We are addressing six lines of prophetic controversy that have occurred within the history of Adventism from 1798 until the present day.
Miatrika andalana enina amin’ny adihevitra ara-paminaniana isika, izay niseho teo amin’ny tantaran’ny Advantisma nanomboka tamin’ny 1798 ka hatramin’izao andro izao.
“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.
“Ao amin’ny tantara sy ny faminaniana dia asehon’ny Tenin’Andriamanitra ny fifanandrinana naharitra ela teo amin’ny fahamarinana sy ny fahadisoana. Mbola mitohy io fifanandrinana io. Izay zavatra efa nisy dia mbola haverina indray. Ny adihevitra fahiny dia hatsangana indray, ary ny foto-kevitra vaovao dia hipoitra tsy an-kijanona. Kanefa ny vahoakan’Andriamanitra, izay tamin’ny finoany sy ny fanatanterahany ny faminaniana no nandray anjara tamin’ny fanambarana ny hafatry ny anjely voalohany sy faharoa ary fahatelo, dia mahalala tsara izay ijoroany. Manana fanandramana sarobidy noho ny volamena tsara voadio izy ireo. Tokony hijoro mafy tahaka ny vatolampy izy, mitana mafy hatramin’ny farany ny fiandohan’ny fahatokiany.” Selected Messages, boky 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.
Ny lahatsoratra teo aloha dia niresaka ny adihevitra voalohany sy farany momba ny fahefana romana, ary ankehitriny isika dia handray ny adihevitra izay niseho teo amin’i Uriah Smith sy James White. Nampiditra ny “fandikany manokana” tao amin’ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo i Uriah Smith.
“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.
“ANDININY 36. Ary ny mpanjaka dia hanao araka izay sitrapony; ary hanandratra ny tenany izy ka hanambe ny tenany ho ambonin’ny andriamanitra rehetra, ary hiteny zava-mahagaga hanohitra an’Andriamanitry ny andriamanitra izy, sady hambinina mandra-pahatanteraky ny fahatezerana; fa izay voatendry dia tsy maintsy ho tanteraka.
“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.
“Ny mpanjaka ampidirina eto dia tsy afaka manondro ilay hery iray ihany izay vao avy noresahina farany; dia ny herin’ny papa izany; satria ny fanoritsoritana manokana dia tsy hifanaraka tsara raha ampiharina amin’izany hery izany.” 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.
Niaiky i Smith fa ny hery ao amin’ny andininy teo aloha dia “Roma papaly,” nefa lazainy fa ny toetra mampiavaka ao amin’ny andininy fahenina amby telopolo dia tsy toetra ara-paminaniana izay manondro an’i Roma papaly. Diso izany filazana izany. Tokony hotsaroana fa tamin’ny fikomiana tamin’ny taona 1863 dia najoro an-tsisiny ny fito andro ao amin’ny Levitikosy toko faha-enina amby roapolo, ka noho izany dia nolavina ny fanehoana ny fito andro ao amin’ny tabilao roa an’i Habakoka. Samy mampiseho ny fito andro eo afovoan’ny tabilao indrindra na ny tabilao 1843 na ny tabilao 1850, ary samy mametraka ny hazo fijaliana eo afovoan’ny tsipiky ny fito andro ireo fanehoana roa ireo. Rehefa tonga tamin’ny 1856 ny fahazavana vaovao momba ny fito andro ka nolavina taorian’izany, dia nanamarika ny fandavana ny tabilao roan’i Habakoka izany, ary koa ny fahefan’ny Fanahin’ny Faminaniana, izay mampahafantatra mazava tokoa fa samy notarihin’Andriamanitra ireo tabilao roa ireo.
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.
Araka ny voalazan’i Rahavavy White, ny fitaka farany ataon’i Satana dia ny hanafoana ny herin’ny fijoroana vavolombelon’ny Fanahin’Andriamanitra; ary eto, ny fitaka voalohany dia ny hanafoana ny herin’ny fijoroana vavolombelon’ny Fanahin’Andriamanitra, ary izany koa dia naneho fandavana niara-niseho tamin’izany ny fahamarinana fototra eo amin’ireo tabilao roa, ary indrindra indrindra ny amin’ny fito andro voatendry.
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.
Tamin’ny fikomiana tamin’ny 1863, dia tsy iza fa i Uriah Smith mihitsy no namokatra ilay tabilao sandoka tamin’ny 1863, izay nanala ny tsipika momba ny fito heny. Tamin’ny 1863, i Uriah Smith dia efa nanakimpy ny masony tsy hahita ny fahazavan’ny fito heny, ary tsy nahavita nahita fa misy “fahatezerana” roa izay ambaran’i Daniela. Ireo fahatezerana roa ireo dia maneho ny fito heny manohitra ny fanjakana avaratr’i Isiraely sy ny fanjakana atsimon’i Joda. Ny voalohany, izay namely ny foko folo tany avaratra, dia nanomboka tamin’ny 723 tal. J.K. ary nifarana tamin’ny 1798, ary ny faharoa dia nanomboka tamin’ny 677 tal. J.K. ary nifarana tamin’ny 1844.
