We are addressing six lines of prophetic controversy that have occurred within the history of Adventism from 1798 until the present day.
Urang keur nyanghareupan genep garis pasualan nubuat anu geus lumangsung dina sajarah Adventisme ti taun 1798 nepi ka mangsa kiwari.
“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.
“Dina sajarah jeung nubuat, Firman Allah ngagambarkeun pasalia panjang nu terus lumangsung antara bebeneran jeung kasalahan. Pasalia éta kénéh lumangsung nepi ka ayeuna. Hal-hal anu geus kajadian baheula bakal kaulang deui. Paséa-paséa heubeul bakal dihirupkeun deui, jeung tiori-tiori anyar bakal terus-terusan mucunghul. Tapi umat Allah, anu dina kapercayaan maranéhna jeung dina kacumponan nubuat geus nyekel peran dina ngawartakeun amanat malaikat kahiji, kadua, jeung katilu, nyaho di mana maranéhna nangtung. Maranéhna boga pangalaman anu leuwih mulya batan emas murni. Maranéhna kudu nangtung pageuh saperti batu karang, nyekel pageuh awal kayakinan maranéhna nepi ka ahir.” Selected Messages, buku 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.
Dina artikel saméméhna geus dibahas pasulayan anu kahiji jeung anu pamungkas ngeunaan kakawasaan Romawi, sarta ayeuna urang baris ngulik pasulayan anu kajadian antara Uriah Smith jeung James White. Uriah Smith nyelapkeun “tafsiran pribadi”-na sorangan kana ayat tilu puluh genep.
“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.
“AYAT 36. Jeung raja éta bakal ngalakukeun nurutkeun kahayangna sorangan; sarta anjeunna bakal ngagungkeun dirina, jeung ngamulyakeun dirina ngaleuwihan unggal allah, sarta bakal ngucapkeun perkara-perkara anu matak héran ngalawan Allahna sakabéh allah, sarta bakal hasil nepi ka amarah éta réngsé kalaksanakeun; sabab anu geus ditangtukeun téh bakal kajadian.
“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.
“Raja anu diwanohkeun di dieu henteu bisa nuduhkeun kakawasaan anu sarua jeung anu pamungkas tadi disebutkeun; nya éta kakawasaan papal; sabab rinci-rincianana moal cocog lamun dilarapkeun ka kakawasaan éta.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 292.
Smith acknowledged that the power in the previous verse was “papal Rome,” but claims the characteristics of verse thirty-six are not prophetic characteristics that identify papal Rome. That claim is false. It should be remembered that in the rebellion of 1863, the seven times of Leviticus chapter twenty-six was set aside, and therefore the representation of the seven times of both tables of Habakkuk was rejected. Both the 1843 and the 1850 charts illustrate the seven times in the very center of the charts, and both illustrations place the cross in the center of the line of the seven times. When the new light of the seven times arrived in 1856 and was thereafter rejected, it marked a rejection of Habakkuk’s two tables, and also the authority of the Spirit of Prophecy, which so clearly identifies that both charts were directed by God.
Smith ngaku yén kakawasaan dina ayat saméméhna téh nyaéta “Roma kapapaan,” tapi anjeunna nyebutkeun yén ciri-ciri dina ayat tilu puluh genep lain ciri-ciri nubuat anu ngaidentipikasi Roma kapapaan. Éta pamadegan téh palsu. Kudu diinget yén dina pamberontakan taun 1863, tujuh mangsa dina Imamat pasal dua puluh genep disisihkeun, ku kituna gambaran ngeunaan tujuh mangsa dina dua tugu Habakuk ogé ditampik. Boh bagan 1843 boh bagan 1850 ngagambarkeun tujuh mangsa pas di tengah-tengah bagan, jeung duanana nempatkeun salib di tengah garis tujuh mangsa. Nalika cahaya anyar ngeunaan tujuh mangsa sumping dina taun 1856 lajeng satuluyna ditampik, éta nandaan panampikan kana dua tugu Habakuk, jeung ogé kana wibawa Roh Nubuat, anu kacida écésna ngaidentipikasi yén duanana bagan téh dipingpin ku Allah.
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.
Numutkeun Sister White, panipuan panungtungan Iblis nyaéta pikeun ngajadikeun kasaksian Roh Allah henteu aya gunana; sarta di dieu panipuan anu kahiji ogé nyaéta pikeun ngajadikeun kasaksian Roh Allah henteu aya gunana, jeung éta ogé ngagambarkeun panolakan sakaligus kana bebeneran-bebeneran dasar dina dua bagan éta, sarta leuwih husus deui kana tujuh mangsa.
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.
