We are addressing six lines of prophetic controversy that have occurred within the history of Adventism from 1798 until the present day.
Suwakuyku soqta sutinchasqa willakuykuna proféticopi churanakuykunamanta, Adventismopa historiapi rikurisqankumanta 1798 watamanta kunan p’unchaykama.
“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.
“Historiawanpi, profecíawanpi ima Diospa Simin sut’inchan cheqaq kaywan pantay yachachiywan unay pacha mana tukukuq tinkunakuyninta. Chay tinkunakuyqa kunankamaqa rikurishanraqmi. Ima kaqkuna ñawpaqpi karqan, wakmanta kutimunqaku. Machu rimanakuykuna kawsarichisqa kanqaku, musuq yachachiykunataq sapa kuti paqarimunqaku. Ichaqa Diospa llaqtan, iñiyninkupi hinallataq profecíapa hunt’akuyninpi rurayninkupi huk rakin kaspa ñawpaq, iskay kaq, kinsa kaq angelkunapa willakuyninkunata willarasqankurayku, yachanku maypin sayashankuta. Paykunaqa huk kawsasqa yachayniyuqmi allin quri mantapas aswan chanin. Rumi hinata sinchita sayanankum, qallariyninpi hap’isqanku atinisqankuta tukukuykama mana kuyuchispa hap’iqaspa.” Selected Messages, libro 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.
Ñawpaq qillqasqa artículoqa rimarqan Roma atiyniqmanta ñawpaq kaq ch’iqninakuyta, hinallataq qhipa kaq ch’iqninakuytapas, kunanqa hap’isun Uriah Smithwan James Whitewan ukhupi rikusqa ch’iqninakuyta. Uriah Smithqa kinsa chunka suqtañiqin versículopi paypa kikin “sapallan riqsichisqan yuyaychakuy” nisqanta churakurqan.
“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.
“VERSO 36. Hinallataq reymi munasqanman hina rurangqa; hinaspataq pay kikinmi hatunchakungqa, hinaspataq llapa dioskunamanta aswan hatun tukungqa, Dioskunap Diosninpa contranpi admiraypaq simikunata rimangqa, hinaspataq allinta lluqsinqa phiñakuypa hunt’akusqan kama; imaraykuchus chay kamasqa kaqmi ruwasqa kanqa.
“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.
“Kaypi rikuchisqa qhapaqqa manam qhepa qhawarisqa chay kikillan atiyniyuqta niyta atinchu; chayqa papal atiyniyuqmi; imaraykuchus kay sut’inchaykunaqa mana allinchu kanman chay atiyniyuqman churaptinqa.” 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.
Smithqa reqsirqanmi, ñawpaq versículopi atiyqa “papal Roma” kasqanta, ichaqa ninqanmi versículo treinta y seispa rasgokuna mana proféticokuna kasqanta, papal Romata reqsinapaq. Chay nisqanqa llullaqmi. Yuyarinapaqmi, 1863 watapi hatarikuypi, Levítico qelqapa iskay chunka suqtayuq capitulonpi qanchis kutikunaqa hukman churaskasqa karqan, chayraykutaq Habacucpa iskay tablankunapi qanchis kutikunapa rikch’ayninqa chinkachisqa karqan. 1843 chartapas 1850 chartapas qanchis kutikunata chartakunaq chawpinpi reqsichinku, iskaynintaq churasqanku cruzta qanchis kutikunaq siq’inpa chawpinpi. Qanchis kutikunamanta musuq k’anchay 1856 watapi chayamuqtin, hinaspa qhipamanta chinkachisqa kaqtin, chayqa Habacucpa iskay tablankunata chinkachiyta señalarqan, hinallataq Profecía Espírituq autoridadninta, may sut’ita reqsichiqta, iskaynin chartakuna Diospa kamachisqan kasqanta.
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.
Pani White nisqanman hina, Satanaspa qhepa llullakuyinqa Diospa Espiritunpa testimoniunta mana allinman churananmi; kaypitaqa ñawpaq llullakuyqa Diospa Espiritunpa testimoniunta mana allinman churanan karqa, chaypas iskaynin chartakunapi cimientopi churashqa cheqaq yachachikuykunata kuskallata qhesachananta rikuchirqan, astawan sut’itaq qanchis kuti nisqata.
At the rebellion of 1863, it was none other than Uriah Smith that produced the 1863 counterfeit chart, which removed the line of the seven times. By 1863 Uriah Smith had closed his eyes to the light of the seven times, and was unable to see that there are two “indignations” which Daniel identifies. The two indignations represent the seven times against the northern kingdom of Israel, and the southern kingdom of Judah. The first against the ten northern tribes began in 723 BC and ended in 1798, and the second began in 677 BC and ended in 1844.