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.
Nankao tamin’i Daniela i Gabriela ao amin’ny toko fahavalo mba hanazava ny fahitana momba ny marah, ary mifandray amin’izany asany izany dia nanome vavolombelona faharoa ho an’ny taona 1844 izy. Ny roa arivo sy telon-jato taona ao amin’ny Daniela toko fahavalo dia nifarana tamin’ny 1844, ary toy izany koa no nifaranan’ilay farany tamin’ireo fahatezerana roa namely ny fanjakana avaratra sy atsimo.
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.
Ary hoy izy nanao hoe: Indro, hampahafantariko anao izay hitranga amin’ny faran’ny fahatezerana; fa amin’ny fotoana voatendry no hisian’ny farany. Daniela 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.
Ny farany dia mialoha amin’ny heviny ny fisian’ny voalohany. Ny faran’ireo fahatezerana roa, izay fanehoana hafa fotsiny ny amin’ny impito, dia nifarana tamin’ny taona 1844, ary ny fahatezerana voalohany dia nifarana tamin’ny 1798. Ilay andininy izay nolazain’i Smith fa tsy nahitana famaritana manokana momba ny fahefan’ny papa dia nanondro ny taona izay handraisan’ny fitondran’ny papa ny ratra mahafaty azy.
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.
Ary ny mpanjaka hanao araka izay sitrapony; ary hanandratra ny tenany izy ka hanambony tena mihoatra noho ny andriamanitra rehetra, ary hilaza zava-mahagaga hanohitra ny Andriamanitry ny andriamanitra izy, sady hambinina mandra-pahatanteraky ny fahatezerana; fa izay voatendry dia ho tanteraka. Daniela 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.
“Ny mpanjaka” ao amin’ny andininy fahatelo amby telopolo dia “hambinina mandra-pahatanteraky ny fahatezerana.” Mariho izay soratan’i Smith momba an’i Daniela toko faha-valo, andininy faha-telo amby roapolo sy faha-efatra amby roapolo, ao amin’io boky io ihany izay anambarany fa ny fahefan’ny papa dia tsy manana ireo toetra marina ilaina hanatanterahana ny andininy fahatelo amby telopolo.
“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.
“ANDININY 23. Ary amin’ny andro faran’ny fanjakany, rehefa tonga amin’ny fahafenoany ny mpandika lalàna, dia hisy mpanjaka iray hiseho, masiaka tarehy sady mahafantatra teny saro-pantarina. 24. Ary ho mahery ny heriny, nefa tsy avy amin’ny heriny ihany; ary hahavita fandringanana mahagaga izy, sady hambinina sy hanatanteraka ny ataony, ary handringana ny mahery sy ny olona masina. 25. Ary amin’ny alalan’ny fahaizany koa no hampahombiazany ny fitaka eny an-tànany; ary hanandratra ny tenany ao am-pony izy, ary amin’ny fihavanana no handringanany ny maro; hitsangana hanohitra ny Andrianan’ny andriana koa izy; kanefa ho torotoro tsy amin-tanana.”
“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.
“Ity fahefana ity dia misolo toerana ireo fizarana efatra amin’ny fanjakan’ny osilahy amin’ny andro faran’ny fanjakany, izany hoe, manakaiky ny fiafaran’ny fotoanany. Mazava ho azy fa izy ihany no tandroka kely resahina ao amin’ny andininy faha-9 sy ny manaraka. Ampiharo amin’i Roma izany, araka izay voambara ao amin’ny fanamarihana momba ny andininy faha-9, dia ho mirindra sy mazava avokoa ny zavatra rehetra.
“‘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.
“‘Mpanjaka manana endrika masiaka.’ Mosesy, raha naminany ny sazy izay ho tonga amin’ny Jiosy avy amin’io hery io ihany, dia miantso azy hoe ‘firenena manana endrika masiaka.’ Deot. 28:49, 50. Tsy nisy vahoaka niseho nahatahotra kokoa teo amin’ny filaharan’ady noho ny Romanina. ‘Mahatakatra teny saro-pantarina.’ Mosesy, ao amin’ilay andinin-tSoratra Masina vao noresahina, dia milaza hoe: ‘izay fiteniny tsy ho azonao.’ Tsy azo nolazaina ny amin’ny Babyloniana, na ny Persiana, na ny Grika izany, raha ny amin’ny Jiosy no resahina; satria ny fiteny Kaldeana sy Grika dia nampiasaina, betsaka na kely, tany Palestina. Tsy mba toy izany anefa ny amin’ny teny Latina.”