Dina mangsa pamberontakan taun 1863, taya lian iwal ti Uriah Smith anu nyieun bagan palsu taun 1863, anu ngaleungitkeun garis ngeunaan tujuh kali. Nepi ka taun 1863 Uriah Smith geus nutup panonna kana cahya ngeunaan tujuh kali, sarta teu mampuh ningali yén aya dua “indignations” anu diidentifikasi ku Daniel. Dua indignations éta ngagambarkeun tujuh kali ngalawan karajaan kalér Israil, jeung karajaan kidul Yuda. Nu kahiji ngalawan sapuluh kaom kalér dimimitian dina 723 SM sarta réngsé dina 1798, jeung nu kadua dimimitian dina 677 SM sarta réngsé dina 1844.
Gabriel came to Daniel in chapter eight to explain the marah vision, and in connection with his work, he provided a second witness to 1844. The twenty-three hundred years of Daniel chapter eight ended in 1844, but so too did the last of the two indignations against the northern and southern kingdoms.
Dina pasal dalapan, Jibril sumping ka Daniel pikeun ngajelaskeun titingalian marah, sarta patalina jeung padamelanana éta, anjeunna maparin hiji kasaksian kadua ngeunaan taun 1844. Dua rébu tilu ratus taun dina Daniel pasal dalapan réngsé dina taun 1844, sarta kitu deui réngséna anu pamungkas tina dua murka ngalawan karajaan kalér jeung karajaan kidul.
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.
Jeung anjeunna ngandika, “Tingali, Kami bade maparin ka maneh nyaho naon anu bakal kajadian dina ahir pungkasan tina amarah éta; sabab dina waktu anu geus ditangtukeun, ahirna bakal datang.” 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.
Tungtung panungtungan nganggap geus aya tungtung anu kahiji. Tungtung panungtungan tina dua kajengkelan éta, anu saukur ungkara séjén pikeun tujuh kali, réngsé dina taun 1844, jeung kajengkelan anu kahiji réngsé dina taun 1798. Ayat anu ku Smith disebut henteu ngandung spésifikasi naon waé ngeunaan kakawasaan kapapaan, sabenerna nangtukeun taun nalika kapapaan bakal nampa tatu maotna.
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.
Jeung raja éta bakal ngalakukeun sakumaha kahayangna sorangan; sarta manéhna bakal ngagungkeun dirina, jeung ngamulyakeun dirina ngaleuwihan unggal allah, sarta bakal ngucapkeun hal-hal anu matak héran ngalawan Allahna sagala allah, sarta bakal hasil nepi ka amarah éta réngsé; sabab anu geus ditangtukeun éta pasti bakal kalakonan. 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.
“Raja” dina ayat tilu puluh genep bakal “makmur nepi ka murka geus kalaksanakeun.” Perhatikeun naon anu ditulis ku Smith ngeunaan Daniel pasal dalapan, ayat dua puluh tilu jeung dua puluh opat dina buku anu sarua, tempat anjeunna ngaku yén kakawasaan kapapaan henteu miboga sipat-sipat anu luyu pikeun ngeusian ayat tilu puluh genep.
“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.
“AYAT 23. Jeung dina mangsa ahir karajaan maranéhna, waktu para palanggar geus nepi ka pinuh, bakal nangtung saurang raja nu beungeutna galak, sarta ngarti kana ucapan-ucapan poék. 24. Jeung kakawasaanana bakal kuat, tapi lain ku kakawasaanana sorangan; sarta manéhna bakal ngancurkeun kalawan matak pikaheraneun, sarta bakal hasil, sarta ngalakonan, sarta bakal ngancurkeun jalma-jalma nu kuat jeung umat anu suci. 25. Jeung ku kawijakanana ogé manéhna bakal nyababkeun tipu daya hasil dina leungeunna; sarta manéhna bakal ngagungkeun dirina dina haténa, sarta ku karapihan bakal ngancurkeun loba jalma: manéhna ogé bakal nangtung ngalawan Pangeran para pangeran; tapi manéhna bakal diruksak tanpa leungeun.
“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.
“Kakawasaan ieu neruskeun ka opat bagéan karajaan embe dina mangsa ahir karajaan maranéhna, nya éta nuju kana tungtung lalampahan kakawasaan maranéhna. Tangtu waé, ieu téh sarua jeung tanduk leutik dina ayat 9 jeung satuluyna. Larapkeun ieu ka Roma, sakumaha geus dipedar dina katerangan ngeunaan ayat 9, mangka sagalana jadi saluyu tur écés.
“‘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.
