriamanitra; kanefa rehefa entina eo anatrehany ny fahamarinana dia feno tsy faharetana sy fahatezerana izy. Fa ny fananaran’ny apostoly ho an’ny mpanompon’Andriamanitra dia izao: “Miambena amin’ny zavatra rehetra ianao, miaritra fahoriana, ataovy ny asan’ny evanjelista, tanteraho amin’ny fahafenoany ny fanompoanao.” Tamin’ny androny dia nisy ny sasany izay nandao ny asan’ny Tompo. Hoy izy nanoratra: “Dema efa nahafoy ahy, satria tia izao tontolo ankehitriny izao izy;” ary hoy indray izy: “Aleksandra, ilay mpanefy varahina, dia nanao ratsy ahy be dia be; hovalin’ny Tompo azy araka ny asany; ary tandremo koa izy; fa nanohitra mafy ny tenintsika izy.”
“Prophets and apostles experienced similar trials of opposition and reproach, and even the spotless Lamb of God was tempted in all points like as we are. He bore the contradiction of sinners against himself.
“Ny mpaminany sy ny apostoly dia niaina fitsapana mitovy tamin’ny fanoherana sy ny fanaratsiana, ary na dia Ilay Zanak’ondrin’Andriamanitra tsy misy pentina aza dia nalaim-panahy tamin’ny zavatra rehetra tahaka antsika. Nentin’Andriamanitra ny fifanoheran’ny mpanota nanohitra Azy.”
“Every warning for this time must be faithfully delivered; but ‘the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves.’ We must cherish carefully the words of our God lest we be contaminated by the deceptive workings of those who have left the faith. We are to resist their spirit and influence with the same weapon our Master used when assailed by the prince of darkness,—‘It is written.’ We should learn to use the word of God skillfully. The exhortation is, ‘Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.’ There must be diligent work and earnest prayer and faith to meet the winding error of false teachers and seducers; for ‘in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.’ These words portray the character of the men the servants of God will have to meet. ‘False accusers,’ ‘despisers of those that are good,’ will attack those who are faithful to their God in this degenerate age. But the embassador of Heaven must manifest the spirit that was displayed in the Master. In humility and love he must labor for the salvation of men.
“Ny fampitandremana rehetra ho an’izao andro izao dia tsy maintsy ambara amim-pahatokiana; nefa ‘ny mpanompon’ny Tompo tsy tokony hiady; fa halemy fanahy amin’ny olona rehetra, mahay mampianatra, mandefitra; amin’ny fahalemem-panahy mananatra izay manohitra ny tenany.’ Tsy maintsy tandrovintsika tsara ny tenin’Andriamanitsika, fandrao ho voaloton’ny fiasan’ny famitahana ataon’ireo izay efa niala tamin’ny finoana isika. Tokony hanohitra ny fanahiny sy ny heriny mitaona isika amin’ilay fitaovam-piadiana nampiasain’ny Tompontsika ihany raha notafihin’ilay andrianan’ny maizina Izy,—‘Voasoratra hoe.’ Tokony hianatra hampiasa amim-pahaizana ny tenin’Andriamanitra isika. Izao no fananarana: ‘Mazotoa haneho ny tenanao ho sitrak’Andriamanitra, mpiasa tsy mila ho menatra, mahitsy mizara ny tenin’ny fahamarinana.’ Tsy maintsy hisy asa mazoto sy vavaka mafana ary finoana, hiatrehana ny hadisoana miolikolika ataon’ny mpampianatra sandoka sy ny mpamitaka; fa ‘amin’ny andro farany dia ho avy ny andro sarotra. Fa ny olona ho tia tena, ho tia vola, mpieboebo, mpiavonavona, mpiteny ratsy, tsy mankatò ray aman-dreny, tsy misaotra, tsy masina, tsy manam-pitiavana voajanahary, mpandika fanekena, mpanendrikendrika, tsy mahafehy tena, masiaka, mpankahala ny tsara, mpamadika, sahisahy foana, mibontsina saina, tia fahafinaretana mihoatra noho ny fitiavana an’Andriamanitra; manana ny endriky ny toe-panahy araka an’Andriamanitra, nefa mandà ny heriny: ireny dia ialao.’ Ireo teny ireo dia maneho ny toetran’ireo olona izay tsy maintsy hifanehatra amin’ny mpanompon’Andriamanitra. ‘Mpanendrikendrika,’ ‘mpankahala ny tsara,’ no hanafika ireo izay mahatoky amin’Andriamaniny amin’izao vanim-potoana miharatsy izao. Nefa ny iraky ny Lanitra dia tsy maintsy haneho ilay fanahy nasehon’ny Tompo. Amin’ny fanetren-tena sy ny fitiavana no tsy maintsy hiasany ho famonjena ny olona.”
“Paul continues concerning those who oppose the work of God, comparing them to the men who made war against the faithful in the time of ancient Israel. He says: ‘Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth; men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.’ We know that the time is coming when the folly of warring against God will be revealed. We can afford to wait in calm patience and trust, no matter how much maligned and despised; for ‘nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest,’ and those who honor God shall be honored by him in the presence of men and angels. We are to share in the sufferings of the reformers. It is written, ‘The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.’ Christ understands our grief. Not one of us is called to bear the cross alone. The suffering Man of Calvary is touched with the feeling of our woes, and as he has suffered being tempted, he is able also to succor them that are in sorrow and trial for his sake. ‘Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned.’” Review and Herald, January 10, 1888.
“Paoly dia mbola manohy ny amin’ireo izay manohitra ny asan’Andriamanitra, ka mampitaha azy amin’ireo lehilahy izay niady tamin’ny mahatoky tamin’ny andron’ny Isiraely fahiny. Hoy izy: ‘Ary tahaka ny nanohitran’i Jany sy Jambra an’i Mosesy no anohitran’ireo koa ny fahamarinana, dia olona ratsy saina sy tsy to teny amin’ny finoana. Nefa tsy handroso intsony izy; fa hiharihary amin’ny olona rehetra ny hadalany, tahaka ny naharihary ny an’ireo koa.’ Fantatsika fa ho avy ny fotoana izay hampiharihariana ny hadalan’ny ady amin’Andriamanitra. Azontsika atao ny miandry amim-paharetana sy fitokiana am-pitoniana, na toy inona na toy inona fanaratsiana sy fanamavoana antsika; fa ‘tsy misy takona izay tsy ho hita,’ ary izay manome voninahitra an’Andriamanitra dia homeny voninahitra eo anatrehan’ny olona sy ny anjely. Isika dia antsoina hiombona amin’ny fahorian’ireo mpanavao. Voasoratra hoe: ‘Ny fanaratsian’izay nanaratsy Anao dia nihatra tamiko.’ Takatr’i Kristy ny alahelontsika. Tsy misy na dia iray amintsika aza antsoina hitondra ny hazo fijaliana irery. Ilay Lehilahin’ny fahoriana teo Kalvary dia mahatsapa ny fijalian-tsaintsika, ary satria Izy efa nijaly tamin’ny nanaovana Azy fakam-panahy, dia mahay mamonjy kosa ireo izay ao anatin’ny alahelo sy ny fizahan-toetra noho ny aminy. ‘Eny, ary izay rehetra ta-hivelona araka an’Andriamanitra ao amin’i Kristy Jesosy dia henjehina. Fa ny olona ratsy fanahy sy ny mpamitaka dia hiharatsy hatrany, mamitaka sady voafitaka. Fa ianao kosa mahareta amin’izay zavatra nianaranao.’ Review and Herald, January 10, 1888.”