“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.
“Rehefa tonga amin’ny fahafenoany ny mpandika lalàna.” Hatreto hatrany dia tazonina eo anoloan’ny saina ny fifandraisana misy eo amin’ny vahoakan’Andriamanitra sy ireo mpampahory azy. Noho ny fandikan-dalàn’ny vahoakany no nanolorana azy ho amin’ny fahababoana. Ary ny fitohizany tamin’ny ota no nitondra famaizana mafimafy kokoa. Tsy nisy fotoana izay nahaloto fitondran-tena kokoa ny Jiosy, amin’ny maha-firenena azy, noho ny tamin’ny fotoana naha-teo ambanin’ny fahefan’ny Romanina azy.
“‘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.
“‘Mahery, nefa tsy tamin’ny heriny manokana.’ Ny fahombiazan’ny Romanina dia noho indrindra tamin’ny fanampian’ireo mpiara-dia taminy sy ny fisaratsarahana teo amin’ny fahavalony, izay vonona mandrakariva hohararaotiny. Ary i Roma papaly koa dia nahery tamin’ny alalan’ireo fahefana ara-nofo izay nampiharany fanapahana ara-panahy.”
“‘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.
“‘Hahavita faharavana mahagaga izy.’ Nilaza tamin’ny Jiosy tamin’ny alalan’i Ezekiela mpaminany ny Tompo fa hatolony eo an-tanan’ny olona ‘mahay mandrava’ izy ireo; ary ny famonoana Jiosy iray tapitrisa sy iray hetsy tamin’ny fandravana an’i Jerosalema nataon’ny tafika Romana dia fanamafisana mahatahotra ny tenin’ny mpaminany. Ary i Roma, tamin’ny dingana faharoany, na tamin’ny endriny maha-papa azy, no tompon’andraikitra tamin’ny fahafatesan’ny maritiora dimampolo tapitrisa.”
“‘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.
«Ary amin’ny alalan’ny politikany koa dia hampanankarena ny fitaka eo an-tanany izy.» I Roma dia niavaka ambonin’ny fahefana hafa rehetra tamin’ny politika feno fitaka, izay nampanekeny ny firenena ho eo ambany fifehezany. Marina izany na amin’i Roma jentilisa na amin’i Roma papaly. Ary noho izany, tamin’ny alalan’ny fihavanana no nandravany ny maro.
“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.
“Ary Roma, tamin’ny farany, tamin’ny alalan’ny olona iray izay governoran’izy ireo, dia nijoro nanohitra ny Andrianan’ny andriana, tamin’ny fanamelohana ho faty an’i Jesosy Kristy. ‘Nefa ho torotoro tsy amin-tanana izy,’ fiteny iray izay mampifandray ny fandringanana ity hery ity amin’ny fikapohan’ilay sarivongana ao amin’ny toko faha-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, indroa ao amin’ilay andalan-teny, dia manondro fa ny toetra ara-paminaniana an’i Roma jentilisa sy i Roma papaly dia azo ifanakalozana, satria fanehoana an’i Roma amin’ny dingana roa fotsiny izy ireo, tahaka ny fifangaroan’ny vy sy ny tanimanga ao amin’ny toko faharoa amin’ny Daniela, izay ambaran-dRahavavy White ho tandindon’ny fitondrana ara-pivavahana sy ny fitondrana ara-panjakana. Rehefa manondro ao amin’ireo andininy resahin’i Smith i Daniela—fa i Roma “hahomby sy hanao,” ary fa i Roma “hampahomby ny fitaka eo an-tanany,”—dia milaza i Smith fa ao amin’ny andininy fahenina amby telopolo, ilay “mpanjaka” izay “hahomby mandra-pahatanteraky ny fahatezerana,” dia manondro toetra ara-paminaniana iombonan’i Roma jentilisa sy i Roma papaly. Avy eo izy dia milaza fa tsy misy na iray aza amin’ireo toetran’i Roma ao amin’ny andininy fahenina amby telopolo izay manondro ny fahefana papaly.
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.
Efa niresaka an’i Smith isika ho fanohanana ny famantarana an’i Roma ho ireo mpandroba izay mametraka ny fahitana, ary ny iray amin’ireo toetra ara-paminaniana efatra ao amin’ny andininy faha-14 dia ny fisandratan’i Roma.
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.
Ary amin’izany andro izany dia maro no hitsangana hanohitra ny mpanjakan’ny atsimo; ary ny mpandroba amin’ny firenenao kosa hanandratra ny tenany mba hampiorina ny fahitana; nefa ho lavo izy. Daniela 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.