“‘Hiji raja anu bengis rupana.’ Musa, dina ngaramalkeun hukuman anu bakal tumiba ka urang Yahudi ku kakawasaan ieu kénéh, nyebut éta ‘hiji bangsa anu bengis rupana.’ Ul. 28:49, 50. Teu aya bangsa anu dina jajaran perangna némbongkeun katingal anu leuwih matak pikasieuneun tibatan bangsa Romawi. ‘Ngartos kana ucapan-ucapan anu poék.’ Musa, dina Kitab Suci anu kakara dirujuk téa, nyebutkeun, ‘anu basana moal kaharti ku maneh.’ Ieu moal bisa dilarapkeun ka urang Babul, Persia, atawa Yunani, dina patalina jeung urang Yahudi; sabab basa Kaldea jeung Yunani dipaké, boh leuwih loba boh leuwih saeutik, di Palestina. Tapi hal ieu teu kitu dina basa Latin.”
“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.
“Lamun jalma-jalma durhaka geus nepi ka pinuh.” Sapanjangna, patalina antara umat Allah jeung jalma-jalma anu nindes maranéhna terus ditegeskeun. Ku lantaran palanggaran-palanggaran umat-Na, maranéhna dipasrahkeun kana pangawulaan. Jeung kalanggengan maranéhna dina dosa mawa hukuman anu leuwih beurat. Dina euweuh mangsa urang Yahudi, minangka hiji bangsa, leuwih ruksak sacara moral tibatan dina waktu maranéhna asup kana kakawasaan urang Rum.
“‘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.
“‘Gagah, tapi lain ku kakawasaan sorangan.’ Kasuksésan bangsa Romawi téh kalolobaanana lantaran pitulung ti para sekutu maranéhna, jeung lantaran ayana pabedaan di antara musuh-musuhna, anu salawasna siap ku maranéhna dimangpaatkeun. Roma Kapapaan ogé jadi gagah ku jalan kakawasaan-kakawasaan sekuler anu ku dirina dikawasaan sacara rohani.
“‘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.
“‘Anjeunna bakal ngancurkeun kalayan luar biasa.’ PANGERAN ngawartoskeun ka urang Yahudi ku jalan nabi Ezekiel yén Mantenna bakal nyerahkeun maranéhna ka jalma-jalma anu ‘tarampil pikeun ngancurkeun;’ sarta pangbantaian sabelas ratus rébu urang Yahudi dina mangsa karuksakan Yerusalem ku tentara Romawi, mangrupa pangesahan anu pikasieuneun kana kecap-kecap nabi éta. Jeung Roma dina fase kadua, atawa fase kepausanana, tanggung jawab kana pupusna lima puluh juta martir.
“‘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.
“‘Jeung ku kawijakanana deuih manéhna bakal ngajadikeun tipu daya hasil mekar dina pananganana.’ Roma geus kasohor ngaleuwihan sagala kakawasaan séjén ku kawijakan tipu dayana, anu ku éta bangsa-bangsa dibawa kana kakawasaanana. Ieu leres boh pikeun Roma kapir boh pikeun Roma kapausan. Jeung ku kituna, ku karapihan, manéhna ngancurkeun loba jalma.
“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.
“Jeung Roma, ahirna, dina diri salah saurang gubernurna, nangtung ngalawan Pangeran para pangeran, ku jalan ngajatuhan putusan hukuman pati ka Yesus Kristus. ‘Tapi anjeunna bakal diremuk tanpa leungeun,’ hiji ungkara anu ngaidéntifikasi karuksakan kakawasaan ieu jeung dipaéhanana éta arca dina pasal 2.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 202–204.
Smith, twice in the passage, identifies that the prophetic characteristics of pagan and papal Rome are interchangeable, for they are simply the manifestation of Rome in its two phases, such as the mixture of iron and clay in Daniel chapter two, which Sister White identifies as symbols of churchcraft and statecraft. When Daniel identifies in the verses Smith is addressing–that Rome “shall prosper, and practice,” and that Rome “shall cause craft to prosper in his hand,”–Smith claims that in verse thirty-six that the “king” who “shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished,” identifies a prophetic characteristic of both pagan and papal Rome. Then he claims that none of the characteristics of Rome in verse thirty-six refer to the papal power.
Smith, dua kali dina petikan éta, nétélakeun yén sipat-sipat nubuat ngeunaan Roma kapir jeung Roma paus téh bisa silihganti, sabab éta ngan saukur mangrupa perwujudan Roma dina dua faséna, saperti campuran beusi jeung liat dina Daniel pasal dua, anu ku Sister White diidéntifikasi minangka lambang karajinan gareja jeung karajinan nagara. Nalika Daniel nyatakeun dina ayat-ayat anu keur dipedar ku Smith—yén Roma “bakal hasil, jeung ngalaksanakeun,” sarta yén Roma “bakal nyababkeun tipu daya hasil dina leungeunna,”—Smith nyebutkeun yén dina ayat tilu puluh genep “raja” anu “bakal hasil nepi ka bebendu éta réngsé,” nandakeun hiji sipat nubuat tina boh Roma kapir boh Roma paus. Saterusna manéhna ngaku yén euweuh hiji-hijina sipat Roma dina ayat tilu puluh genep anu ngarujuk kana kakawasaan paus.
