We are addressing six lines of prophetic controversy that have occurred within the history of Adventism from 1798 until the present day.
Biz 1798-nji ýyldan häzirki güne çenli Adventizmiň taryhynyň dowamynda ýüze çykan pygamberlik bilen bagly jedelleriň alty ugruna seredýäris.
“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.
“Taryhda we pygamberlikde Hudaýyň Sözi hakykat bilen ýalanyň arasyndaky uzak wagtlap dowam eden göreşi beýan edýär. Şol göreş henizem dowam edýär. Öň bolan zatlar gaýtadan bolar. Köneden gelýän jedeller täzeden janlandyrylar, we täze taglymatlar yzygiderli peýda bolar. Emma Hudaýyň halky, öz ynanjynda hem-de pygamberlikleriň amala aşmagynda birinji, ikinji we üçünji perişdeleriň habarlarynyň wagyz edilmeginde öz paýyny ýerine ýetirenler, nirede durýandyklaryny bilýärler. Olaryň başdan geçiren tejribesi iň sap altyndan-da gymmatlydyr. Olar gaýa ýaly berk durmalydyrlar, ynamynyň başlangyjyny ahyra çenli sarsmaz saklap.” Selected Messages, book 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.
Öňki makala Rim häkimiýeti baradaky ilkinji we soňky jedeli ele aldy, indi bolsa Uriýa Smit bilen Jeýms Waýtyň arasynda bolan jedeli ara alyp maslahatlaşarys. Uriýa Smit otuz altynjy aýata özüniň “hususy düşündirişini” girizdi.
“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.
“AÝAT 36. Patyşa öz islegine görä hereket eder; ol özüni beýgeldip, her bir hudaýdan ýokary tutar, hudaýlaryň Hudaýyna garşy täsin sözler sözlär we gahar-gazap tamamlanýança rowaçlyk tapar; çünki kesgitlenen zat berjaý ediler.
“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.
“Bu ýerde tanadylýan patyşa iň soňky ýatlanylan şol bir güýji, ýagny papalyk güýjüni aňladyp bilmez; çünki bu aýratynlyklary şol güýje ulananda ol ýerlikli bolmaz.” 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 öňki aýatdaky güýjüň “papalyk Rimidigini” ykrar etdi, ýöne otuz altynjy aýatyň aýratynlyklarynyň papalyk Rimi kesgitleýän pygamberlik aýratynlyklary däldigini öňe sürýär. Bu iddia ýalandyr. Ýatda saklanmalydyr: 1863-nji ýyldaky pitnede Levililer kitabynyň ýigrimi altynjy babyndaky ýedi wagt bir gyra süýşürildi, şonuň üçin Habakugyň iki tablisasyndaky ýedi wagtyň şekillendirilmesi hem ret edildi. 1843-nji ýylyň hem-de 1850-nji ýylyň çyzgylarynyň ikisi-de ýedi wagty çyzgylaryň edil merkezinde görkezýär, we şol iki şekillendirme hem haçy ýedi wagtyň çyzygynyň merkezinde ýerleşdirýär. 1856-njy ýylda ýedi wagt baradaky täze nur gelende we şondan soň ret edilende, bu Habakugyň iki tablisasyndan ýüz dönderilendigini, şeýle hem iki çyzgynyň-da Hudaý tarapyndan ugrukdyrylandygyny şeýle aýdyň kesgitleýän Pygamberlik Ruhunyň ygtyýaryny ret edendigini alamatlandyrdy.
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.
Waýt uýanyň aýdyşyna görä, Şeýtanyň iň soňky aldawy Hudaýyň Ruhunyň şaýatlygyny güýjünden düşürmekdir; bu ýerde bolsa ilkinji aldamçylyk Hudaýyň Ruhunyň şaýatlygyny güýjünden düşürmek boldy, we şol bir wagtyň özünde iki çyzgydaky esas goýujy hakykatlaryň, has takygy, ýedi döwrüň hem ret edilmegini aňladýardy.