Mitanisa i Smith fa ny famaritana momba ilay mpanjaka ao amin’ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo dia tsy mifanaraka amin’ny fahefan’ny papa, na dia efa niaro teo aloha aza izy fa i Roma ao amin’ny andininy faha-efatra ambin’ny folo no manandra-tena. Kanefa ilay mpanjaka ao amin’ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo dia “hanandra-tena.” Ilay mpanjaka iray ihany ao amin’ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo dia “hilaza zava-mahagaga hanohitra ny Andriamanitry ny andriamanitra.” Ao amin’ny bokin’i Daniela, ny fahefan’ny papa dia “hilaza teny lehibe hanohitra ny Avo Indrindra,” ary ao amin’ny bokin’ny Apokalypsy ny fahefan’ny papa dia miteny ratsy manohitra ny Avo Indrindra.
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.
Ary nomena azy ny vava hiteny zava-dehibe sy fitenenan-dratsy; ary nomena azy ny fahefana haharitra roa amby efa-polo volana. Dia nosokafany ny vavany hiteny ratsy an’Andriamanitra, mba hanevateva ny anarany sy ny tabernakeliny ary izay mitoetra any an-danitra. Apokalypsy 13:5, 6.
Every prophetic specification of the papal power is identified in verse thirty-six.
Ny famaritana ara-paminaniana rehetra momba ny fahefan’ny papa dia voatondro ao amin’ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo.
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.
Ary ny mpanjaka hanao araka izay sitrapony; ary hanandra-tena izy, ka hanandratra ny tenany ho ambonin’ny andriamanitra rehetra, ary hiteny zava-mahagaga hanohitra an’Andriamanitry ny andriamanitra; ary hambinina izy mandra-pahatanteraky ny fahatezerana; fa izay voatendry dia hotanterahina. Daniela 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.
Ny mpandinika olombelona dia matetika tsy azo ianteherana, kanefa maro amin’ireo mpandinika Advantista no manamarina ilay fahamarinana miharihary fa ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo no naverin’ny apostoly Paoly tamin’ny teny hafa tao amin’ny 2 Tesaloniana, raha niresaka ny amin’ilay lehilahin’ny ota izy.
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.
Aoka tsy hisy olona hamitaka anareo amin’ny fomba rehetra; fa tsy ho avy izany andro izany, raha tsy efa tonga aloha ny fihemorana, ary aseho ilay lehilahin’ny ota, dia ilay zanaky ny fahaverezana; izay manohitra sy manandratra ny tenany ho ambonin’izay rehetra atao hoe Andriamanitra, na izay ivavahana; ka dia mipetraka ao amin’ny tempolin’Andriamanitra tahaka ny Andriamanitra izy, mampiseho ny tenany ho Andriamanitra. 2 Thessalonians 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.
Ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo dia milaza fa “hanandratra ny tenany izy ka hampihoa-tena ho ambonin’ny andriamanitra rehetra,” ary i Paoly kosa milaza hoe “haseho ilay lehilahin’ny ota, zanaky ny fahaverezana; izay manohitra sy manandra-tena ho ambonin’izay rehetra atao hoe Andriamanitra na ivavahana.” Mazava fa tsy nanana fahefana ara-paminaniana i Smith hilaza fa ny mpanjakan’ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo dia hafa noho ilay mpanjaka resahina ao amin’ireo andininy mialoha ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo. Raha ny fitsipi-pitenenana, dia tsy nanana fanamarinana izy tamin’ny fanaovany izany fampiharana diso izany, ary ny filazany fa nataony izany satria ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo dia tsy manana toetra mampiavaka ny fahefana papaly dia fanodikodinana ny Soratra Masina hoenti-manorina fandikana manokana.
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.
Manana koa isika ny tenin’ny faminaniana izay mafy orina kokoa; ary tsara raha mitandrina izany ianareo tahaka ny amin’ny jiro mamirapiratra eo amin’ny toerana maizina, mandra-pahazavan’ny andro sy hipoiran’ny kintan’ny maraina ao am-ponareo; fantatrareo aloha izao, fa tsy misy faminaniana ao amin’ny Soratra Masina avy amin’ny fanazavan’olona azy samirery. Fa ny faminaniana tsy nentin’ny sitrapon’olona fahiny; fa olona masina avy amin’Andriamanitra no niteny araka izay nitondran’ny Fanahy Masina azy. 2 Petera 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.