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.
Urang geus ngarujuk ka Smith pikeun ngadukung panandaan yén Roma téh para panjarah anu netepkeun éta titingalian, sarta salah sahiji tina opat ciri nubuat dina ayat opat welas nyaéta yén Roma ngaluhurkeun dirina sorangan.
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.
Jeung dina mangsa-mangsa éta loba anu baris nangtung ngalawan raja ti kidul; kitu deui anu ngarampog ti bangsamu bakal ngangkat dirina pikeun netepkeun tetenjoan éta; tapi maranéhna bakal tumpur. 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 ngaku yén ciri-ciri raja dina ayat tilu puluh genep teu cocog jeung kakawasaan kapapaan, sanajan saméméhna anjeunna ngabela yén anu ngangkat dirina sorangan dina ayat opat welas téh nyaéta Roma. Tapi raja dina ayat tilu puluh genep “bakal ngagedékeun dirina sorangan.” Raja anu sarua pisan dina ayat tilu puluh genep éta bakal “ngucapkeun hal-hal anu matak pikaheraneun ngalawan Allah anu ngungkulan sakabéh allah.” Dina kitab Daniel kakawasaan kapapaan “bakal ngucapkeun kecap-kecap anu gedé ngalawan Nu Maha Luhur,” jeung dina kitab Wahyu kakawasaan kapapaan ngahujat ngalawan Nu Maha Luhur.
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.
Lajeng anjeunna dipaparin sungut pikeun ngucapkeun perkara-perkara anu agung jeung hujat-hujat; sarta kakuatan dipaparin ka anjeunna pikeun neruskeun salila opat puluh dua bulan. Jeung anjeunna muka sungutna dina hujat ka Allah, pikeun ngahujat asma-Na, jeung Kemah Suci-Na, jeung maranéhanana anu cicing di sawarga. Wahyu 13:5, 6.
Every prophetic specification of the papal power is identified in verse thirty-six.
Sagala katerangan nubuat ngeunaan kakawasaan kapapaan kauninga dina ayat ka tilu puluh genep.
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.
Jeung éta raja bakal ngalakukeun nurutkeun kahayangna sorangan; sarta anjeunna bakal ngagungkeun dirina, jeung ngamulyakeun dirina leuwih luhur ti batan unggal allah, sarta bakal ngucapkeun hal-hal anu matak ngahérankeun ngalawan Allahna sagala allah, sarta bakal hasil nepi ka amarah éta tuntas; sabab anu geus ditangtukeun téh bakal kalakonan. 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.
Para panapsir manusa téh mindeng teu bisa dipercaya, tapi loba panapsir Advent méré kasaksian kana bebeneran anu écés yén ayat tilu puluh genep éta anu keur diparafrasakeun ku rasul Paulus tina 2 Tesalonika, nalika anjeunna nyarioskeun ngeunaan jelema dosa.
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.
Ulah aya anu nipu ka maraneh ku jalan naon baé; sabab poé éta moal datang, iwal lamun pangmurtadan datang heula, sarta jelema durhaka éta dinyatakeun, nya éta anak kabinasaan; anu ngalawan sarta ngagungkeun dirina sorangan ngaleuwihan sakur anu disebut Allah atawa anu disembah; nepi ka manéhna, saolah-olah Allah, calik di Bait Allah, nembongkeun dirina yén manéhna téh Allah. 2 Tesalonika 2:2, 3.
Verse thirty-six states that “he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god,” and Paul says “that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.” Clearly Smith had no prophetic authority to claim that the king of verse thirty-six was different from the king under discussion in the verses leading to verse thirty-six. Grammatically he had no justification for making his flawed application, and his claim that he did so because verse thirty-six possesses no characteristics of the papal power was a wresting of the Scripture in an attempt to establish a private interpretation.
Ayat ka tilu puluh genep nyatakeun yén “anjeunna bakal ngagungkeun dirina sorangan, sarta ngagedékeun dirina sorangan ngaleuwihan unggal allah,” sarta Paulus nyebutkeun “sangkan éta jalma dosa dinyatakeun, anak kabinasaan; anu ngalawan jeung ngagungkeun dirina sorangan ngaleuwihan sagala anu disebut Allah, atawa anu disembah.” Jelas yén Smith henteu miboga kawenangan nubuat pikeun ngaku yén raja dina ayat ka tilu puluh genep téh béda ti raja anu keur dipedar dina ayat-ayat anu ngantarkeun ka ayat ka tilu puluh genep. Sacara gramatikal anjeunna henteu miboga alesan anu sah pikeun nyieun panerapan anu cacad éta, sarta pangakuanana yén anjeunna ngalakukeun kitu lantaran ayat ka tilu puluh genep henteu miboga ciri-ciri kakawasaan kapapaan mangrupa panguletan Kitab Suci dina usaha netepkeun hiji tafsir pribadi.