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-nji ýylyň pitnesi wagtynda hut Uriýa Smit 1863-nji ýylyň galp çyzgysyny döretdi; şol çyzgy ýedi wagtyň çyzygyny aýryp taşlady. 1863-nji ýyla gelnende, Uriýa Smit ýedi wagtyň nuruna gözlerini ýumupdy we Danieliň görkezýän iki sany “gaharynyň” bardygyny görmäge ukypsyzdy. Bu iki gahar Ysraýylyň demirgazyk patyşalygyna we Ýahudanyň günorta patyşalygyna garşy bolan ýedi wagty aňladýar. Birinjisi demirgazykdaky on taýpa garşy bolup, miladydan öňki 723-nji ýylda başlap, 1798-nji ýylda tamamlandy; ikinjisi bolsa miladydan öňki 677-nji ýylda başlap, 1844-nji ýylda tamamlandy.
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.
Gabriel sekizinji bapda Danieliň ýanyna marah görnüşini düşündirmek üçin geldi we öz hyzmaty bilen baglanyşyklylykda 1844-nji ýyla ikinji şaýatlygy berdi. Daniel kitabynyň sekizinji babyndaky iki müň üç ýüz ýyl 1844-nji ýylda tamamlandy, emma şol bir wagtda demirgazyk we günorta patyşalyklaryna garşy bolan iki gazabyň soňkusy hem tamamlandy.
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.
Ol şeýle diýdi: Ine, gaharyň soňky ahyrynda nämeleriň boljakdygyny saňa bildirerin; çünki bellenen wagtda ahyr bolar. 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.
Soňky ahyr ilkinji ahyry öňünden şert hökmünde kabul edýär. Iki gazabyň soňkusy, ýagny “ýedi gezek” diýen aňlatmanyň başga bir görnüşi bolan şol gazap, 1844-nji ýylda tamamlandy, ilkinji gazap bolsa 1798-nji ýylda tamamlandy. Smit papalyk häkimiýeti babatda hiç hili kesgitlemäniň ýokdugyny öňe süren şol aýat, papalygyň ölümly ýarasyny aljak ýylyny görkezýärdi.
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.
Patyşa öz islegine görä hereket eder; ol özüni ýokary göterer, özüni her bir taňrydan beýik tutar, taňrylaryň Taňrysyna garşy geň galdyryjy sözler sözlär we gaharyň tamamlanylýança rowaçlanar; çünki kesgitleneni hökman ýerine ýetiriler. 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.
Otuz altynjy aýatda agzalýan “patyşa” “gaharyň tamam bolýança üstünlik gazanar”. Üns beriň, şol bir kitapda, papalyk häkimiýetiniň otuz altynjy aýaty ýerine ýetirmek üçin degişli alamatlara eýe däldigini öňe sürýän Smit Daniýel kitabynyň sekizinji bapynyň ýigrimi üçünji we ýigrimi dördünji aýatlary barada näme ýazýar.
“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.
“23-NJI Aýat. Olaryň patyşalygynyň ahyrky döwründe, günäkärlikde hetdine ýetenlerinde, ýüz-görki gazaply hem syrly sözlere düşünýän bir patyşa peýda bolar. 24. Onuň güýji güýçli bolar, emma öz güýji bilen däl; ol geň galdyryjy derejede weýran eder, üstünlik gazanar, amal eder we güýçlüleri hem-de mukaddes halky heläk eder. 25. Şeýle hem öz syýasaty arkaly hile-gäriň onuň elinde rowaç tapmagyna sebäp bolar; ol ýüreginde özüni ulaldar we parahatçylyk arkaly köp adamlary ýok eder; ol begleriň Begine garşy hem baş galdyrar, ýöne elsiz ýok ediler.
“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.
Bu güýç geçiniň patyşalygynyň dört böleginiň ornuna olaryň patyşalygynyň soňky döwründe, ýagny olaryň ýörişiniň tamamlanmagyna tarap gelýär. Elbetde, bu 9-njy aýatdan başlap agzalýan kiçi şahamça bilen birdir. Ony, 9-njy aýat baradaky belliklerde beýan edilişi ýaly, Rime degişli ediň, şonda ähli zat sazlaşykly we aýdyň bolýar.
“‘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.