1863 watapi hatarirqakuypiqa, Uriah Smithmi 1863 watapi llulla qillqa tablat rurasqa, chaymi qanchis kutiq línianta hurqukurqa. 1863 watakamaqa Uriah Smithqa qanchis kutiq k’anchayninman ñawinta wichqarusqaña karqa, hinaspataq Danielpa reqsisqan iskay “phiñakuyninkuna” kasqanta mana rikuyta atirqachu. Chay iskay phiñakuyninkunaqa qanchis kuti Israelpa hanaq allpa reino nisqapa contranpi, hinallataq Judápa uray allpa reino nisqapa contranpi kasqanta sut’ichanku. Ñawpaq kaqqa chunka hanaq ayllukunapa contranmi karqa, 723 BC watapi qallarispa 1798 watapi tukukusqa; iskay kaqtaq 677 BC watapi qallarispa 1844 watapi tukukusqa.
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.
Gabrielqa Danielmanman hamuq pusaq capítulopeqa hamurqan marah ricuyta sut’inchananpaq, hinaspan llamk’ayninwan tinkuchispa, 1844 watapaq iskay kaq testigota qorqan. Danielpa pusaq capítulope kashqan iskay waranqa kimsa pachak watakunaqa 1844 watapi tukukapurqan, chayllataqmi hanaq llaqtapa hurasqanmanta uray llaqtapa hurasqanmantawan iskay indignaciónkunamanta qhepa kaqninqa tukukapurqan.
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.
Hinaspan nirqan: Qaway, yachachisqayki imam kanqa piñakuypa qhepa tukukuyninpi; imaraykuchus churasqa pachapi tukukuynin kanqa. Daniel 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.
Qhipa tukukuynin ñawpaq tukukuyninta reqsichin. Iskay phiñakuykunamanta qhipa kaq, mayqinchus qanchis kuti nisqapa huknin rimayllañam, 1844 watapi tukurqan, ñawpaq phiñakuynataq 1798 watapi tukurqan. Chay versículo, mayqintachus Smith nisqa mana papal atiypaq ima nisqakunañapas kanchu, sut’ita reqsichirqan ima watapichus papakuna wañuyman apaq k’irita chaskinqaku.
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.
Hinaspa reyqa munayninman hina ruwanga; hinaspa payqa huch’uychasqa kanmanmi, sapallan hatunchakunga tukuy dioskunamanta aswan hanaqpi, hinaspa Dioskunapa Diosninpa contranpi musphaytaq rimaykunata rimanga, hinaspa phiñasqa hunt’akunankama allinllam purinqa; imaraykuchus chay kamasqa kaqqa rurasqañam kanqa. Daniel 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.
«Rey» nisqa, kimsa chunka suqtaq versículopi, «piñasqa kasqa tukukuyninkama allinta purinqa». Qhawariy ima nisqanta Smith Daniel qanchis pusaqniyuq capítuloq iskay chunka kimsayuq, iskay chunka tawayuq versículokunamanta, chay kikin libropi, maypichus nin papal atiyniyuq mana allin atributokunata hap’inchu versículo kimsa chunka suqtata hunt’ananpaq.
“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.
“VERSÍCULO 23. Hinallataq paykunapa qhapaq suyunkupa qhipa p’unchayninpi, huchallikuqkuna hunt’asqa kaptinqa, huk sinchi uya rikch’ayninnaq rey, sasa rimaykunata entienden, sayarinqa. 24. Hinaspan kallpanqa ancha hatun kanqa, ichaqa mana kikinpa kallpanwanchu: musphayhina thuñichinqa, allin lluqsinqa, rurayninkunatapas ruwaspa, kallpasapa runakunata, ch’uyanchasqa llaqtatapas thuñichinqa. 25. Yachayllawanpas llullakuyta makinpi allin lluqsinanpaq ruwachinqa: sonqonpin kikinmanta hatunchakunaykama wiñanqa, hawka kaywanmi achkakunata chinkachinqa: qhapaqkunapa Qhapaqnintapas contra sayarinqa; ichaqa mana runapa makiwanchu p’akichisqa kanqa.
“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.
“Kay atiyqa atipan chay chusku rakikuna cabraq qhapaqsuyunmanta qhepanpi paykunaq qhapaqsuyunpa qhipa pacha, chayqa, puriyninkupa tukukuyninman qayllapi. Chayqa, mana iskayrayaspa, kikinmi versículo 9-pi nisqa huchuy waqra, hinallataq qhepan versículokunapi. Roma-man churay, imaynachus versículo 9-manta willakuykunapi qhawachisqa, hinaspa llapantapas sumaqta tinkun hinaspa sut’ita rikurin.”
“‘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.
“‘Huk sinchi uya-uyayniyuq qhapaq.’ Moisesqa, kay kikin atiyninmanta judiokunaman hamuq castigasqanta willakuspan, sutichan ‘huk sinchi uya-uyayniyuq nación’-nispa. Deut. 28:49, 50. Manam mayqan llaqtapas Romanokunamanta aswan manchay rikch’akuqchu karqa maqanakuy churakuyninkupi. ‘Sasa rimaykunata entiendiq.’ Moisesqa, chayraq willasqa qhelqapi, nin: ‘Simiynintaqa manam entiendinkichu.’ Kaytaqa manam Babiloniokunamanta, Persiakunamanta, ni Griegokunamantapas judiokunapaq nisqachu kayman hina; imaraykuchus caldeo simiwan griego simiwanqa Palestina llaqtapi hukman hukman hinaqa rimasqa karqa. Latin simiwanqa ichaqa mana chaynachu karqa.”