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.
Urang ogé boga kecap nubuat anu leuwih pasti; sarta hade lamun maranéh merhatikeun éta, saperti kana hiji caang anu moncorong di tempat poék, nepi ka poé ngajarang, sarta bentang isuk medal dina hate maranéh: Anu kudu dipikanyaho heula, yén euweuh hiji nubuat Kitab Suci anu asalna tina tafsir sorangan. Sabab nubuat téh henteu baheula sumping ku kersa manusa; tapi jalma-jalma suci kagungan Allah nyarita sakumaha maranéhna digerakkeun ku Roh Suci. 2 Petrus 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.
Salila mangtaun-taun Adventisme Laodikea, geus loba teolog, pendeta, jeung pangarang Advent nu ngabahas naha maranéhna nganggap panerapan Smith téh leres atawa lepat. Hiji pendeta Australia, Louis Were, anu geus lila pupus, nyéépkeun kalolobaan palayananna pikeun nangtang modél nubuatan palsu Smith. Alesan panolakanana lain saukur ku sabab Smith antukna ngaidéntifikasi raja anu nepi ka tungtungna dina ayat opat puluh lima minangka Turki, tapi platform Smith ogé ngahasilkeun panerapan Armagedon anu teu leres. Dina taun 1980-an, atawa kira-kira dina mangsa éta, saurang pangarang Advent nyerat hiji buku nu judulna, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Ngaran pangarangna nyaéta Donald Mansell, sarta bukuna kénéh sayaga.
Mansell tracks the history leading up to World War One and World War Two showing that when both those wars were seen to be approaching the Adventist evangelists began to employ Smith’s false application of Turkey marching to literal Jerusalem as a sign of Armageddon and the end of the world. He demonstrates by church membership roles that as each of the wars approached many souls were brought into the membership of the Adventist church, based upon the evangelist’s prophetic emphasis drawn from Smith’s flawed view of Armageddon.
Mansell ngalacak sajarah anu ngarah ka Perang Dunya Kahiji jeung Perang Dunya Kadua, bari nunjukkeun yén nalika duanana perang éta katempo geus ngadeukeutan, para panginjil Advent mimiti ngagunakeun panerapan palsu Smith ngeunaan Turki nu maju ka Yerusalem literal minangka tanda Armagedon jeung ahir dunya. Anjeunna ngabuktikeun ngaliwatan daptar kaanggotaan garéja yén nalika masing-masing perang éta ngadeukeutan, loba jiwa diasupkeun kana kaanggotaan garéja Advent, dumasar kana tekenan nubuatan para panginjil anu dicokot tina pamadegan Smith anu cacad ngeunaan Armagedon.
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.
Nalika salah sahiji perang éta réngsé, sarta ramalan-ramalan anu cacad éta henteu kajadian, gareja kaleungitan anggota leuwih loba tibatan anu kungsi dipibanda tina modél profétik anu disusun ku Smith.
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.
Ku panolakan Smith kana amanat dasar kaum Millerit, sarta ku kasadiaanana ngamajukeun tafsir pribadina ngeunaan ayat tilu puluh genep nepi ka opat puluh lima tina kitab Daniel, logika Smith ngahasilkeun hiji modél nubuat anu dumasar kana kajadian-kajadian anu keur lumangsung.
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.”
Dina perdebatan antara Smith jeung James White ngeunaan raja anu nepi ka ahirna dina ayat panungtung Daniel sabelas, James White ngedalkeun hiji logika anu sacara ringkes ngagambarkeun pondasi nubuat Smith anu keusik. White ngajarkeun yén “nubuat ngahasilkeun sajarah, tapi sajarah henteu ngahasilkeun nubuat.”
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.
Para panginjil Adventisme nu digawé saméméh duanana perang ngamangpaatkeun sajarah nu keur mekar pikeun nampilkeun modél nubuat Armagedon Smith nu cacad, sarta pagawéan maranéhna, nu katingalina kacida diberkahanana dina mangsa nu ngadeukeutan ka perang-perang éta, ngahasilkeun karugian bersih nalika kabuktian yén modél nubuat éta dumasar kana tafsir pribadi.
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.