“‘Gazaply keşpli bir patyşa.’ Musa, şu güýjüň ýahudylaryň başyna getirejek jezasy barada öňünden aýdanda, ony ‘gazaply keşpli bir millet’ diýip atlandyrýar. Kan. tagl. 28:49, 50. Uruş tertibinde rimlilerden has gorkunç görnüş görkezen başga hiç bir halk bolmandy. ‘Garaňkyrak sözlere düşünýän.’ Musa, ýaňy agzalan Mukaddes Ýazgyda: ‘diline düşünmejek’ diýýär. Bu, ýahudylara gatnaşykda wawilonlylar, parslar ýa-da grekler barada aýdyljak söz däldi; çünki haldeý we grek dilleri Palestinada az-kem ulanylýardy. Emma latyn dili bilen beýle däldi.”
“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.
“Günäkärler doly möçbere ýetende.” Ähli döwürlerde Hudaýyň halky bilen olary ezýänleriň arasyndaky baglanyşyk göz öňünde tutulýar. Olar öz halkynyň günäleri sebäpli ýesirlige satylypdylar. Olar günäde dowam etdikçe, has-da agyr jeza geldi. Ýehudylar hiç wagt, bir millet hökmünde, rimlileriň häkimligine giren döwürlerindäkiden has ahlak taýdan zaýalanan däldiler.
“‘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.
“‘Gudratly, emma öz güýji bilen däl.’ Rimlileriň üstünligi köp derejede olaryň ýaranlarynyň kömegi hem-de duşmanlarynyň arasyndaky bölünşikler sebäpli bolupdy; olar bolsa munuň ýaly ýagdaýlardan hemişe peýdalanmaga taýýar bolupdyrlar. Papalyk Rimi hem öz ruhy gözegçiligini amala aşyrýan dünýewi häkimiýetleriň üsti bilen gudratly boldy.
“‘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.
“‘Ol ajaýyp derejede ýok eder.’ Reb Ezekiel pygamber arkaly ýewreýlere olary ‘ýok etmäge ökde’ adamlara tabşyrjakdygyny aýtdy; we Rim goşuny tarapyndan Iýerusalimiň ýykylmagy wagtynda bir million ýüz müň ýewreýiň gyrlyp ýok edilmegi pygamberiň sözleriniň elhenç tassyklamasydy. Şeýle hem Rim öz ikinji, ýagny papalyk, döwründe elli million şehidiň ölümine jogapkär boldy.
“‘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.
“‘Onuň syýasaty arkaly-da öz elinde hile-hurdaty ösdürer.’ Rim, beýleki ähli häkimiýetlerden has artyk, hileli syýasaty bilen tapawutlanypdy; şol syýasaty arkaly ol halklary öz ygtyýaryna tabyn etdi. Bu hem butparaz, hem-de papalyk Rimine degişlidir. Şeýlelikde ol parahatçylyk arkaly köp adamlary heläk etdi.
“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.
“Roma hem-de ahyrynda, öz häkimleriniň biriniň şahsynda, Isa Mesihe ölüm hökümini çykarmak bilen, begleriň Begine garşy baş galdyrdy. ‘Ýöne ol elsiz-dalsyz döwler,’ diýen aňlatma bu güýjüň heläkçiligini 2-nji bapdaky heýkeliň urulyp syndyrylmagy bilen birdeşleşdirýär.” 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.
Smit bu parçanyň içinde iki gezek butparaz we papalyk Rimiň pygamberlik häsiýetleriniň biri-biriniň ornuna ulanylyp bilinýändigini görkezýär, çünki olar diňe Rimiň öz iki döwründe ýüze çykmagydyr; edil Danieliň ikinji babyndaky demir bilen palçygyň garyndysy ýaly, ony Sister White ybadathana häkimiýetiniň we döwlet häkimiýetiniň nyşanlary diýip kesgitleýär. Daniel Smitiň ýüzlenýän aýatlarynda Rimiň “üstünlik gazanjakdygyny we amal etjekdigini” hem-de Rimiň “hilegärligi onuň elinde üstünlikli etjekdigini” aýdanda, Smit otuz altynjy aýatda “gaharyň soňuna ýetýänçä üstünlik gazanjak” “patyşanyň” butparaz hem-de papalyk Rimiň ikisine-de degişli bir pygamberlik häsiýetini görkezýändigini öňe sürýär. Soňra bolsa ol otuz altynjy aýatdaky Rimiň häsiýetleriniň hiç biriniň papalyk häkimiýete degişli däldigini öňe sürýär.
