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.
Daniel qillqap 8 kaq t’aqa pusaqpa qanchisniyuq, tawaq chunka hinaspa iskayniyuq versiculokunapi Romaq uchuy waqrapa rikuchisqanqa, waqlliychasqa unanchasqam: warmi qarim tukusqa, qarimanta warmiman, warmimantataq qariman kuyurikuq hina unanchasqa. Chayqa Millerite-kunapa yuyayninwan tinkun, paykuna yachananku hina Roma iskay pacha rikuchisqa karqan: ñawpaq pachaqa Romaq kamachiq suyuyaynin, iskayñiqin pachaqa Romaq iglesiapa kamachiq kaynin. Ichataq versiculokunapi jinsikuna chhullunkachkasqanpi, uchuy waqraqa historiapa hinaspa willakuq rimaypa qatipasqanmantam lluqsisqa tarikun, chaymi waqlliychasqa. Chaywanpas tawa versiculokunam sapa hukninpi historiawan chiqanta tinkisqa, Romaq kamachiq suyuyayninwan utaq Romaq iglesiapa kamachiq kayninwan. Pagan Romaqa llapa paypa imperio kamachiyninta mana kasukuqkunatan ñak’arichirqan; ichaqa papal Romaq (warmi) ñak’arichiyninqa, chunka versiculopi, sapaqta hanaq pachamanmi churakusqa.
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.
Roma tawa tawaq kay chuskuynin hinaspa qhipa qhapaq suyu kasqanta Miller-pa qhawariyninpiqa, estadomanta iglesiaman, iglesiamanta estadoman, hinaspa yapamanta iglesiaman kuyuyqa mana ima llakiychu karqan. Paykunaqa Daniel p’anqa iskayniyuq capítulo-pa chakinpi fierrowan ñiq’i allpa chaqrusqa kasqanta rikurqanku, hinaspataq chaytaqa Roma-pa iskay fasekuna kasqallantam entienderqanku, mana ima llakiywan chuskuyniyuq hinaspa pichqayniyuq qhapaq suyuq sut’i historiapi qatiqnin churayta munaspa. Chay hinallataq capítulo qanchispiwanpas entienderqanku; chaypiqa, Ancha Hanaq Diospa contranpi hatun simikunata rimariq waqraqa, Roma beastapa ñawpaq chunka waqrankunamanta kimsa waqrakunata saphipi qichusqa karqan. Miller ichaqa versículo isqunniyuqmanta chunka iskayniyuqkama jinsiyuq kutichiyta reqsispa kasqanman hinaqa, chaypas mana imapaqchu karqan paypa yuyayninpi chay chuskuyniyuq qhapaq suyu Roma kasqanta entiendenanpaq. Miller-pa qhawariyninpiqa chay chuskuyniyuq qhapaq suyuqa 1798 watapi tukukapun, hinaspataq qatiq profétic eventoqa Cristo-pa Iskay Kutimuy karqan.
The feminine horn identifies the woman who commits spiritual fornication with the masculine horn, and is represented in verses ten and twelve.
Warmi waqraqa reqsichin qhawachin chay warmitaq qhari waqrawan kuska espiritu hukllay hucha rurashaqta, hinaspataq chayta rikuchin chunkañiqin hinallataq chunka iskayniyuq versikulukunapi.
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.
Hinaspa ancha hatunman chayarqan, hanaq pacha soldadokunapa qayllankamapas; chaymantaqa wakinta soldadokunamanta hinallataq ch’askakunamantapas allpaman wikch’urqan, hinaspa paykunata sarurqan. Daniel 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.
Papal atiyniyuq kamachiqpa qatiykachasqanqa cristianismopa contranmi karqa (hanaq pacha ejercitopa contran), hinaspa chunka iskayniyuq versículopi papal Roma (warmi kaq), Europeopa reynkuwan wañuq hucha ruwaypi huchallikusqan-manta atiyninta chaskin, chaywan wañuchiy llank’ananta hunt’anampaq.
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.
Hinan allpa muchuykuna rayku, sapa p’unchaw haywarisqa sacrificiopa contranpi huk ejército payman qusqa karqa; chayqa cheqaq kayta pampaman urmachirqan; hinaspan ruwaspa, allinta purirqan. Daniel 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.”
Versiculopi “host” nisqaqa kaypi rikhurichinmi chay militar atiyninta, papadoman qusqam karqa “sapa p’unchawpaq” nisqapaq contranpi. “Against” simiqa “manta” ninmi. Europa pagan reykunamanta (Roma pagana), “sapa p’unchawpaq” nisqawan rikuchisqa, militar yanapaynin (huk host) qusqa karqa papadoman “hucha pampachayrayku.” Iglesiatawan estadota huñusqa kay, iglesiaq chay t’inkisqapi kamachiq kasqanwan, chaymi “hucha pampachay” nisqa. Chay hucha pampachaypa vinonqa cristianokunapa yawarninmi. Papadoma Roma paganapa ejercitokunata makimpi hap’iqtinña, Roma papal (“it”) “cheqaq kayta allpaman urmachirqan; hinallataq ruwaspa, allinllataq purirqan.”