Nandritra ny taona maro nisian’ny Advantisma Laodikiana dia nisy teolojiana, mpitandrina ary mpanoratra Advantista maro izay niresaka ny amin’ny heviny raha marina na diso ny fampiharana nataon’i Smith. Mpitandrina Aostraliana iray, Louis Were, izay efa ela no nodimandry, no nandany ny ampahany lehibe indrindra tamin’ny asa fanompoany tamin’ny fanoherana ny modely ara-paminaniana diso nataon’i Smith. Ny anton’ny fanoherany dia tsy hoe fotsiny i Smith tamin’ny farany no namantatra ilay mpanjaka izay tonga amin’ny fiafarany ao amin’ny andininy faha-dimy amby efapolo ho i Torkia, fa ny rafitra naroson’i Smith koa dia niteraka fampiharana diso momba an’i Armagedona. Tamin’ny taona 1980 tany ho any dia nisy mpanoratra Advantista iray nanoratra boky mitondra ny lohateny hoe, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Donald Mansell no anaran’ilay mpanoratra, ary mbola azo jerena hatramin’izao ilay boky.
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.
Manaraka ny tantara nitarika ho amin’ny Ady Lehibe Voalohany sy ny Ady Lehibe Faharoa i Mansell, ka asehony fa rehefa hita fa nanakaiky ireo ady roa ireo, dia nanomboka nampiasa ny fampiharana dison’i Smith ny mpitory filazantsara Advantista, dia ny amin’ny fandrosoan’i Torkia ho any Jerosalema ara-bakiteny ho famantarana ny Hara-magedona sy ny faran’izao tontolo izao. Asehony amin’ny alalan’ny firaketana momba ny mpikambana ao amin’ny fiangonana fa isaky ny nanakaiky ny iray tamin’ireo ady ireo dia maro ny fanahy nampidirina ho isan’ny mpikambana ao amin’ny fiangonana Advantista, araka ny fanamafisana ara-paminaniana nataon’ireo mpitory filazantsara, izay niorina tamin’ny fomba fijery tsy lavorary nananan’i Smith momba ny Hara-magedona.
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.
Rehefa nifarana ny ady tsirairay avy, ka tsy tanteraka ireo faminaniana diso, dia very mpikambana maro noho izay azony tamin’ilay lamina ara-paminaniana naorin’i Smith ny fiangonana.
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.
Tamin’ny nandavan’i Smith ny hafatra fototra nentin’ny Millerita, ary tamin’ny fahavononany hampiroborobo ny fandikany manokana ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo ka hatramin’ny dimy amby efapolo ao amin’ny Daniela, dia namokatra modely ara-paminaniana miorina amin’ny zava-mitranga ankehitriny ny lojikany.
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.”
Tao amin’ny adihevitra nifanaovan’i Smith sy James White momba ilay mpanjaka izay tonga amin’ny farany ao amin’ny andininy farany amin’ny Daniela toko fahairaika ambin’ny folo, dia nanolotra lojika iray i James White izay naneho tamin’ny fomba fohy sy mazava ny fototra ara-paminanian’i Smith, izay toy ny fasika. Nampianatra i White fa “ny faminaniana no miteraka ny tantara, fa ny tantara tsy miteraka faminaniana.”
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.
Ireo mpitory ny filazantsaran’ny Advantisma izay niasa talohan’ireo ady roa tonta dia nampiasa ny fivoaran’ny tantara mba hanehoana ny maodely ara-paminanian’i Smith momba ny Armagedona izay diso, ary ny asan’izy ireo, izay toa voatahy tokoa teo am-piomanana ho amin’ireo ady, dia niteraka fatiantoka mivaingana rehefa naseho fa nifototra tamin’ny fandikana manokana ilay maodely ara-paminaniana.
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.
Mitandrema amin’ny mpaminany sandoka, izay manatona anareo mitafy hoditr’ondry, nefa ao anatiny kosa dia amboadia masiaka mpiremby izy. Ny voany no hahafantaranareo azy. Moa mioty voaloboka amin’ny tsilo va ny olona, na aviavy amin’ny kirihitra tsilotsilo? Toy izany koa, ny hazo tsara rehetra dia mamoa voa tsara; fa ny hazo ratsy kosa mamoa voa ratsy. Ny hazo tsara tsy mahazo mamoa voa ratsy, ary ny hazo ratsy tsy mahazo mamoa voa tsara. Ny hazo rehetra izay tsy mamoa voa tsara dia kapaina ka atsipy ao anaty afo. Koa amin’ny voany no hahafantaranareo azy. Matio 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.
Ny fahavononan’i Smith hampiroborobo modely ara-paminaniana manokana momba ilay mpanjaka ao amin’ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo dia niteraka ihany koa fampiharana diso momba ny loza fahenina sy Hara-magedona.
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.