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.
Smithe salgylanyp, Rimiň görnüşi berkarar edýän garakçylardygyny kesgitlemegi goldadyk, hem-de on dördünji aýatda görkezilen dört pygamberlik häsiýetiniň biri Rimiň özüni beýgeltmegidir.
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.
Şol döwürlerde günortanyň patyşasyna garşy köpler turup çykar; seniň halkyňyň talaňçy zorlulary-da görnüşi berkarar etmek üçin özlerini beýgeldiler, ýöne olar ýykylar. Daniýel 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, otuz altıncı aýatdaky patyşanyň häsiýetnamalarynyň papalyk häkimiýetine laýyk gelmeýändigini öňe sürýär, emma ol mundan ozal on dördünji aýatdaky özüni beýgeldýän güýç hökmünde Rimi gorapdy. Şeýle-de bolsa, otuz altynjy aýatdaky patyşa “özüni beýgelder.” Şol bir patyşa otuz altynjy aýatda “hudaýlaryň Hudaýyna garşy täsin sözler aýdýar” diýip beýan edilýär. Daniel kitabynda papalyk häkimiýeti “Beýik Taňra garşy uly sözler aýdar,” Ylham kitabynda bolsa papalyk häkimiýeti Beýik Taňra garşy küpür sözlerini aýdýar.
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.
Oňa uly zatlary we küfür sözleri aýdýan agyz berildi; oňa kyrk iki aý dowam etmek ygtyýary hem berildi. Şeýlelikde, ol agzyny Hudaýa garşy küfür etmek, Onuň adyna, Onuň mukaddes mesgenine we gökde ýaşaýanlara küfür etmek üçin açdy. Ylham 13:5, 6.
Every prophetic specification of the papal power is identified in verse thirty-six.
Papal häkimiýet barada bolan her bir pygamberlik häsiýetnamasy otuz altynjy aýatda görkezilýär.
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.
Patyşa öz islegine görä hereket eder; ol özüni beýgeldip, her bir hudaýdan ýokary tutar, hudaýlaryň Hudaýyna garşy geň-taň sözler aýdar we gaharyň tamam bolýança rowaçlyk tapar; çünki bellenilen zat amala aşar. Daniýel 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.
Ynsan teswirçileri köp gezek ygtybarsyz bolýar, emma köp Adventist teswirçileri resul Pawlusyň günä adamy barada söz açanda 2 Selaniklilerden parafraz eden aýatynyň otuz altynjy aýat bolandygyny görnetin hakykata şaýatlyk edýärler.
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.
Hiç kimse sizi hiçbir surette aldatmasın; çünkü önce imandan dönüş gelmedikçe ve günah adamı, mahvoluş oğlu ortaya çıkmadıkça o gün gelmeyecektir. O, Tanrı diye anılan ya da tapınılan her şeye karşı duran ve kendisini onların hepsinin üzerine yükselten kişidir; öyle ki, Tanrı gibi Tanrı’nın mabedinde oturur ve kendisinin Tanrı olduğunu gösterir. 2 Selanikliler 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.
Otuz altynjy aýat onuň “özüni beýgeldip, özüni ähli hudaýdan ýokarda ulaldar” diýýändigini aýdýar, Pawlus bolsa: “günäniň adamy, heläkçiligiň ogly aýan bolar; ol garşy durýar we Hudaý diýlip atlandyrylýan zatlaryň hemmesinden ýa-da ybadat edilýän zatlaryň hemmesinden özüni ýokarda beýgeldýär” diýýär. Aýdyňdyr: Smitiň otuz altynjy aýatyň patyşasynyň, otuz altynjy aýata çenli gelen aýatlarda gürrüň edilýän patyşadan başgaçadygyny öňe sürmäge pygamberlik ygtyýary ýokdy. Grammatik taýdan onuň bu nädogry ulanyşy etmegine hiç hili esas ýokdy, hem-de muny otuz altynjy aýatda papalyk häkimiýetiniň hiç bir häsiýeti ýok diýen sebäp bilen edendigini öňe sürmegi, şahsy düşündirişi berkarar etmäge synanyşyp, Mukaddes Ýazgyny ýoýmakdy.