In Daniel chapter eleven, verse thirty-one, the giving of the armies to papal Rome is also represented:
Daniel qelqa chunka hukniyuq kapitulumanta, kinsa chunka hukniyuq versículopi, ejercitokunata papal Roma-man qusqa kasqanpas hinallataq rikuchisqa kachkan:
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.
Paymi rikrakuqkunan paypa lado-ninpi sayarinqaku, hinaspan kallpayoq santuario-ta qhellichanqaku, sapa p’unchay sacrificio-ta qichunqaku, hinaspan churankaku ch’inyayta ruraq millay qhellichayta. Daniel 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.
Kay versículopi riksichkan Roma paganamanta Roma papalman historiapi tikrakuyninta. Chay versículopi “brazokunaqa” Europapi reykunam, paykunaqa papadota yanapaypaq sayariyta qallarikurqanku Cloviswan, Francokunapa (Francia) reynin, wata 496-pi. Chay “brazokunaqa” hinallataq qhellicharqanku “kallpayoq santuariota” (Roma llaqtata), tawa pachak watayoq siglomanta pacha 538 wata kama mana sayk’uspa maqanakuykunawan. Chay “brazokunaqa” hinallataq qechurqanku paganokunapa hark’ayta papadopa wiñariyninpa contranpi, chaymi 508 wata kamayaq paganokunapa hark’ayninqa tukukapunña karqa.
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.
“Qichuy” nisqaman tikrasqa simiqa hebreo simi “sur” nisqam, chayqa “hurquy” ninanmi. “Brazokunaq” churaykurqan “millay ruway, chusakiyta rurachiqta” (papado-ta), kay pachaq tronompi wata 538-pi. Daniel qillqaq pusaqniyuq capítulonpa chunka iskayniyuq versículonpi “huk ejército” warmi uchuy waqruman qosqa karqan nispa riqsichiptin, chayqa chunka hukniyuq capítulonpa kimsa chunka hukniyuq versículonpa testigowanmi tupachkan. Apocalipsis qillqapas chunka kimsayuq capítulonpi kaq kikin cheqaqta testigota qonmi.
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.
Chay uywañataq rikurqani, chayqa leopardoman rikch’akuqmi karqa, chakintaq ukumaripa chakin hina karqa, simintaq leonpa simin hina; dragontaq payman qoran atiyninta, tiyananta, hatun kamachikuynintawan. Apocalipsis 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.”
Paní Whiteqa cheqaqtapunin kay iskayniyuq versículopi kaq bestiata papadoman kasqanta, hinaspataq versículopi dragón nisqaqa pagano Roma kasqanta. Pagano Romaqa papadomanman kimsa imakunata qorqan: “paypa atiynta, paypa tiyananta, hinallataq hatun kamachiyta.”
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.”
Pagana Romaqa soldadokuna kallpanmi qorqa Cloviswan qallarispa watapi 496. Kamachinapaq “tiyanan”pas papadomanmi qosqa karqa watapi 330, hinaptin emperador Constantino llaqtanpa hatun umalliq llaqtanta Constantinoplaman apaspa, ñawpaq hatun umalliq llaqtan Romatataq saqerqa iglesia papalpa kamachiyninman. Watapi 533, emperador Justiniano kamachirqan papaqa iglesiapa uman kasqanta hinaspa herejekunapa allinchariqnin kasqanta, chayhinaqa “hatun atiyninta” Roma papamanmi entregarqun. Daniel qhelqapa pusaq kaq kapitulonpa chunka iskayniyuq versiculonmi reqsichin ima pachapi “hueste” qosqa karqa chayta, chay profetiko cheqaq kaytaq achka testigokunawanmi qespichisqa kachkan. Chay pacha puntomanta (watapi 496 qallarispa), papadomaqa “allinta wiñarqan.”
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.
Chayqaqa “ruwayta” hinaspa “allinta purinqa” Israelpa hanaq law nacionninpa contranpi piñakuypa tukukuyninkama, 1798 watapi tukukuspa, papadokunaq kamachikuyninqa wañuyman apaq nanayniyuq ch’akiyta chaskirqan.
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.
Reyqa munayninman hina ruwaspa; hinaspa pay kikinmi hatunchakusun, sapa dioskunamanta aswan hatunchasqa kanqa, dioskunapa Diosninpa contranpi admiraypaq simikunata rimarinqa, hinaspa sinch’i phiñakuynin hunt’akunan kama allin purinqa; imaraykuchus chay nisqa kamachisqa kaqqa ruwasqañam kanqa. Daniel 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.