Dia narotsaky ny loviany tamin’ilay ony lehibe Eofrata ny anjely fahenina; dia ritra ny ranony mba homanina ny lalan’ireo mpanjaka avy any atsinanana. Ary hitako fa nisy fanahy maloto telo tahaka ny sahona nivoaka avy tamin’ny vavan’ilay dragona sy avy tamin’ny vavan’ilay bibidia ary avy tamin’ny vavan’ilay mpaminany sandoka. Fa fanahin’ny devoly ireo, izay manao fahagagana, ka mivoaka mankany amin’ny mpanjakan’ny tany sy izao tontolo izao rehetra izao mba hanangona azy ho amin’ny adin’ilay andro lehiben’Andriamanitra Tsitoha. Indro, avy tahaka ny mpangalatra Aho. Sambatra izay miambina sy mitandrina ny fitafiany, fandrao mandeha mitanjaka izy ka ho hitan’ny olona ny fahamenarany. Ary nangoniny ho any amin’ny toerana atao amin’ny teny Hebreo hoe Armagedona izy ireo. Apokalypsy 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.”
Araka izay efa nomarihintsika teo aloha, ny loza fahenina dia tonga aorian’ny fikatonan’ny fotoam-pitsarana ho an’ny olombelona; koa ny fampitandremana mikasika ny hitandremana ny fitafianareo dia tsy maintsy manondro olana fitsapana iray miseho alohan’ny hitsanganan’i Mikaela sy hikatonan’ny fotoam-pitsarana ho an’ny olombelona ary hanombohan’ny loza voalohany. Ny loza fahenina dia manondro ny asan’ilay dragona sy ilay bibidia ary ilay mpaminany sandoka, izay firaisana telo sosona miara-mivondrona eo amin’ny lalàna Alahady izay ho avy tsy ho ela. Izany firaisana telo sosona izany dia Roma Maoderina, ary ny tandindona izay manondro sy mampiorina ny firaisana telo sosona an’i Roma Maoderina dia ireo “mpandroba avy amin’ny firenenao,” izay “manandratra ny tenany hampiorina ny fahitana” ary “lavo.”
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.
Ny fampitandremana ao amin’ny loza fahenina, rehefa takatra, dia ahafahan’ny fanahy iray mitandrina ny fitafiany; fa raha lavina kosa izany, dia mamela ny fanahy ho mitanjaka, izay anankiray amin’ireo toetra dimy ananan’ny Laodiseana. Ny tandindona izay mampiorina izany fampitandremana izany dia ireo jiolahin’ny vahoakanao, izay manandra-tena ka hianjera amin’ny farany. Hoy Solomona: raha tsy manana izany fahitana izany ny olon’Andriamanitra, dia ho ringana izy.
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. Proverbs 29:18.
Raha tsy misy fahitana, dia ringana ny olona; fa izay mitandrina ny lalàna no sambatra. Ohabolana 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.
Ny teny hebreo hoe “ho levona” dia midika hoe “hahabory fitanjahana”, ary i Jaona nanoratra hoe: “Sambatra izay miambina sy mitahiry ny fitafiany, fandrao mandeha mitanjaka izy ka ho hitan’izy ireo ny fahamenarany.” Diso i Smith momba ny Mpanjakan’ny Avaratra, ary io fototra ara-paminaniana sandoka io no namela azy hampivelatra fampiharana ara-paminaniana iray izay, raha ekena, dia miteraka fitanjahana, izay tandindon’ny Laodiseana, izay aloa avy amin’ny vavan’ny Tompo.
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:
Tsy nanana olana i Smith tamin’ny fiarovana ny famantarany diso vaovao momba ny Mpanjakan’ny Avaratra nanohitra an’i James White, vadin’ilay mpaminanivavy. Ny mpahay tantara Advantista, ary ny Rahavavy White, dia miresaka ny tsy fitovian-kevitra malaza teo amin’izy ireo. Nananatra an’i vadiny sy i Smith i Ellen White noho izy ireo namela ny tsy fitovian-keviny momba izay asehon’ilay mpanjakan’ny avaratra ao amin’ny Daniela toko faha-11 havoaka ampahibemaso. Tamin’ny famoahana Advantista voalohany indrindra taorian’ny Fahadisoam-panantenana Lehibe tamin’ny 1844, dia nanoratra i James White:
“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.