“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.
“Mana huch’achakuqkuna hunt’akapunankukama.” Tukuy tiempu, Diospa llaqtanwan paykunata ñak’arichiqkunaq chawpinpi kasqan tinkuyqa qhawasqalla kachkan. Llaqtanpa huch’ankuraykunamantaqmi paykunaqa prësu kayman rantisqa karqanku. Huchapi sapa kuti qhipakuyñinkutataq aswan sinch’i muchuyman apamurqa. Mana hayk’aqpas judiokunaqa, huk llaqta hina, Roma runakunaq kamachikuyninman yaykusqanku p’unchaykunapi hinaqa, aswan millay kawsayniyoqchu karqanku.
“‘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.
“‘Atipaq, ichaqa manan kikin atiyninwanchu.’ Romanokunapa allin lloqsisqankuqa aswanmi karqa yanapaq masinkunapa yanapayninrayku, hinaspa awqankunapa chawpichakusqankurayku, chaykunatam paykunaqa sapa kuti listollaña karqaku allinpaq hap’ipaykuyta. Papal Roma pas atipaqmi karqa kay pachapi atiyniyuq kamachiqkunawan, paykunam hawanmanta kamachiyta ruwayninta espiritu kamachiywan apaq.
“‘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.
“‘Payqa admirakuyta tukuchinqa.’ Señorqa profeta Ezequiel nisqanwan judío runakunata willarqan paykunata “tukuchiypi yachaq runakunaman” entregananta; hinaspa Jerusalén llaqta romana ejércitoq makinkunawan tukuchisqa kaptin, hunu pachak waranqa judío runakuna wañuchisqa kayqa profetaq siminkunata manchaytaq takyachiq chiqapchasqan karqan. Hinallataq Romaqa iskay kaq, ichaq papal nisqa pacha-ninpi, pichqa chunka waranqa waranqa mártir runakuna wañusqanpaq huchayuq karqan.”
“‘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.
“‘Hina llullakuyninwanpas maquimpi engañokuyta allinta wiñachinqa.’ Romaqa llapa huk atiyniyoqkunamanta aswan sut’ichasqa karqa engañokuy yuyaywan, chaymanta nacionkunata kamachikuynin uraman apamurqa. Kayqa cheqaqmi iskayninpaqpas: pagano Romaqpaqpas, papal Romaqpaqpas. Chayraykun hawka kaywan achkakunata chinkachirqa.”
“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.
“Hinallataq Roma, huk kamachiqninkunapa runanpi, sayarirqan reykunapa Reyninpa contra, Jesucristo contra wañuchiy kamachita qospan. ‘Ichaqa maki mana kasqanwan p’akichisqa kanqa,’ nisqa rimaymi kay atiyniyuqpa chinkayninta reqsichin, iskay kaq capitulopi estatuata maqasqa kasqanwan tupachispa.” 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.
Smithqa, iskay kuti pasajepi, reqsichinmi sasachakuy willakuykunapi pagano Romapa papal Romapa ima kasqanpas hukllaña tikrasqa kananpaq, imaraykuchus chaykunaqa Roma llaqtapa iskay pacha kasqanmanta rikuchisqanlla kanku; hinallataq Daniel libro iskay ñiqin capítulo ukhupi fierrowan t’uru chaqrusqa kasqan hina, chayta Sister White reqsichin iglesiapa kamachikuyninwan estadopa kamachikuyninpa unanchaqnin kasqanta. Danielqa, Smithpa rimashan versículokunapi, Romaq “allinta qispispa ruwasqanta”, hinaspa Romaq “engaño nisqa allinta makimpi wiñachisqanta” reqsichiptin, Smithqa ninmi verso kinsa chunka suqtañiqinpi “rey” nisqaqa, mayqan “allinta qispinqa phiñakuypa hunt’akusqan kama,” pagano Romapas papal Romapas iskayninpaq huk willakuy ricch’ayta reqsichisqanta. Chaymantataq ninmi verso kinsa chunka suqtañiqinpi Romaq ima ricch’ayninpas mana papal atiyninmanta rimanchu.
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.
Ñoqaykuqa Smith-ta rimarisqayku Roma llaqta hina rikch’akusqanmanta yanapachinapaq, paykunaqa suwa runakuna kasqankuta, chaykunaq visionta sayarichiqkuna kasqankuta sut’inchanapaq; chunka tawañiqiyuq chay versículopi tawa profético característicakunamanta hukninmi kan: Romaqa kikinkunata hatunchakunku.
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.