Pusaq 8 ñiqin kapitulopa isqon ñiqin versiculonqa qhari Romata (pagano Romata) sut’inchan, hinallataq kimsa pataman atipay ruwayta rikuchin, imayna pagano Roma hunt’asqanta; chaymi ejemplar hina rikuchirqan kimsa hallp’a suyu-kunata atipayta, papal Roma kay pachapa tronompi sayarinanpaq, pusaq qanchisniyoq kapitulopi kimsa waqra q’ipisqa hina rikuchisqaman hina. Chay iskay kimsa pataman atipaykuna pagano hinallataq papal Romamantaqa, Daniel pusaq chunka hukniyoq kapitulopa tawa chunka versiculomanta kimsa chunka kinsayoq versiculokama, kunan pacha Romapa kimsa hallp’a hark’ayninkunata rikuchirqan. Chaymantataq, pusaq ñiqin kapitulopi, chunka hukniyoq versiculopi, uchuy qhari waqra (pagano Roma) yapamanta rikuchisqa kachkan. Chay versiculopiqa, santificasqa lógica nisqaqa ancha allin, chaymi Jerusalén llaqtata kamachiq p’enqay mana yupaychasqa runakunaqa llulla teología nisqakunata achkata haykuchinankupaq kallpachakusqaku, llulla cimientonku sayarichinankupaq.
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.
Arí, payqa hatunpachata churakurqan asta ejercitopa Príncipenman; paymantaqa sapa p’unchaw sacrificio qichusqa karqan, hinaspataq santuarionpa cheqan urmachisqa karqan. Daniel 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.
1863 watamanta Adventismo-man yaykusqa qullqikuna yanqa-qhullqikuna hinallataq qori-rumikuna yanqa-rumikuna imayna kasqanta qallarispanchik rimayta, reparanakuy tiyan iskay hatun chakra kasqanmanta, chaykunapi Adventismoqa hatun teología yachayniyuq kasqanta alabakun, apostasía protestantepa hinaspa catolicismopa yachachiykunata sayachinankupaq aswan allin t’ikraqninkuta hina. Kunan p’unchawpi Adventismopa teólogo nisqa runakuna nisqankuqa kaymi: paykunaqa icha Bibliapa historianta allinta yachaqkuna kanku, utaq Bibliapa siminkunapi hatun yachayniyuqkuna kanku. Chay versículota imayna apaykachasqankumanta rikuchin, profecíapa siminqa paykunapaq hina sellosqa libro tukusqanta, hinaspataq rikuchin Bibliapa siminkunapi hatun yachaq kasqankuta nisqankuqa Fariseísmoq kunan p’unchawpi rikurimuyninlla kasqanta.
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.
Ñawpaqtaqa mana yuyarisqankuchu qhari warmi sutichaykuna muyuriyta uchuy waqrachamanta, qanchis chunka iskayniyuq t’aqapi isqonmanta chunka iskayniyuqkama. Sichus cheqapuni hebreo simipi yachaqkuna karqanku chayqa, manam ñiqankumanchu, nitaq pisi chaninnaq rikuchinkumanchu, Danielpa munayninwan chay t’aqakunapi qhari warmi sutichaykunata muyurichisqanta. Uchuy waqracha iskaynin qhari warmi sutichaywanmi rikuchisqa, chay sutichaykunataq t’aqakunapi hukmanta hukman kutichkanku. Teólogo runakunaqa q’upa imaymanawan, llulla qullqikunawan ima, kay cheqaq kayta pakayta munanku; imaraykuchus sut’ita reqsichin chunka hukniyuq t’aqaqa mana papal Romatachu, aswan pagano Romatam reqsichisqanta. Paykunaqa, ñataqmi, sapa kuti rimanku chunka hukniyuq t’aqapi uchuy waqrachaqa papa kasqanta, ichaqa cheqaqpiqa pagano Romam.
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).
Huknin chusku uchilla waqra versículokunamanta ishkay qhari kasqanta, ishkay warmi kasqanta reqsichikuspaqa, chaymantan sasaqchu yaykuchiy Bibliapi willasqa cheqaqta: Bibliapa profecíanpi warmiqa huk iglesiata rikuchin, qhariñataq huk estadota rikuchin. Kayta yachaspaqa, llapa qhawanayta munakkuqkunaman sut’inchan, chunka hukniyuq versículopi uchilla waqraqa qhari Roma kasqanta (pagano Roma), manataq warmi Roma kasqanta (papal Roma).
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.”
Chayqa qillqasqa hinallataq hamut’asqa kachkan kayta yachachisqanta: pagano Roma pay kikin hatunchakusqa soldadokunapa kamachiqninpa contranpi, hina pagano Roma ruwaykusqanman hina, soldadokunapa Kamachiqninta Calvario cruzpi churaruspa. Manam pagano Romaqa Cristopa contranpi cruzpi hatunchakusqallachu; chay qillqaqa astawan nispa riman, paywan (pagano Roma) “sapa p’unchay sacrificioqa qichusqa karqan” nispa.
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.