“Fa i Jesosy no nitsangana, ary nanidy ny varavarana, ka tonga teo amin’ilay Fahagolan’andro, mba handray ny fanjakany, tamin’ny volana faha-7, 1844, dia inoako tanteraka izany. Jereo ny Lioka 13:25; Matio 25:10; Daniela 7:13,14. Fa ny fijoroan’i Mikaela, Daniela 12:1, dia toa zava-mitranga hafa, ho amin’ny tanjona hafa. Ny nitsanganany tamin’ny 1844 dia ny hanidy ny varavarana sy hankeo amin’ny Rainy mba handray ny fanjakany sy ny fahefana hanjakany; fa ny fijoroan’i Mikaela kosa dia ny hampiseho ny fahefany maha-mpanjaka, izay efa ananany, amin’ny fandringanana ny ratsy fanahy sy amin’ny famonjena ny olony. Mikaela dia hijoro amin’ny andro hiafaran’ilay fahefana farany ao amin’ny toko faha-11, ka tsy hisy hanampy azy. Io fahefana io no farany manitsakitsaka ny fiangonan’Andriamanitra marina; ary satria mbola voahitsakitsaka sy voaroaka ihany ny fiangonana marina amin’ny tontolo kristiana manontolo, dia manaraka izany fa ilay fahefana mpampahory farany dia mbola tsy ‘tonga amin’ny farany’; ary Mikaela mbola tsy nitsangana. Io fahefana farany manitsakitsaka ny olona masina io dia aseho ao amin’ny Apokalypsy 13:11-18. Ny isany dia 666.” James White, A Word to the Little Flock, 8.
When Smith introduced his so-called “new light” on the subject of “the last power in Daniel chapter eleven,” James White saw Smith’s application, not as new light, but as an attack upon the foundations. The controversy of Rome as the king of the north in Daniel eleven that took place between Uriah Smith and James White possesses specific attributes, that as students of prophecy, we are to bring together with the other controversies of Adventist history concerning the symbol of Rome.
Rehefa nampiditra ilay antsoiny hoe “fahazavana vaovao” momba ny lohahevitra “ny hery farany ao amin’ny Daniela toko fahairaika ambin’ny folo” i Smith, dia tsy hitan’i James White ho fahazavana vaovao ny fampiharana nataon’i Smith, fa ho fanafihana ny fototra. Ny fifanolanana momba an’i Roma amin’ny maha-mpanjakan’ny avaratra ao amin’ny Daniela 11, izay niseho teo amin’i Uriah Smith sy James White, dia manana toetra manokana izay isika, amin’ny maha-mpianatra ny faminaniana antsika, dia tokony hangonintsika ampitahaina amin’ireo fifanolanana hafa teo amin’ny tantaran’ny Advantista momba ny tandindon’i Roma.
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.
Iray amin’ireo toetra ireo ny fampidirana fanazavana manokana. Toetra iray hafa koa ny hoe ny fampiharana io fanazavana manokana io dia mitaky fanodinkodinana ny fitsipi-pitenenana tsotra; satria i Smith dia tsy vitan’ny hoe tsy niraharaha fa ny toetra faminaniana rehetra ao amin’ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo dia miresaka an’i Roma, fa tsy niraharaha koa izy fa ny rafitra ara-pitsipi-pitenenana dia mitaky fa ny mpanjaka ao amin’ny andininy faha-enina amby telopolo dia tsy maintsy ilay mpanjaka iray ihany aseho ao amin’ilay andalan-teny teo aloha.
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.”
Ny iray hafa dia izao: ny fandikana manokana dia fandavana ireo fahamarinana fototra. Ny iray hafa dia izao: maneho fandavana ny fahefan’ny Fanahin’ny Faminaniana izany. Toetra iray hafa koa ny hoe ny hevi-diso voalohany mikasika an’i Roma dia hitarika ho amin’ny modely ara-paminaniana izay tsy mamela ny olona iray hitandrina ny fitafiany eo am-panatonany ny fiafaran’ny fotoam-pitsarana omen’ny fahasoavana ho an’ny olombelona. Ny iray hafa dia ny fahavononana hampiroborobo ampahibemaso ny fandikana manokana nataony. Ny iray hafa dia izao: ny fandikana manokana dia faritana mandrakariva ho fahazavana vaovao. Ireo toetra rehetra ireo dia aseho ao anatin’ny adihevitra ankehitriny momba ireo “mpandroba amin’ny olonao.”
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.
Rehefa atambatra amin’ny tsipika ara-paminaniana momba ny fifandiran’i Uriah Smith sy James White ny fifandirana farany momba an’i Roma, izay notondroin’ny fifandirana voalohany momba an’i Roma tamin’ny famantarana ny “mpandroba amin’ny olonao,” dia ho hitantsika fa hisy antokon’olona iray hanorina ny môdely ara-paminaniany eo ambonin’ny fandikana manokana, izay mandà ny fahamarinana fototra.
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.
Ny fandavana ireo fahamarinana fototra dia avy hatrany maneho fandavana ny fahefan’ny Fanahin’ny Faminaniana, izay miaro mafy sy amin’ny fomba hentitra ireo fahamarinana fototra ireo. Io antokon’olona io koa dia ho vonona hamoaka ampahibemaso ny heviny, na inona na inona ahiahy mety hatsangana momba ny fiantraikan’izany fampianarana izany amin’ny vahoakan’Andriamanitra maneran-tany.