Chay p'unchaykunapin achkakuna hatarinqaku uray llaqtapa reyninpa contra; hinallataq llaqtaykimanta waqllaq runakunapas hatarinqaku rikuchisqa musquyta sayachinankupaq; ichaqa urmanqaku. Daniel 11:14.
Smith claims that the specifications of the king in verse thirty-six do not align with the papal power, though he earlier defended that it was Rome in verse fourteen that exalts itself. Yet the king in verse thirty-six “shall exalt himself.” That very same king in verse thirty-six would “speak marvelous things against the God of gods.” In Daniel the papal power “shall speak great words against the Most High,” and in the book of Revelation the papal power blasphemes against the Most High.
Smith nisqan ninmi, kimsa chunka suqta qillqapi reyta sut’inchasqan nisqakuna manam papal atiyninwan tupanchu, ichaqa ñawpaqpi hark’asqanmi chunka tawa qillqapi Roma kasqanta, pay kikinta hatarichisqanta. Chaywanpas kimsa chunka suqta qillqapi reyqa “kikinmanta hatuncharikunqa.” Chay kikin reylla kimsa chunka suqta qillqapipis “dioskunapa Diosninpa contranpi musphachikuq rimaykunata rimarinqa.” Danielpi papal atiyninqa “Ancha Hananpi Kaqpa contranpi hatun simikunata rimarinqa,” hinallataq Apocalipsis libro pipis papal atiyninqa Ancha Hananpi Kaqpa contranpi diospa sutinta millaychachin.
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.
Hinaspam simita qosqaku karqan hatun nisqakunata, hinaspa Diosta k’amisqakunata rimananpaq; hinaspam atiy qosqaku karqan tawa chunka iskay killa pacha chaypi qhipakunanpaq. Hinaspam siminta kicharirqan Diosta k’aminanpaq, sutinta k’aminanpaq, tabernáculonta k’aminanpaq, hinaspa hanaq pachaqpi tiyakuqkunatapas. Apocalipsis 13:5, 6.
Every prophetic specification of the papal power is identified in verse thirty-six.
Tawaq profétic nisqakunaqa, papal atiyninmanta imayna sut’inchasqa kasqanpas, kinsa chunka suqtañiqi versículopi reqsichisqa kachkan.
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.
Qhapaqmi munasqanman hina ruwanka; hinaspa pay kikinmi hatunchakunka, llapa dioskunamanta aswan wichayman hatarichikunkataq, hinaspa dioskunapa Diosninpa contranpi musphayllapa rimaykunata rimanka, piñakuynin hunt’akunan kama allinllata purinqa; imaraykuchus chay nisqa kamachisqaqa hunt’akunqapuni. Daniel 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.
Runakuna yuyaychakuqkunaqa achka kuti mana atinapaqmi confiakuyta, ichaqa achka Adventista yuyaychakuqkunaqa rikuchinku sut’i chiqaq kayta: chayqa karqan kimsa chunka suqtañiqin versículo, maymantachus apóstol Pabloqa 2 Tesalonicensesmanta paraphraseaspa rimarqan huchapaq runamanta.
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.
Ama pipas ama qankunata llullachichunchu ima ñanwanpas; chay p’unchayqa mana hamunqachu, ñawpaqta huk hatun sapaqchakuy mana chayamuspa, hinaspa hucha runa rikuchisqa mana kaspa, chinkaypa churin; paymi tukuy Dios sutichasqa kaqpa, utaq yupaychasqa kaqpa hawanman sayarispan hinaspa pay kikinta hatunchaspa; chayhinaqa, payqa Dios hina Diospa templonpi tiyaykun, kikinta Dios kasqanta rikuchispa. 2 Tesalonicenses 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.
Kimsa chunka suqtañiqin chiqan riman: “payqa ancha hatunchakuspa, sapa dioskunamanta aswan hatun tukonqa”; hinaspa Pablo nin: “huchayoq runaqa rikuchisqa kanan, chinkachiypa churin; Dios sutiyoq llapa imapaqpas, utaq yupaychasqa llapa imapaqpas, sayarikuspa hinaspa hakuqlla hatunchakuspa paykunamanta aswan hatun tukusqa.” Sut’itaqmi Smith mana ima profético atiyniyoqchu karqan, chunka suqtañiqin chiqanpi rey nisqaqa, chunka suqtañiqinman chayaq ñawpaq chiqankunapi rimakusqa reymanta huk karqan nispa ninanpaq. Gramática nisqapiqa mana ima chaninchasqan karqanchu pantasqa churayninta ruwanampaq; hinaspa paypa nayninqa, chunka suqtañiqinpi papaq atiyninpa mana ima característicankuna kasqanrayku chayta ruwarqani nisqantaq, Escritura-ta qewiy kasqan karqan, sapallanpa sut’i yuyaychakuyta sayachinampaq.
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.