Daniel qelqapi iskay hebreo simikuna kan, iskayninku “qichuy” nisqaman tikrasqa kanku. Chay simikunaqa “sur” hinallataq “rum” kanku. Iskaynin simikunaqa santuario serviciopi llamk’achisqa kanku. “Sur” ninmi qichuy utaq hurquy, chaymanta santuario altar-manta uchpakuna hurqusqa kaptin, uchpakuna hurqusqamanta rimananpaq llamk’achisqa simiqa “sur”mi. “Rum” nisqa simiqa hoqariy hinallataq hatunchay ninmi, santuariopi sacerdoteqa wayrawan haywasqa ofrendata hoqarinan kaptinqa, ofrendataqa “rum” (hoqariy) ruwanan karqa. Chunka hukniyuq versiculopi, Roma pagana (“sapa p’unchay kaq”)qa paganismota hoqarispa hinallataq hatunchaspa, paganismo religionta “rum” (qichuy) ruwanqa.
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.
Roma paganaqa paganismopa religionninta hoqarinmanmi hinaspa hatunchanmanmi. Adventista teologokuna, bíblica simikunapi yachayniyuq kasqankuta nispa willakuqkuna, Daniel qillqapi “take away” nisqap sapa rikurisqanta “remove” nisqawanmi tratarqanku. Paykunaqa mana reqsinku Danielpa sut’i, chiqap qillqasqanta; chayraykun profeta Danielpa patanman churakunku.
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.”
Biblia yachay simikunata entiendenankuta nispa rimaykukuq teologokunaqa imaynan Daniel iskay sapa simikunata llamk’achispa chaylla kaqta ninanpaq yuyarisqanta cheqanman churanankupaq rimanakuykunata qunku. Llamaq, sasachay simi-yachay qhawariykunata ruwanku llulla nisqankuta sayachinankupaq. Bibliapa historianta entiendenankuta nispa rimaykukuq teologokunaqa, llulla churayqa kayman hina rurasqa kasqanta ninku: historiaq imaymana pacha-kunapi chaylla simi huk imata nispa rikuriyta atinman; chayrayku Daniel iskay sapa simikunata llamk’achiptinqa, historiapi amawta kasqalla Daniel imata cheqaqtapuni niyta munasqanta reqsinman. Kay iskay llulla ñankunata reqsiy ancha importante, imaraykuchus “sikiq sikiqman” nisqa metodologiamanta pakakuyta maskaq teologokunaqa sapa kuti kaykunata llamk’achinku.
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.
Arí, payqa kikinta hatunchakurqan chay ejército-pa Príncipenmanpas; payraykun sapa p’unchaw sacrificiota qichurqan, hinaspan Santuarionpa kasqan chiqninpas urmachisqa karqan. Daniel 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.”
Kaypi qillqasqapi “hurqusqa” nisqaman t’ikrasqa simiqa “hoqarispa hatunchay” niytaqmi munan. Manaqa qichuyta niyta munanchu. Kay chiqaqa Adventista teólogo-kunapaq pantasqa kayta, chaymanta taksaqkuna kasqanta paqarichin, imaraykuchus paykunapa yuyay sayarichisqankuna mana allinta sayanku kay qillqasqapa sasachakuyninmanta sasallata qhawarispa, Danielpa llamk’asqan simipa chiqap kaq riqsisqan kay qillqasqaman churakusqan hina. Paykuna ninaku chay qillqasqapi uchuy waqraqa Roma papal nisqa kasqanta; chayrayku chay qillqasqa kayhinata leesqa kananman: “paywan” (Roma papal nisqawan) “sapa punchaw kaqta hoqarispa hatunchasqa karqan.”
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.
Paykunaqa mana ima sasachakuytapas tariykunchu chay yapasqa simita churaypi, mayqintachus Hermana White sut’inmanta nin runapa yachaywan yapasqa kasqanta hinaspa mana qillqasqa qillqapa nisqanman hina tupaq kasqanta.
“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.
“Chaymantanqa rikurqani ‘sapa p’unchay’ nisqaman hina (Daniel 8:12) chaypi ‘sacrificio’ nisqa simiqa runapa yachayninwan yapasqa kasqanta, mana qillqasqa qillqapa qhechllanman kasqanta, hinaspataq Señor allin qhawariyta qosqanta chay juicio pacha willakuyniyoq waqyakuyta qosqakunaman.” 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”.
Paykunaqa “sapa punchawta” reqsichinku Cristopa santuarionpi ministerionnin hina, chayrayku “sapa punchaw sacrificio” sutiyoqqa sayachin yuyayta “sapa punchaw” kasqanta Cristopa hanaq pacha santuarionpi sacrificiosqan ruwasqan. Ichaqa inspiración reqsichin “sacrificio” simiqa “manam qillqasqaman pertenechenchu”.
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.
Efraimpa machasqak runakuna “sapa p’unchayta” Cristopa santuario llamkayninmanta kasqanta reqsisqankumantaqa, chay hinaptinqa versículoqa ñawirinqa: “paywan” (Roma papalwan) “sapa p’unchayqa qichusqa karqa”, utaq ñawirinqa: “papal atiyniyoqpa rurasqanwan, Cristopa santuarionpi ministron kayninqa qichusqa karqa.” Cheqaqtapuni kay llullakuyta yachachinku. Sinchita ninku papal kamachiypa tutayayningrayku Cristopa santuarionpi ministron kayninmanta cheqaq unanchayqa runakunapa yuyayninkumanta qichusqa kasqanta.