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.
Bizde pygamberlik hakynda has-da berk söz hem bar; siz garaňky ýerde şöhle saçýan çyra üns berşiňiz ýaly, gün dogýança we daň ýyldyzy ýürekleriňizde dogýança, oňa üns berseňiz, gowy edersiňiz. Ilki bilen muny biliň: Mukaddes Ýazgydaky hiç bir pygamberlik şahsy düşündirişiň zady däldir. Çünki pygamberlik gadym döwürde adamyň islegi bilen gelmedi; eýsem, Hudaýyň mukaddes adamlary Mukaddes Ruh tarapyndan herekete getirilip, sözlediler. 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.
Laodikiýaly Adventizmiň ýyllary dowamynda Smitiň ulanylyşynyň dogrudygyny ýa-da nädogrudygyny öz pikirlerinde gozgap gelen köp sanly Adventist ylahyýatçylary, ruhanylary we ýazyjylary boldy. Uzak wagt ozal aradan çykan awstraliýaly bir ruhany, Lui Were, hyzmatynyň esasy bölegini Smitiň ýalan pygamberlik nusgasyna garşy durmaga bagyşlady. Onuň garşylygynyň sebäbi diňe Smitiň kyrk bäşinji aýatda ahyryna ýetýän patyşany ahyrsoňy Türkiýe diýip kesgitlemeginde däldi; eýsem Smitiň esas goýýan ulgamy Armageddona nädogry ulanylyşy hem döretýärdi. 1980-nji ýyllarda ýa-da şol töwereklerde bir Adventist ýazyjy Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? diýen at bilen bir kitap ýazdy. Ýazyjynyň ady Donald Mansell, we bu kitap henizem elýeterlidir.
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 Birinji Jahan urşuna we Ikinji Jahan urşuna çenli alyp baran taryhy yzarlap, şol iki urşuň hem golaýlaýandygy görünende, Adventist wagyzçylarynyň Armageddonuň we dünýäniň ahyrynyň alamaty hökmünde Smithiň Türkiýäniň göni manyda Iýerusalime ýörişi baradaky ýalan ulanylyşyny peýdalanyp başlandyklaryny görkezýär. Ol ybadathana agzalyk sanawlary arkaly, urşlaryň hersi golaýlanda, wagyzçylaryň Smithiň Armageddon baradaky kemçilikli garaýşyndan gelip çykýan pygamberlik ähmiýetine esaslanyp, köp janlaryň Adventist ybadathanasynyň agzalygyna getirilendigini subut edýär.
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.
Haýsy uruş bolsa-da tamamlananda we Smith tarapyndan döredilen pygamberlik nusgasyna esaslanyp edilen kemçilikli çaklamalar amala aşmadyk mahaly, ybadathana şol nusgadan gazanan agzalaryndan has köp agzasyny ýitirdi.
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.
Smitiň Milleritleriň düýpli habaryny ret etmegi we Danyýeliň otuz altynjy aýatyndan kyrk bäşinji aýatyna çenli bolan bölegine degişli öz hususy düşündirişini öňe sürmäge taýýarlygy netijesinde, Smitiň mantygy häzirki wakalara esaslanýan pygamberlik nusgasyny döretdi.
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 on birinji babyň iň soňky aýatynda ahyryna ýetýän patyşa baradaky Smit bilen Jeýms Waýtyň arasyndaky jedelde, Jeýms Waýt Smitiň gowşak pygamberlik esasyny gysga we anyk beýan edýän bir mantygy öňe sürdi. Waýt “pygamberlik taryhy döredýär, emma taryh pygamberligi döretmeýär” diýip öwretdi.
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.
Iki urşuň ikisinden hem öň zähmet çeken Adventizmiň wagyzçylary, ösüp barýan taryhy Smitiň Armageddon baradaky nädogry pygamberlik nusgasyny beýan etmek üçin ulandylar, we uruşlara çenli barýan döwürde şeýle bereketlenen ýaly görünen olaryň işi, şol pygamberlik nusgasynyň şahsy teswire esaslanandygy äşgär edilende, jemleýji taýdan ýitgä getirdi.