Sing waspada ka nabi-nabi palsu, anu datang ka maraneh maké papakéan domba, padahal di jerona maranéhna ajag-ajag galak. Maraneh bakal nyaho maranéhna tina buahna. Naha jalma metik buah anggur tina rungkun cucuk, atawa buah ara tina rungkun onak? Kitu deui, unggal tangkal anu hade ngahasilkeun buah anu hade; ari tangkal anu goréng mah ngahasilkeun buah anu goréng. Tangkal anu hade moal bisa ngahasilkeun buah anu goréng, kitu deui tangkal anu goréng moal bisa ngahasilkeun buah anu hade. Unggal tangkal anu henteu ngahasilkeun buah anu hade bakal ditegor, tuluy dialungkeun kana seuneu. Ku sabab kitu, maraneh bakal nyaho maranéhna tina buahna. Mateus 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.
Kasukaan Smith pikeun ngamajukeun hiji modél profétis pribadi ngeunaan raja dina ayat tilu puluh genep ngahasilkeun akibat nyaéta ogé nyiptakeun panerapan anu salah ngeunaan bala kagenep jeung Armagedon.
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.
Malaikat anu kagenep ngocorkeun pingganana ka walungan gedé Efrat; cai na jadi saat, supaya jalan pikeun raja-raja ti wetan bisa disadiakeun. Jeung kuring ningali tilu roh najis kawas bangkong kaluar tina sungut naga, jeung tina sungut sato galak, jeung tina sungut nabi palsu. Sabab eta téh roh-roh setan, anu ngalakukeun mujijat-mujijat, anu indit ka raja-raja di bumi jeung ka sakuliah dunya, pikeun ngumpulkeun maranéhanana kana peperangan dina poe agung Allah Nu Maha Kawasa. Tingali, Kami datang siga maling. Bagja jalma anu jaga, sarta ngajaga pakeanana, supaya ulah leumpang taranjang, jeung maranehna ningali kaera-Na. Jeung anjeunna ngumpulkeun maranehanana babarengan ka hiji tempat anu dina basa Ibrani disebut Armageddon. Wahyu 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.”
Sakumaha anu geus ku kami dituduhkeun saméméhna, bala kagenep datang sanggeus panutupan mangsa ujian manusa; ku sabab éta, pangéling anu ngandung parentah supaya ngajaga pakéan maranéh, tangtu nuduh kana hiji perkara pangujian anu kajadian saméméh Mikael nangtung, mangsa ujian manusa ditutup, sarta bala kahiji dimimitian. Bala kagenep ngaidentifikasi kagiatan naga, sato galak, jeung nabi palsu, anu mangrupakeun hiji pakumpulan tilu rupa anu ngahiji dina hukum Minggu anu bakal enggal datang. Pakumpulan tilu rupa éta nyaéta Roma Modéren, sarta lambang anu ngaidentifikasi jeung netepkeun pakumpulan tilu rupa Roma Modéren éta nyaéta “garong ti umat anjeun,” anu “ngaluhurkeun dirina pikeun netepkeun tetenjoan” sarta “ragrag.”
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.
Panggeuing tina bala kagenep, lamun kahartos, ngamungkinkeun hiji jiwa pikeun ngajaga papakéanana, tapi lamun ditampik, éta ninggalkeun hiji jiwa taranjang, anu mangrupa salah sahiji tina lima sipat urang Laodikea. Lambang anu netepkeun panggeuing éta nyaéta para garong ti bangsa anjeun, anu ngangkat dirina sorangan sarta tungtungna rubuh. Suleman ngandika yén lamun umat Allah teu boga éta titenan, maranéhna binasa.
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. Proverbs 29:18.
Di mana teu aya tetenjoan, umat jadi leungit; ari nu ngajaga hukum, bagja manéhna. Siloka 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.
Kecap Ibrani “binasa” ngandung harti “ngajadikeun taranjang”, sarta Yohanes nyatet, “Bagja jalma anu jaga, jeung ngajaga pakeanana, supaya ulah leumpang taranjang, sarta maranéhna ningali kaéra-na.” Smith salah ngeunaan Raja ti Kalér, jeung éta pondasi nubuat anu palsu ngamungkinkeun anjeunna ngamekarkeun hiji panerapan nubuat anu, lamun ditarima, ngahasilkeun kataranjangan, anu mangrupa lambang urang Laodikea, anu dimuntahkeun kaluar tina baham Gusti.
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:
Smith teu kagungan kasusah dina ngabela idéntifikasi palsu anyarna ngeunaan Raja ti Kalér ngalawan salaki nabi awéwé éta, nyaéta James White. Para sajarawan Adventis, kitu deui Sister White, nyangking pasalia pamadegan maranéhna anu kasohor éta. Ellen White ngébréhkeun teges ka salakina jeung ka Smith lantaran maranéhna ngantepkeun bédana pamadegan ngeunaan saha anu dilambangkeun ku raja ti kalér dina Daniel pasal sabelas, diasupkeun kana ranah umum. Dina pisan publikasi Adventis anu pangheulana sanggeus Kaceuceub Agung taun 1844, James White nulis:
“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.