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?
Ichaqa “hurquy” nisqa simiman tikrasqa rimayqa, manam anchata qichuyta niyta munanchu; aswanqa hoqarispa hatunchayta niyta munan. Biblia simikunapi yachaq kasqankuta sutichakuq runakuna hebreo simi “rum” nisqap cheqaq niyninta chay pasajeman allinta churayman chayqa, paykunap tikrasqanku kaynata niyninman karqan: “papal atiyninrayku, Cristop santuarionpi ministron kasqanqa hoqarisqa hatunchasqa karqan.” ¿Hayk’aqtaq papadoqa Cristota hoqarirqan hinaspa hatuncharqan?
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.
Paykunaqa maskhashanku hebreo simi “sur” nisqapa sut’inta hebreo simi “rum” nisqaman churanankupaq. Danielqa “sur” simita llamk’achin, chayqa “qichuy” ninmi, “sapa p’unchay”wan iskay huk versiculokunapi tupachispa; ichaqa versículo oncepiqa, Danielqa “rum” simita akllarqan, chayqa “hoqariy hinaspa hatunchay” ninmi. Manan kay versículomanta llulla willakuykunapa plato nisqaqa upa kayllachu, “qichusqa” nispa tikrasqa simipa sut’inchasqanta q’iwispa apasqanrayku; aswanpas manan hayk’aqpas karqanchu Cristoq santuariopi ministerionnin runakunamanta ima hinallatapas qichusqa kananpaq.
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.
Kay runaqa wiñaypaq kawsasqanrayku mana hayk’aqpas hukman tukukuq sacerdociotaqmi kan. Chayraykun payqa atinqa paywan Diosman asuykukuqkunata tukuy ima tukukuyninkama salvananpaq, payqa wiñaypaq kawsaspan paykunapaq mañakuq kasqanrayku. Hebreos 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!
Nispaqa, Adventista teólogo-kuna hina, chay versiculota pantasqa mañakusqankuta sayachinankupaq, huk pacha kasqanta ninqaku papadoqa ima rikch’aq atiynintawanpas Cristoq santuarionpi mañakuy hapiyninta qichunaypaq; chayqa mana yuyayman yaykuq, mana allin rimaymi!
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.
Ichaqaqa teologokunaqa manam yachachinkuchu chay versículopi sut’ichasqanta papakuna qhapaqsuyunqa Cristoq santuariopi ministerionta hoqarispa hatunchasqanta. Paykunaqa Danielpa siminkunapa ninanta, hinallataq Ellen Whitepa Diosmanta puñuchisqa yuyaychayta, qispichinku imatachus kikinkuna munasqankuta yachachinankupaq, Danielpa siminkunapa willakuynin kashaptinpas.
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.
Arí, payqa hatuncharikusqa chay soldadokunapa kamachiqninman hina; payraykum sapa p’unchaw sacrificio qichusqa karqa, hinaspa paypa santuarionpa lugarñin urmachisqa karqa. Daniel 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.
Teólogos nisqakuna yachachinku kay versículoqa ninanpaq kasqanta: “papapa atiyninwanmi, Cristopa santuariopi ministerionnin qarqusqa karqa,” hinaspa Cristopa santuario ministerionnin runakunapa yuyayninkumanta qechusqa kasqanta kallpachin chaymanta, imaraykuchus chay qechuywan kuskapi, Cristopa “suarionninpa maynin urmachisqa karqa.” Manan huk versículopas Diospa Siminpi kanchu hanaq pacha santuario-ta reqsichiq, maypichus Cristo qespichiy mañakuyninta rurashan, hayk’aqpas urmachisqa kasqanta. Nitaqmi ima bíblico pasaje-pas kanchu chay hanaq pacha kikinta, paypa “santuarionninpa maynin” nisqata, hayk’aqpas urmachisqa kasqanta reqsichinanpaq. Hukmanta yapamanta, teólogos nisqakuna profeta Danielmanta aswan hawapi churakunku, imaraykuchus hina kasqanta mana qhawaspa, versículopi “santuarionninpa maynin” nisqaqa Diospa santuarionninta sut’inchasqanta sinchita ninku, chaywanpas Danielqa chiqanmanta chay yuyayman chinkaypaq hina mana, aswan contrariota yachachin.
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.
Hebreo simita yachaqkunaqa ninaku, chay versículopi hebreo simi “rum” nisqaqa hebreo simi “sur” nisqap niyninwan entiendisqa kananpaq kasqanta. Hinallataq ninaku, hebreo simi “miqdash” nisqaqa hebreo simi “qodesh” nisqahinata entiendisqa kananpaq kasqanta. “Miqdash” hinaspa “qodesh” iskayninkuqa Daniel qillqapiqa “santuario” nisqallawan tikrasqa kanku, ichaqa hukniray niyniyuqmi kanku. “Miqdash”qa ima santuariopas sut’inchan, Diospa santuarion kaptinpas otaq paganoq santuarion kaptinpas. Chayqa santuario nisqapa general siminmi, ichaqa “qodesh” nisqaqa Bibliapiqa Diospa santuarionta sut’inchanapaqlla apaykachan.