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.
Ýalan pygamberlerden ägä boluň; olar size goýnuň hamynda gelýärler, emma içinden ýyrtyjy möjeklerdir. Siz olary miweleri boýunça tanarsyňyz. Adamlar tikenden üzüm, ýa-da tikenekden injir ýygnaýarlarmy? Şeýle hem her bir gowy agaç gowy miwe berýär; emma zaýa agaç ýaman miwe berýär. Gowy agaç ýaman miwe berip bilmez, zaýa agaç hem gowy miwe berip bilmez. Gowy miwe bermeýän her bir agaç çapylýar we oda taşlanýar. Şeýlelikde, siz olary miweleri boýunça tanarsyňyz. Matta 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.
Smitiň otuz altynjy aýatdaky patyşa barada hususy pygamberlik nusgasyny öňe sürmäge bolan taýýarlygy, altynjy belanyň we Armageddonyň hem nädogry ulanylmagynyň netijesini berdi.
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.
Altynjy perişde öz käsesini beýik Ýewfrat derýasynyň üstüne dökdi; onuň suwy gurady, gündogaryň patyşalarynyň ýoluny taýýarlamak üçin. Men aždarhanyň agzyndan, haýwanyň agzyndan we ýalan pygamberiň agzyndan gurbaga meňzeş üç haram ruhuň çykýandygyny gördüm. Çünki olar mugjyzalar görkezýän jynlaryň ruhlarydyr; olar ähli ýeriň we bütin dünýäniň patyşalarynyň ýanyna gidip, olary Gudratygüýçli Hudaýyň şol beýik günündäki söweşe ýygnamak üçin çykýarlar. Ine, Men ogry ýaly gelýärin. Oýanak bolup, eşiklerini goraýan adam bagtlydyr; ýogsam ýalaňaç gezip, onuň utanjyny görerler. Olary ýewreý dilinde Armageddon diýlip atlandyrylýan ýere ýygnady. Ylham 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.”
Öň hem belläp geçişimiz ýaly, altynjy bela ynsanlaryň synag möhletiniň ýapylmagyndan soň gelýär; şonuň üçin “eşikleriňi gora” diýen duýduryş, diňe Mihailiň turup, ynsanlaryň synag möhleti ýapylyp, birinji bela başlamazyndan öň ýüze çykýan synag meselesine degişli bolmalydyr. Altynjy bela ýakyn wagtda giriziljek ýekşenbe kanuny bilen bir ýere jemlenýän üç esse birleşme bolan aždarhanyň, haýwanyň we galp pygamberiň işlerini görkezýär. Şol üç esse birleşme Häzirki Zamanyň Rimi bolup durýar; Häzirki Zamanyň Riminiň şol üç esse birleşmesini tanadýan we berkarar edýän nyşan bolsa, “öz halkyňdan bolan talaňçylar” bolup, olar “görünişi berkarar etmek üçin özlerini beýgeldýärler” we “ýykylýarlar.”
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.
Altynjy belanyň duýduryşy dogry düşünilende, bir jana öz lybaslaryny saklamaga mümkinçilik berýär; emma ol ret edilse, bir jany ýalaňaç galdyrýar, bu bolsa Laodikiýanyň bäş aýratynlygynyň biridir. Şol duýduryşy tassyklaýan nyşan, özüni beýgeldýän we ahyrsoňunda ýykylyp gaçýan halkyňdaky talaňçylardyr. Süleýman aýtdy: eger Hudaýyň halkynda şol görnüş bolmasa, olar heläk bolarlar.
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. Proverbs 29:18.
Görüş ýok ýerinde halk heläk bolýar; emma kanuny berjaý edýän bagtlydyr. Süleýmanyň pähimleri 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.