Noqaykuqa aswan allin takyachisqa profecíapa simita kapuniku; chayman yuyaychaykuspaykichik allinta rurankichik, tutayasqa maypipas achki hina k’anchariqman hina, p’unchay paqariqkama, ch’aska qhispiq p’unchaypa sonqoykichikpi sayariqkama: Kayta ñawpaqta yachaspa, Qelqasqa Simipi ima profecías mana pipa sapallan yuyayninmanta sut’inchasqachu. Profecíapas mana runapa munayninmanta ñawpaq p’unchawkunapi hamurqanchu; aswanqa Diospa ch’uya runankuna rimarqanku Espíritu Santopa apasqan kaspa. 2 Pedro 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.
Laodicea nisqapi Adventista watakunapi achka Adventista teólogo-kuna, pastor-kuna, qillqaq-kunapas rimarqanku Smithpa churaynin allinchu mana allinchu nispa. Australia llaqtamanta huk pastor, Louis Were sutiyuq, ñawpaqpiña wañusqa, ministerionpa aswan hatun rakinta Smithpa llulla profético nisqa modelo contra sayarispan spendirqan. Chay contra sayariyninpa imayninqa manam sapallanchu Smith qhepa qhepaman chayan qhapaqta tawa chunka pichqayuq versiculopi Turquía nispa reqsisqanrayku, aswanpas Smithpa plataforma nisqan Armagedónpa mana allin churaynintapas paqarichirqan. 1980 watakunapi ichapas chay pacha-pi, huk Adventista qillqaq huk librota qillqarqan kay sutiyuq: Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Qillqaqpa sutinqa Donald Mansellmi, chay libroqa kunankamapas tarikunraqmi.
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.
Mansellqa huk ñiqin Pacha Ch’iqanakuyman, iskay ñiqin Pacha Ch’iqanakuyman ima ñawpaqman hamuq willakuyta qatiparqan, hinaspa rikuchin imayna iskaynin chay ch’iqanakuykuna qayllayamushaspa qhawasqa kaptin Adventista evanhelistakuna qallarisqanku Smithpa pantasqa churayninta llamk’achiyta, maypichus Turquíapa chiqap Jerusalénman purisqan Armagedónpa señalan hina, hinallataq kay pachapa tukukuyninpa señalan hina yuyasqa karqan. Payqa iglesiapi miembrokunaq qillqasqan rollokunawan rikuchin imayna sapa ch’iqanakuy qayllayamushaptin achka almaskuna Adventista iglesiapa miembro kayninman pusasqa karqanku, evanhelistakunaq proféticota ñit’isqanrayku, Smithpa Armagedónmanta pantasqa qhawariyninmanta horqosqa.
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.
Mayqin guerra tukukuptinpas, hinaspa pantasqa willakuykuna mana hunt’akuptin, iglesiaqa Smithpa ruwasqan proféticopa modelonmanta aypasqan runakunamanta aswan achka runakunatan chinkachirqan.
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.
Milleritakunaq hatun qallariy willakuyninta Smith qhispichisqanrayku, hinaspa Danielpa kimsa chunka suqtayuqmanta tawa chunka pichqayuqkama qillqasqa versículokunamanta sapallanpa yuyayninman hina qhawarisqanta wiñachiyta munasqanrayku, Smithpa yuyaychayninqa kunan p’unchaw ruwaykuna patapi sayasqa huk profétik modelo-ta paqarichirqan.
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.”
Daniel chunka huk ñiqin t’aqapi tukuyninman chayamun rey-manta Smithwan James Whitewan rimanakusqankupi, James Whiteqa huk yuyayman hina qhawarichirqan, chaymi pisilla simipi Smithpa profétic saphin t’iqsinnaq kasqanta rikuchirqan. Whiteqa yachachirqan: “profecíaqa historiata paqarichin, ichaqa historiaqa manam profecíata paqarichinchu.”
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.
Adventismomanta allin willakuqkuna, iskaynin hatun awqanakuykunamanta ñawpaqta llamk’aqkuna, wiñachkaq historiata llamk’achirqanku Smithpa pantasqa profetik modelonta Armagedonmanta qhawachinankupaq; hinaspa paykunapa rurasqanku, awqanakuykunaman qayllaykuchkaptin ancha bendecisqas hina rikurisqa kaq, qhipaman suyupta qichusqa hina tukurqan, profetik modeloqa sapaq interpretaciónmanta sayarisqa kasqanmanta sut’ichasqa kaptin.
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.
Llullaq willakuy qollqeyoqkunamanta allinta waqaychakuychik; paykunaqa ovejapa p’achallanpi qankunaman hamunku, ichaqa ukhupinqa mikhunayasqa atoqkuna kanku. Rurayninkuwanmi reqsinkichik. ¿Kachun runakuna kiskamanta uvasta pallankuchu, icha cardomanta higos-ta? Chay hinallataqmi llapa allin sach’a allin ruruta apamun; ichaqa millay sach’a mana allin rurutan apamun. Allin sach’aqa mana atinqachu mana allin ruruta apamuyta, nitaq millay sach’aqa atinqachu allin ruruta apamuyta. Sapa sach’a mana allin ruruta apamuqqa kuchusqa kan, hinataq ninaman wikch’usqa. Chayraykun rurayninkuwan reqsinkichik. Mateo 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.