“Yen Isa gugah, tuluy nutup panto, sarta sumping ka Nu Maha Kolot dina poé-poé, pikeun nampi karajaan-Na, dina bulan ka-7, taun 1844, éta ku sim kuring dipercaya sapinuhna. Tingali Lukas 13:25; Mateus 25:10; Daniel 7:13,14. Ari ngadeg-na Mikael, Daniel 12:1, katingalina mangrupa kajadian séjén, pikeun maksud anu béda. Gugah-Na dina taun 1844 téh pikeun nutup panto, sarta sumping ka Rama-Na, pikeun nampi karajaan-Na, jeung kakawasaan pikeun maréntah; tapi ngadeg-na Mikael téh pikeun nembongkeun kakawasaan karajaan-Na, anu sabenerna geus kagungan-Na, dina ngancurkeun jalma-jalma jahat, jeung dina ngabébaskeun umat-Na. Mikael bakal ngadeg dina waktu kakawasaan pamungkas dina pasal 11 nepi ka tungtungna, sarta moal aya anu nulungan anjeunna. Kakawasaan ieu téh anu pamungkas nu nincak-nincak gareja Allah anu sajati; sarta ku sabab gareja anu sajati téh masih kénéh ditincak-tincak, jeung dipiceun ku sakumna dunya Kristen, ku kituna écés yén kakawasaan panindes anu pamungkas can ‘nepi ka tungtungna;’ sarta Mikael can ngadeg. Kakawasaan pamungkas ieu anu nincak-nincak para suci dipintonkeun dina Wahyu 13:11-18. Bilanganana nyaéta 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.
Nalika Smith ngenalkeun anu ku anjeunna disebut “cahaya anyar” ngeunaan perkara “kakuatan panungtung dina Daniel pasal sabelas,” James White ningali panerapan Smith éta lain minangka cahaya anyar, tapi minangka serangan kana dasar-dasar. Pasualan ngeunaan Roma salaku raja kalér dina Daniel pasal sabelas anu lumangsung antara Uriah Smith jeung James White miboga sipat-sipat husus, anu ku urang, salaku murid-murid nubuat, kudu dihijikeun jeung pasualan-pasualan séjén dina sajarah Adventis ngeunaan lambang Roma.
One of those attributes is the introduction of a private interpretation. Another attribute is that the application of the private interpretation requires a wresting of simple grammar, for Smith not only disregarded that every prophetic attribute in verse thirty-six addresses Rome, but he disregarded that the grammatical structure demands that the king of verse thirty-six must be the same king as represented in the previous passage.
Salah sahiji sipat éta nyaéta diasupkeunana hiji tafsir pribadi. Sipat anu séjén nyaéta yén panerapan tafsir pribadi éta merlukeun dipulasna tata basa anu basajan, sabab Smith lain ngan saukur teu maliré yén unggal sipat nubuatan dina ayat tilu puluh genep nujul ka Roma, tapi anjeunna ogé teu maliré yén struktur gramatikalna nuntut supaya raja dina ayat tilu puluh genep téh kudu raja anu sarua jeung anu dipidangkeun dina petikan saméméhna.
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.”
Nu séjén nyaéta yén tafsiran pribadi éta mangrupa panolakan kana bebeneran-bebeneran dasar. Nu séjén nyaéta yén éta ngagambarkeun panolakan kana kawenangan Roh Nubuat. Ciri séjénna nyaéta yén pamadegan munggaran anu cacad ngeunaan Roma bakal ngabalukarkeun hiji modél nubuatan anu henteu ngidinan hiji jalma pikeun ngajaga pakeanana nalika maranéhna ngadeukeutan kana panutupan mangsa pamariksaan manusa. Nu séjén nyaéta kasadiaan pikeun ngamajukeun tafsiran pribadina di hareupeun umum. Nu séjén deui nyaéta yén tafsiran pribadi éta salawasna diidentipikasikeun minangka cahaya anyar. Sakabéh sipat ieu kagambarkeun dina sawala kiwari ngeunaan “garong-garong ti bangsamu.”
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.
Nalika pasulayan panungtung Roma, anu dilambangkeun ku pasulayan kahiji Roma anu ngaidéntifikasi “nu ngarampok umat maneh,” dihijikeun jeung garis nubuatan tina pasulayan Uriah Smith jeung James White, urang bakal ningali yén hiji golongan bakal ngawangun modél nubuatan maranéhna dumasar kana tafsir pribadi, anu nolak bebeneran dasar.
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.