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.
Danielqa allinta reqsisqa karqa huk pagano yupaychana wasiwan Diospa yupaychana wasinpa chaymanta hukniray kashqanta. Sichus Daniel pagano yupaychana wasita reqsichiyta munanman karqa, “miqdash” nisqa simita llamk’achinman karqa. Mancharikuypaqmi ñuqaqqa rikuni, hebreo simipa yachaqman hina nisqa runakuna mana hayk’aqpas rimanchu kay cheqaqmanta: tawa qatiq versiculokunapi, Daniel iskaynin simikunata kimsa kuti llamk’achin. Danielpa iskaynin hebreo simikunata llamk’achisqan, iskayninkutaq “yupaychana wasi” nispa tikrasqa kasqanmi, ima ninatachus Daniel unanchachiyta munasqanta sut’inchan.
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.
Arí, payqa hatuncharikusqa chay ejércitoq Príncipenmanpas; payraykum sapa p’unchaw sacrificio qichusqa karqa, hinaspa santuarionpa cheqan urmachisqa karqa. Hucharaykum huk ejército payman qosqa karqa sapa p’unchaw sacrificiopa contranpi; chaymi cheqaq kayta allpaman wikch’uykurqa; hinaspa rurakurqa, allintataq lluqsirqa. Chaymantataq uyarisqani huk santo rimashaqta, hinaspa huk santo nirqa chay rimashaq santo runaman: “Hayk’aqkamataq kay visión kanqa sapa p’unchaw sacrificiomanta, ch’usaqyachiq huchamanta, santuariotapas ejército-tapas sarusqa kananpaq?” Paytaq niwarqa: “Ishkay waranqa kimsa pachak p’unchawkama; chaymantaqa santuario mayllakusqa kanqa.” Daniel 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.
Adventismopa cimientonnta qelqashqa kikin pasajepinmi, Daniel ishkay sutin Hebreo simikunata llamk’achin, iskaynintapas “santuario” nispa tikrasqa. Chunka kimsayuq, chunka tawayuq versiculokunapiqa Danielqa “santuario” niq Hebreo simita akllan, chay simiqa Bibliapiqa Diospa santuarionta reqsichinapaqlla llamk’achisqa kashan; ichaqa chunka hukniyuq versiculopin Danielqa llapaq utaq genérico Hebreo simita llamk’achin, chayqa Diospa santuarionpas kananmanmi, utaq huk pagano santuariopas kananmanmi.
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.”
Sichus Daniel munarqan chay “santuario” nisqata chunka hukniyuq versículopi Diospa santuarion kasqanta sut’inchayta, chayqa kikin hebreo simita llamk’achinman karqan, mayqintachus iskay kuti llamk’achirqan qhepa kimsa versículokunapi. Ancha sut’inmi Daniel huk rakiyta rurashasqanta: chunka hukniyuq versículopi huk mana Diosman yupaychasqa santuario kasqanwan, chunka kimsayuq chaymanta chunka tawayuq versículokunapi Diospa santuarion kasqanwan! Ichaqa Efraínpa machasqakuna ninakunku “paypa santuariopa maynin” nisqa, mayqintachus “urmachisqa” karqan chunka hukniyuq versículopi, Diospa santuariopa maynin kasqanta, astawanpas qhespichkanku “maynin” simita.
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.
Yachachinku papakuna kurak kamachikuyninqa Cristopa mañakuq kasqanmanta ruwayninta qichuspa, hanaq pachapi kachkan santuarioqmanta cheqaq kaqta urmachisqanta. Ichaqa Danielqa sut’inchaspa rimarqan chay chunka hukniyuq versiculopi “santuario” nisqanmanta, mana Diospa santuarionmanta chu, aswan huk pagano santuario-manta. Danielqa chay hinallataq sut’inchaspa rimarqan mana “santuario”chu urmachisqa kasqanta, aswan “sitiun”mi santuarioyninmanta urmachisqa karqan.
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.
Qanchis pusaq chunka hukniyuq chaymanta iskayniyuq versículokunapi munaychasqa qhari-warmi kuyuyta mana reqsiyta munaspa, kunan pacha teólogokunaqa “sapa p’unchay” nisqap sut’inchayninta hap’irqanku, mayqinchus apostata protestantismomanta paqarisqa karqa, chaymanta qallarikurqanku runapa yuyayman hap’isqa qhawariy, yachachiy ñan, hinaspa ruwaykuna t’iyusqa aqupi huk cimientota sayachiyta. Chunka hukniyuq versículoman chayamuspaqa, paykunaqa incluso Panichay White Pañapa Diosmanta inspirasqa yuyaychaynintapas qichurqanku, mayqinchus Millerman “sapa p’unchay” nisqanta paganismo kasqanta allinpaq reqsirqa, hinaspa qallarikunku pantachinapaq pusayta hinaspa runapa yuyaysapa qhawariyta llamk’achiyta, católico hinaspa protestante teologíaman munakusqankuta hark’aypaq.