Smithpa munayninta, kimsa chunka suqta versículopi reypa sapaq profétiko rikchayninta wiñachinapaq, chaymi puqunman aparqa soqta plágapa hinaspa Armagedónpa mana allin churananta pas.
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.
Hinaspa soqta kaq angelmi copanta hatun Éufrates mayuman tallirqan; chay mayupaq yakuynintaq chaquirichisqa karqan, inti lloqsimuy lawmanta reynikuna hamunankupaq ñan allichasqa kananpaq. Hinaptinmi rikurirqani kimsa qhelli supaykunata sapokuna hina, dragónpa siminmanta lluqsimuqta, animalpa siminmantapas, llulla willakuq profetapa siminmantapas. Paykunaqa supaykunapa espiritunkunami, milagrokunata ruwaspa, kay pachapa reyninkunaman, hinallataq llapa kay pachapi kaqkunamanpas rinqaku, llapa-atipaq Diospa hatun p’unchayninpi maqanakuyman huñunankupaq. Qhawariy, suwa hina hamuni. Kusisqa kachun mayqinchus rikch’arispa qhawaspa kachkan, p’achankunatapas waqaychaspa, ama q’ala purinanpaq, penqakuynintapas ama rikunankupaq. Hinaqtinmi payqa paykunata huñurqan hebreo simipi Armagedón sutiyuq cheqaman. Apocalipsis 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.”
Ñawpaqpiña rikuchisqayku hina, soqta kaq plagaqa runakunapa probacionnin tukukuyninmanta qhipaman hamun; chayrayku, “p’achaykikunata waqaychaychis” nispa willakuyqa huk pruebayuq asuntoymanmi tupan, chaymi ñawpaqta pasan Michael hatarimunanmanta, runakunapa probacionnin tukukunanmanta, hinaspa ñawpaq kaq plaga qallarinanmanta. Soqta kaq plagaqa dragónpa, bestiapa, hinaspa llulla profetapa rurayninkunatam reqsichin, paykunam kinsantin hukllaypi huñunakunku utqaylla hamuq domingo kamachiypi. Chay kinsa-hukllayqa Kunan Pacha Roma-mi; Kunan Pacha Romapa chay kinsa-hukllayta reqsichiq hinaspa takyachiq unanchanqa “llaqtaykipa suwa runankuna”mi, paykunam “musyayninta takyachinankupaq hatarinkunku” hinaspa “urmaykunku.”
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.
Soqta onqoyta yachasqa kaptin, soqta ñak’ariypa waqyaynin huk almaq p’achankunata waqaychananpaq atichin; ichaqa mana chaskisqa kaptinqa, huk almata q’ala qhipachin, chaymi Laodicea runapa phichqa kayninkunamanta huknin. Chay waqyayta sayachiq unanchaqa llaqtaykipa suwak runankunam, paykuna kikinkuta hatunchakunku hinaspa qhipaman urmaykunku. Salomón nirqan: Diospa llaqtan mana chay rikuyniyoq kaptinqa, chinkapunqaku.
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. Proverbs 29:18.
Maypichus mana rikch’aynin kaqtin, runakuna chinkapunmi; ichaqa leyta waqaychaqqa kusisqanmi. Proverbios 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.
Hebreo simipi “pirdiy” ninqa nin “q’alallaqta ruwanam” niyta munan, hinaspa Juan qillqarqan: “Kusisqa kachun mayqanpas rikch’arispa qhawan, p’achankunatapas waqaychan, ama q’ala purinampaq, hinaspa p’enqakuyninta rikunankupaq” nispa. Smithqa pantarqan Norte rey nisqapi, chay llulla profétiko cimientonmi saqerqan payta huk profétiko aplicación nisqata wiñachinampaq; chayta chaskisqaqa q’alallayta rurachin, chaymi Laodicea runakunapa unanchaqninku, paykunaqa Señorpa siminmanta wijch’usqa kanku.
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:
Smithqa mana sasachakuychu machaq llulla reqsichisqanta “Norte Rey” nisqamanta, profetisapa warmi Ellen Whitepa qosan James Whitepa contranpi, rimarinanpaq. Adventista historiador-kuna, chaymanta Sister Whitepas, paykunaq reqsisqa ch’iqninakusqankuta rimarinku. Ellen Whiteqa qosan James White-tawan Smith-tawan sinchita qayapayarqan, Daniel chunka hukniyuqpi “norte rey” nisqapi pitaq rikuchisqa kasqanmantam paykunaq huk yuyayniyuq kasqanku llaqtapa ñawpaqman churachikusqanrayku. Hatun llakikuy 1844 qhipa ñawpaq Adventista qillqasqapi, James Whiteqa qelqarqan:
“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.