Pangnolakan kana bebeneran-bebeneran dasar téh sacara otomatis nandakeun pangnolakan kana kawibawaan Roh Nubuat, anu kalawan pageuh pisan ngabéla éta bebeneran-bebeneran dasar. Golongan éta ogé bakal daék nampilkeun pamadegan maranéhna sacara umum, henteu paduli kana sagala kaprihatinan anu bisa dikedalkeun ngeunaan pangaruh anu mungkin dipiboga ku pangajaran éta ka umat Allah di sakuliah dunya.
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.
Sanggeus taun 1844, dina generasi kahiji Adventisme, mucunghul deui hiji pasulayan ngeunaan Roma. Pasulayan éta terus dipanaskeun nepi ka pamadegan palsu éta ditarima dina generasi katilu Adventisme. Urang baris nalungtik pasulayan ngeunaan “daily” minangka nu kaopat tina genep garis anu ayeuna keur urang tinimbangan dina modél line upon line.
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.”
Tapi saméméh urang ngangkat garis kaopat tina pasulayan-pasulayan Roma, kudu diinget yén dina tulisan saméméhna, waktu urang keur ngécéskeun ayat kasapuluh tina Daniel pasal sabelas, urang nyatakeun, “Ayat kasapuluh ogé sacara langsung ngahubungkeun ‘tujuh kali’ dina Imamat dua puluh genep jeung sajarah anu disumputkeun, tapi garis bebeneran éta aya di luar naon anu keur urang paparkeun di dieu.”
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 Smith nyaéta pamingpin dina nampik tujuh kali dina taun 1863. Anjeunna geus nampik paningkatan pangaweruh ngeunaan perkara éta anu ditepikeun dina tulisan-tulisan ngeunaan éta jejer, anu ditulis ku Hiram Edson jeung diterbitkeun dina Review dina taun 1856. Implikasi yén Smith pakait jeung hiji gerakan anu ngawanohkeun tujuh kali, tapi anu satuluyna nampik paningkatan pangaweruh ngeunaan éta jejer anu sarua, ogé teu kaasup kana jejer ngeunaan ciri-ciri bubukana Smith ngeunaan naon anu diklaimna minangka cahaya anyar dina jejer raja ti kalér; tapi nalika urang nyindekkeun tinjauan urang ngeunaan garis pasualan-pasualan Adventis ngeunaan Roma, urang bakal balik deui boh kana pentingna ayat kasapuluh tina Daniel pasal sabelas, boh ogé kana naon anu diwakilan ku panolakan Smith kana seratan Laodikea anu sumping dina taun 1856 bareng jeung paningkatan pangaweruh ngeunaan tujuh kali.
“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.
“Kapercayaan urang ngeunaan amanat malaikat kahiji, kadua, jeung katilu éta leres. Tanda-tanda tonggak anu agung anu geus urang lalampahan téh teu tiasa digoyangkeun. Sanajan pasukan naraka bisa waé narékahan nyabut éta tina pondasina, sarta bungah dina sangkaan yén maranéhna geus hasil, nanging maranéhna henteu hasil. Ieu tihang-tihang bebeneran nangtung pageuh saperti pasir-pasir langgeng, teu kagoyahkeun ku sagala upaya manusa anu dihijikeun jeung upaya Iblis katut pasukanana. Urang bisa diajar loba, sarta sakuduna terus-terusan nalungtik Kitab Suci pikeun mastikeun naha ieu perkara-perkara téh kitu ayana.” 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.
“Tetenger-tetenger gedé tina bebeneran, anu némbongkeun ka urang tempat urang dina sajarah nubuat, kudu dijaga kalayan taliti, supaya ulah diruntuhkeun, tuluy digantikeun ku téori-téori anu bakal mawa kabingungan tibatan cahaya anu sajati.” Selected Messages, buku 2, 101, 102.
“At this time many efforts will be made to unsettle our faith in the sanctuary question; but we must not waver. Not a pin is to be moved from the foundations of our faith. Truth is still truth. Those who become uncertain will drift into erroneous theories, and will finally find themselves infidel in regard to the past evidence we have had of what is truth. The old waymarks must be preserved, that we lose not our bearings.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55
“Dina waktos ieu, bakal loba upaya dilakukeun pikeun ngagoyahkeun iman urang dina perkara tempat suci; tapi urang ulah goyah. Henteu sapin ogé meunang dipindahkeun tina dasar-dasar iman urang. Kabeneran tetep kabeneran. Jalma-jalma anu jadi teu tangtu bakal kabawa hanyut kana téori-téori anu sesat, sarta ahirna bakal manggihan dirina jadi teu percaya ngeunaan bukti-bukti baheula anu ku urang geus dipiboga ngeunaan naon anu disebut kabeneran. Tanda-tanda patok heubeul kudu dipiara, supaya urang henteu leungit pituduh.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55