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.
Versículopiqa, mana Diosta yupasqa Roma pagana llaqtata Roma papalman tukuchinku, hinaspata “hurquy” nisqapa sutinta qichunku chay simimanta “hoqariy hinaspa hatunchay” niqman. “Sapa punchaw” nisqa satanaspa unanchaqninman, allin Diosmanta unanchaq hina sutichanku, hinaspata huk templo paganotam Diospa templon kasqanta nispa apremianku, ichaqa santuariopa “chay chiqan” nisqa chiqaq rimarisqanta qispichispa. Hinaspa “mana yachaqkuna” (Isaias sutichasqan hina), pikunachus “yachaqkuna” chay hinam ninku chayraq entiendenqaku, llulla willakuykunamanta rurusqa mikhunata chaskinku kikinpa chinkayninkama.
We will continue our consideration of the increase of the knowledge represented as the jewels in Miller’s dream in the next article.
Qatiq qelqa nisqapi Millerpa musquyninpi joyakunahinata rikuchisqa yachaypa wiñayninmanta yuyaychayniykuta qatiqkunam.
“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.
“Apostol Pabloqa willakun: ‘wakinkunaqa iñiymanta karunchakunkuña, llullachiq espiritukunata, supaykunapa yachachikuyninkunataq uyarispa.’ Kaymi suyasunapaq kaq. Aswan hatun ñak’ariyninchikkunaqa chayamunqa, cheqaq kayta huk kuti sayachiqkunamanta, ichaqa chaymanta kutirispa kay pachaman rinqaku, hinaspataq cheqaq kayta chaqikunkunawan sarurparinku chikniypi asipaypiwan. Diosqa huk llamk’anataqmi churapun hatun sonqoyuq kamachininkunaman. Awqapa maqanakuykunaqa Simiypa cheqaq kayninwan tinkuchisqa kanan. Llullakuyninqa q’alarichisqa kanan, cheqaq kasqanta rikhurichisqa kanan, hinaspataq Jehovápa kamachikuyninpa k’anchayninqa pachaq runakunaq sonqo tutayaypi lloqsimuspa qanchariy kanan. Paypa Simiyninpa mañakuyninkunata rikhurichinanchikmi tiyan. Mana huchayoqchu qhipasunchik, kay manchay uyariyna kamachiyta saqespaqa. Ichaqa cheqaq kayta amachaspa sayashaqtinchikqa, ama kikillanchikta amachaspa sayasuncho, nitaq hatun ruwayta ruwasuncho piñakuypi qillqakusqa rimakuykunata, llullachisqa willakuykunatapas apayman waqyachisqanchikrayku. Ama kikillanchikta llakipayasunchu, aswanqa Ancha Hatunpa kamachikuyninrayku sinchi waqaychasqa kasunchik.”
“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.’
Apostolmi nin: “Hamunqa p’unchawkuna chayamunqa, allin yachachiyta mana muchuqkuchu kanqaku; aswanpas kikin munayninkuman hina, rinrinku aslliykusqa kasqanrayku, yachachiqkunata achkata tantachinqaku kikinkupaq; hinaspan cheqaqmanta rinrinkuta muyurichinqaku, llulla willakuykunamanña kutirichisqa kanqaku.” Llapan lawnintinpi rikunchik, Diospa siminta ch’usaqyachiqkunapa pantasqa yuyaychakusqankuwan runakuna usqhaylla apachisqa hina pusasqa kasqankuta; ichaqa cheqaq kaq ñawpaqenkuman apamusqa kaptin, mana muchuywan chaymanta phiñakuypas hunt’asqa kanqaku. Ichaqa apostolpa kallpanchakuynin Diospa kamachinmanqa kaymi: “Llapan imapipas rikch’akuy, ñak’ariykunata muchuy, evangelistapa llamk’ayninta ruwa, ministerioyniykita hunt’achiy.” Paypa p’unchawninpi wakinkuna Señorpa causanta saqirparqanku. Qelqanmi: “Demasqa saqirpariwan, kunan pacha kayta munakusqanrayku;” hinaspapas yapamanta nin: “Alejandro, anta rurana runaqa, ancha mana allintam ruwawarqan; Señorqa ruwasqanman hina kutichipunqa; paymantaqa qampas waqaychakuy, simiykuta ancha sinchita hark’arqanrayku.”
“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.
“Profetakunapas apostolkunapas kikinta hark’asqa, k’amisqa, pinqasqa kaykunata muchurqanku; chaymantaqa Diospa mana qilliyuq Corderonpas llapa imapiñataq noqanchis hina wateqachisqa karqa. Payqa huchasapa runakunapa paypa contranpi rimaykuna hark’ayta umallirqan.”
“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.