“Jesusqa hatariykuspa, punkuta wichq’arqan, ñawpaq p’unchaykunamanta Kaqman hamurqan, qhapaqsuyunta chaskinanpaq, 1844 watapi qanchis kaq killapi, chayta llapan sonqoywan creenim. Qhawariy Lucas 13:25; Mateo 25:10; Daniel 7:13,14. Ichaqa Miguelpa sayariynin, Daniel 12:1, huk ruway kasqanta rikuchkan, huk chaypaq. 1844 watapi hatariyninqa karqan punkuta wichq’ananpaq, Taytaman hamunanpaq, qhapaqsuyunta chaskinanpaq, hinallataq kamachiy atiyta reynanpaq chaskinanpaq; ichaqa Miguelpa sayariyninqa, ñan paypa kapuq qhapaq kamachiy atiyta rikuchinapaqmi, mana allinkunata chinkachispa, runankunata qispichispataq. Miguelqa sayarinan tiyan chay pachapi, maypachachus 11 kaq capitulopi qhepa atiyniyuq tukukuyninman chayan, mana pipas yanapananpaq kaptin. Kay atiyniyuqmi qhepa kaq, Diospa cheqaq iglesianta saruchaq: cheqaq iglesiaqa kunankamapas sarusqa kachkan, tukuy cristiandadmanta qarqosqataq kachkanrayku, chaymanta qispin qhepa ñak’arichiq atiyniyuqqa manaraqmi ‘tukukuyninman hamusqa’; Miguelpas manaraqmi sayarisqa. Kay qhepa atiyniyuq, santo runakunata saruchaq, rikuchisqa kachkan Apocalipsis 13:11-18pi. Yupayninqa 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.
Imaynatataq Smith “musuq k’anchaynin” nisqanta qallarichispa “Daniel qhapaq chunka hukniyuq capítulo-pi qhipa atiyninmanta” rimarisqa kaqta, James Whiteqa Smithpa chay yuyayninta mana musuq k’anchay hina rikarqachu, aswanpas sayarichisqa cimientokunapa contranpi maqanakuy hina. Daniel chunka hukniyuqpi Roma llaqtapa norte lawpa rey hinakasqanmanta Uriah Smithwan James Whitewan chawpipi karqan chay qillqanakuyqa sapaq rasgokunayoqmi; chaykunataqa, profecía yachaqkuna hina, Adventista historiapi huk qillqanakuykunawan tantachinanchik tiyan, Roma yupaychana unanchanmanta rimarisqakunawan.
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.
Chay hinallataq kaymanta hukninmi sapaq yuyaymanta riqsichiyta yaykuchisqan. Huktawan hinallataq, chay sapaq yuyaymanta riqsichiyta churayqa sasa lliw simi kamachiypa qichusqanwanmi mañakun, imaraykuchus Smithqa manam qhawarqanchu kimsa chunka suqta-yuq versículopi llapa profético kayninkuna Romaman rimashasqanta, aswanpas manam qhawarqanchu simi kamachiypa sayaynin mañakusqanta chay kimsa chunka suqta-yuq versículopi reypas ñawpaq pasajepi rikuchisqa kaq reywan kikin kananpaq.
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.”
Hukninqaqqa, sapallan hamut’asqanmanta qillqasqa yuyayqa sayarichisqa chiqaqkunata qichusqa kasqanmi. Hukninqa, chayqa Profecíapa Espíritu nisqap atiyninta mana chaskisqanta rikuchin. Huknintaq, Roma-manta ñawpaq pantasqa yuyayqa chayayta apamun, profétiko nisqa rikch’ayman, mayqen runapas mana saqepayta atinchu p’achankunata, runakunaq probación nisqan tukukuyninman asuykuspa. Huknintaq, sapallan hamut’asqanta llaqtapaq ñawpaqman wiñachiyta munasqanmi. Hukninqa, sapallan hamut’asqa qillqasqa yuyayqa mana pantaspa musuq k’anchay nisqawan reqsisqa kasqanmi. Kay llapan kayninchikqa kunan p’unchay rimaypi “llaqtaykikunaq suwaqkuna” nisqapi rikuchisqa kachkan.
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.
Roma llaqtapa qhepa controversian, ñawpaq controversianwan rikch’akusqa kaqta—“llaqtaykimanta suwa runakuna” nisqawan reqsichisqa kaqta—Uriah Smithpa hinaspa James Whitepa controversiankupa profétiko siqiwan huñusqaqtinchik, huk clase runakunaqa profecíankupa modelo-ninta sapallan yuyayman hina ruwasqankuta rikusun, chaymi cimientospi kaq chiqaqta qhesachan.
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.
Allin sayaq cheqaqkunata mana chaskiyqa kikillanmanta sut’inchan Profecía Espíritu-pa atiniyninta mana chaskisqanta, chaymi allinta sinchita hark’an chay sayaq cheqaqkunata. Chay laya runakunapas munasqallataqmi rikch’ayninkuta llapaqpa ñawpaqenpi rikuchiyta, mana imatapas yupaychaspa ima llakikuykunachus hatarinqa yachachiyqa ima ruwaytapas Diospa llaqtanman kay pachapi llapa muyuriqninpi.