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.
Vantany vao taorian’ny 1844, tao anatin’ny taranaka voalohan’ny Advantisma, dia nisy adihevitra hafa momba an’i Roma nampidirina. Nohamafisina sy nahetsiketsika hatrany izany adihevitra izany, mandra-pandraisan’ny taranaka fahatelo amin’ny Advantisma ilay fomba fijery diso. Hodinihintsika ny adihevitra momba ny “isan’andro” ho toy ny fahefatra amin’ireo tsipika enina izay dinihintsika ankehitriny ao amin’ilay maodelin’ny tsipika mifanindry amin’ny tsipika.
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.”
Fa talohan’ny handraisantsika ny laharana fahefatra amin’ireo adihevitry Roma, dia tokony hotsaroana fa tao amin’ilay lahatsoratra teo aloha, raha nandinika ny andininy faha-folo ao amin’ny Daniela toko fahiraika ambin’ny folo isika, dia nilaza hoe: “Ny andininy faha-folo koa dia mampifandray mivantana ireo “fito andro” ao amin’ny Levitikosy enina amby roa-polo amin’ny tantara miafina, saingy izany laharan’ny fahamarinana izany dia ivelan’izay asehontsika eto.”
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.
I Uriah Smith no nitarika ny fandavana ny “seven times” tamin’ny 1863. Nolaviny ny fitomboan’ny fahalalana momba izany lohahevitra izany, izay naseho tao amin’ireo lahatsoratra momba ilay foto-kevitra, nosoratan’i Hiram Edson ary navoaka tao amin’ny Review tamin’ny 1856. Ny hevitra lalina ateraky ny fisian’i Smith niaraka tamin’ny hetsika iray izay nanolotra ny “seven times”, nefa tatỳ aoriana nandà kosa ny fitomboan’ny fahalalana momba io lohahevitra io indrindra, dia ivelan’ny lohahevitra koa momba ny toetra mampiavaka ny fampidiran’i Smith ilay zavatra nolazainy fa fahazavana vaovao momba ny lohahevitr’ilay mpanjakan’ny avaratra; kanefa rehefa mamarana ny topimasontsika momba ny tsipiky ny adihevitra Adventista mikasika an’i Roma isika, dia hiverina amin’ny lanjan’ny andininy faha‑folo ao amin’ny toko faha‑iraika ambin’ny folo ao amin’ny Daniela isika, ary koa amin’izay asehon’ny fandavan’i Smith ny hafatry ny Laodikia izay tonga tamin’ny 1856 niaraka tamin’ny fitomboan’ny fahalalana momba ny “seven times”.
“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.
“Ny finoantsika mikasika ny hafatry ny anjely voalohany sy faharoa ary fahatelo dia marina. Ny marika lehibe nandalovantsika dia tsy azo hozongozonina. Na dia miezaka handrovitra azy hiala amin’ny fanorenany aza ny antokon’ny helo, ary mirehareha amin’ny fiheverana fa nahomby izy, dia tsy mahomby anefa izy. Ireo andrin’ny fahamarinana ireo dia mijoro mafy tahaka ny havoana mandrakizay, tsy voahozongozon’ny ezaka rehetra ataon’ny olona mitambatra amin’ny an’i Satana sy ny antokony. Maro no azontsika ianarana, ary tokony handinika mandrakariva ny Soratra Masina isika mba hahitana raha izany tokoa ireo zavatra ireo.” 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.
“Ny mari-pamantarana lehibe momba ny fahamarinana, izay mampiseho amintsika ny toerantsika ao amin’ny tantara ara-paminaniana, dia tsy maintsy arovana amim-pitandremana, fandrao horavana izy ireny ka hosoloana teoria izay hitondra fisafotofotoana fa tsy fahazavana marina.” Selected Messages, boky 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
“Amin’izao fotoana izao dia hisy ezaka maro hatao hampihovitrovitra ny finoantsika momba ny raharaha mikasika ny fitoerana masina; kanefa tsy tokony hihontsina isika. Tsy misy tsipìka na dia iray aza tokony hafindra hiala amin’ny fanorenan’ny finoantsika. Ny fahamarinana dia mbola fahamarinana ihany. Izay tonga tsy matoky dia hivily ho amin’ny fampianaran-diso, ary amin’ny farany dia hahita ny tenany ho tsy mino intsony momba ny porofo efa noraisintsika taloha ny amin’izay fahamarinana. Tsy maintsy tehirizina ireo famantarana fahiny teny an-dalana, mba tsy hahavery ny lalantsika.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55