“Kay pachapi ima willakuypas cheqaq sonqowan willasqa kananmi; ichaqa, ‘Señorpa kamachinqa mana maqanakunanchu; aswanpas llapa runakunapaq llamp’u kananmi, yachachiyta atispa, muchuykunapi qespichisqa sonqoyoq; llamp’u kaywan yachachispa kikinkuta contrankupaq sayaqkunata.’ Diosninchikpa siminkunata allinta waqaychasun, ama pichus iñiymanta t’aqakusqakunapa llullachiq rurayninkunawan qellichasqa kananchikpaq. Paykunapa espiritunta hinaspa kallpachayninta hark’ananchikmi kikin armaswan, imatachus Yachachiqninchik tutayaypa kamachiqninpa maqasqan kachkaptin llamk’achirqanwan,—‘Qelqasqanmi kachkan.’ Diospa siminta allinta, yachaywan llamk’achiyta yachakunanchikmi. Kamachikuyqa kaymi: ‘Tukuy kallpawan yachakuy, Diospa ñawpaqenpi chaninchasqa rikuchikunkiqpaq, mana p’enqaypaq llamk’aq hina, cheqaq simita allin t’aqwispa.’ Llulla yachachiqkunapa hinaspa pantachiqkunapa muyuysapa pantasqankuta tinkunapaqqa tukuy sonqowan llamk’ay, ch’ama mañakuy hinaspa iñiy kananmi; imaraykuchus ‘qhepa p’unchaykunapi sasachakuy p’unchaykuna hamunqaku. Runakunaqa kikinkuta munakuqmi kanqaku, qullqita munaq, hatunchakuq, hatun sonqo, Diosta rimachikuq, tayta-mamankuta mana kasukuq, mana añaykuq, mana santu, mana munakuyniyoq, allinrimanakuyta p’akikuq, llullakuq tumpaq, mana atiy atikuyta atispa, phiñasqa, allinkaqkunata cheqnikuq, wasanchakuq, utqay sonqoyoq, hatun yuyayniyoq, kusikuykunata Diosta munaymanta aswan munaq; diosman yupaychay rikch’ayninta hap’ispa, ichaqa kallpanta ñeq’espa: chay hina runakunamanta karunchakuy.’ Kay simikuna rikuchin imayna runakunatachus Diospa kamachinkuna tinkunanku. ‘Llullakuq tumpaqkuna,’ ‘allinkaqkunata cheqnikuqkuna’ maqanqaku kay millay pacha ukhupi Diosninkuman cheqaq kasqakunata. Ichaqa Hanaq Pacha Qhapaqpa kachaqninqa Yachachiqpi rikuchisqa espirituta rikuchinanmi. Humildadwan hinaspa munakuywanmi runakunapa qespichisqa kayninkupaq llamk’anan.”
“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.
“Pabloqa Diospa rurayninta hark’aqkunamanta parlallantaqmi, paykunata ñawpa Israel pacha iñiqkunapa contranpi maqanakusqaku runakunawan tupachispa. Nispanmi: ‘Imaynachus Janeswan Jambreswan Moisesta sayarqanku, chayhinataq kaykunaqa cheqaq kayta hark’anku; yuyayninku q’elliq runakuna, iñiy nisqapi mana allinchasqa. Ichaqa manañam aswan ñawpaqman rinqankuchu; imaraykuchus pantasqanku llapa runakunapaq rikuchisqam kanqa, imaynachus paykunapapis karqa chayhina.’ Yachanchikmi hamusqan pacha kachkan, Diospa contranpi maqanakuyqa mana yuyaysapa kasqanta rikuchisqa kanqa. Chayrayku tranquilu pacienciawan, confiakuywan suyakuyta atinchik, maychika millay rimarisqa, pisipasqa kaptinchikpas; imaraykuchus ‘mana ima pakasqapas kanchu mana rikuchisqa kananpaq,’ hinaspa Diosta yupaychaqkunaqa paymanta yupaychasqa kanqaku runakunapa angelkunapa ñawpaqenpi. Reformadorkunapa ñak’ariyninkupi kuska kananpaqmi qayasqanchik. Qelqasqam kachkan: ‘Qanta k’amispa rimariqkunapa k’amiykunaqa ñoqaman urmamurqa.’ Cristoqa llakiyninchikta allinta entienden. Mana mayqenninchikpas sapallan cruzta apanampaq qayasqachu. Calvariopi Ñak’ariq Runaqa ñak’ariyninchikwan sonqonpi llakikun, hinaspa pay tentasqa kaspa ñak’arirqanrayku, atinqataqmi yanapayta payrayku llakipi hinaspa pruebapi kaqkunata. ‘Arí, Cristo Jesuspi Diosman hina kawsayta munaq llapa runakunan qatiykachasqa kanqaku. Ichaqa mana allin runakuna hinaspa pantachiqkunaqa aswan aswan mana allinman rinqaku, pantachispanku hinaspa kikinkupas pantasqa kaspanku. Qanqa yachasqaykikunapi takyasqa qhipariy.’ Review and Herald, January 10, 1888.”