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.
1844 watapi qhipamanlla, Adventismo nisqapa ñawpaq mirayninpi, Roma-manta huk ch’aqway wakmanta yaykuchisqa karqa. Chay ch’aqwayqa qhatiykachasqalla karqa, Adventismo nisqapa kinsa kaq mirayninpi llulla qhawariy chaskisqa kanankama. Kunanqa “sapa p’unchaw” nisqamanta ch’aqwayta suqta siq’ikunamanta tawa kaq hina qhawarisun, kunan pacha siqi hawan siqi yachachiypa rikchayninpi qhawarisqanchikman hina.
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.”
Ichaqa Romaq rimanakuykunapa tawa kaq siqinta hap’iqtinchik manaraq, yuyarinapaqmi kashan ñawpaq qillqapi, Daniel qillqapa chunka hukniyuq kaq capítulo chunka kaq versiculonta rimashaspa, kaynata nisqanchikta: “Chunka kaq versiculopas chiqanta tinkuchin Levitico iskay chunka suqtaqpi ‘qanchis kutita’ pakasqa historiaman, ichaqa chay cheqaq kayninqa manam kaypi rikuchishanchik ukhunchu kashan.”
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.
Uriah Smithqa 1863 watapi pusaq karqan qanchis kuti nisqanta mana chaskispa. Payqa chay yachay yapasqanta chay yuyaymanta mana chaskirqachu, Hiram Edson qillqasqan, chay yuyaymanta artikulokunapi rikuchisqa, hinaspa 1856 watapi Reviewpi rikhurichisqa. Smithpa huk kuyuywan kuska kasqanpa allinman churasqan, mayqanmi qanchis kutita rikuchirqan, ichaqa chaymanta qhipaman kikillan yuyaymanta yachay yapasqanta mana chaskisqanpa ima ninankunapas Smithpa chay norte kamachiqmanta “musuq k’anchay” nispa pay rimarisqan qallarichisqanpa característicankunamanta yuyaypa hawanmanmi kachkan; ichaqa Roma-manta Adventistakunapa churanakuykunapa lineanta qhawarisqanchikta tukukuptinchikqa, kutimusunchikmi iskayninta: Danielpa chunka hukniyuq capítulo chunka versículopa ancha allin signifikancianta, hinaspa ima kasqanta chay 1856 watapi chay qanchis kutimanta yachay yapasqawan hamuq Laodicea willakuyninta Smith mana chaskisqan rikuchisqanmanta.
“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.
“Ñawpaq, iskay ñiqin, kimsa ñiqin angelkunapa willakuyninkunamanta ñuqanchikpa iñiyninchikqa allinmi karqan. Hatun ñanpaq señalkuna, mayqenkunatachus pasashanchik, mana kuyukuqmi kanku. Ukupachapa soldadonkunapas sapankankuman kallpachakuspa, paykunata cimientonmanta qichuyta munaspa, atipaykusqankuta yuyaspa kusikunkuman chaypas, manam atinkuchu. Kay cheqaq kaypa sayanakunaqa wiñay urqukunahina sinchita sayanku, runakunapa llapan kallpankuwan Satanaspa, hinallataq paypa soldadonkunapa kallpankuwan kuska llank’asqankumantapas mana kuyurispa. Ancha achkata yachakuyta atisun, hinallataq Qellqasqakunata sapa kuti mask’arispa qhawarinanchik tiyan, kaykunachus chayna kasqanta.” 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.
“Cheqaq chiqaq ñanmarkakuna chiqaq kaymanta, profetapa historiampi maypi kasqanchista rikuchispa, ancha allinta waqaychasqa kananmi, ama urmachisqa kananpaq, chaypa rantinpi teoriakunawan churachisqa kananpaq, chaykunaqa pantayta apamunman, manataq cheqaq k’anchayta.” Selected Messages, libro 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
“Kay pacha pachapi achka kallpachakuykuna ruwasqa kanqa iñiyninchista chinkachinapaq santuario nisqapa tapukuyinmanta; ichaqa ama iskayrayasunchu. Iñiyninchispa cimientunkunamanta mana huk t’ipsitapas kuyuchisqa kananchu. Cheqaq kayqa sapa kutin cheqaqmi kachkan. Pipas mana allinta yuyayman churakuspa iskayrayaq rikurinqa, pantasqa yachachiykunaman apasqa kachkanqa, hinaspan tukuypi tarikuspa ñawpaqpi cheqaq kasqanmanta chaskisqanchis evidenciakunapaq mana iñiq runaña kanqa. Ñawpa señalkuna waqaychasqa kananmi, ama mayman richkasqanchista chinkachinanchispaq.” Manuscript Releases, volumen 1, 55