Ýewreý dilindäki “perish” sözi “ýalaňaç etmek” diýmegi aňladýar, we Ýahýa şeýle ýazdy: “Sergin durýan we eşiklerini saklaýan adama bagtlydyr; ýogsam ol ýalaňaç gezip, onuň bihaýalygyny görerler.” Smit Demirgazygyň Patyşasy barada ýalňyşdy, we şol galp pygamberlik binýady oňa şeýle bir pygamberlik ulanylyşyny ösdürmäge ýol berdi welin, eger ol kabul edilse, ýalaňaçlygy ýüze çykarýar; bu bolsa Rebbiň agzyndan tüýkürilip çykarylan Laodikiýalylaryň nyşanydyr.
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:
Smit Demirgazygyň Patyşasynyň kimdigine degişli öz täze ýalan kesgitlemesini pygamber aýalynyň adamsy Jeýms Waýta garşy öňe sürmekde hiç hili kynçylyk görmedi. Adventist taryhçylary, hem-de Uýam Waýt, olaryň meşhur gapma-garşylygyny beýan edýärler. Ellen Waýt Danyýel on birinji bapdaky demirgazygyň patyşasy arkaly kimiň göz öňünde tutulýandygy baradaky pikir tapawudyny köpçülige çykarmaga ýol berendikleri üçin hem öz adamsy, hem-de Smiti käýedi. 1844-nji ýyldaky Uly Lapykeçlikden soňky ilkinji Adventist neşirinde Jeýms Waýt şeýle ýazdy:
“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.
“Isanyň turup, gapyny ýapyp, öz patyşalygyny almak üçin 1844-nji ýylyň 7-nji aýynda Gadymy Günleriň ýanyna gelendigine men doly ynanýaryn. Seret: Luka 13:25; Matta 25:10; Daniýel 7:13,14. Emma Daniýel 12:1-de aýdylýan Mihailiň turup durmagy başga bir waka, başga bir maksat üçin ýaly görünýär. Onuň 1844-nji ýylda turmagy gapyny ýapmak, Patyşalygyny kabul etmek we höküm sürmek ygtyýaryny almak üçin Atasynyň ýanyna gelmek maksady bilen bolupdy; emma Mihailiň turup durmagy bolsa, eýýäm özünde bar bolan patyşa häkimiýetini erbetleriň ýok edilmeginde we Öz halkynyň halas edilmeginde aýan etmek üçindir. Mihail 11-nji bapdaky iň soňky güýjüň öz soňuna gelip, oňa kömek edýän hiç kimiň bolmaýan wagtynda turup durar. Bu güýç Hudaýyň hakyky ybadathanasyny basgylap ýören iň soňky güýçdür; we hakyky ybadathana henizem basgylanyp, bütin hristian dünýäsi tarapyndan kowulyp çykarylýandygy üçin, şundan ugur alsak, iň soňky sütemkär güýç entek ‘öz soňuna gelmändir;’ we Mihail entek turup durmandyr. Mukaddesleri basgalaýan bu iň soňky güýç Ylham 13:11-18-de görkezilýär. Onuň sany 666-dyr.” 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.
Smit özüniň «Danyýel kitabynyň on birinji babyndaky ahyrky güýç» meselesi boýunça diýilýän «täze nury» hödürlän wagtynda, Jeýms Waýt Smitiň bu düşündirişine täze nur hökmünde däl-de, eýsem esaslara edilen hüjüm hökmünde garady. Danyýel kitabynyň on birinji babynda demirgazygyň patyşasy hökmünde Rimiň meselesi babatda Uriýa Smit bilen Jeýms Waýtyň arasynda ýüze çykan jedelde, pygamberlik okuwçylary hökmünde, Adventistleriň taryhyndaky Rim nyşany bilen baglanyşykly beýleki jedeller bilen birlikde bir ýere getirmeli anyk häsiýetler bardyr.
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.
Şol häsiýetleriň biri hususy düşündirişiň girizilmegidir. Ýene bir häsiýeti bolsa, hususy düşündirişiň ulanylmagy ýönekeý grammatikanyň ýoýulmagyny talap edýär; çünki Smith diňe otuz altynjy aýatdaky pygamberlik häsiýetleriniň ählisiniň Rime degişli bolandygyny äsgermezlik etmän, eýsem grammatik gurluşyň hem otuz altynjy aýatdaky patyşanyň öňki bölekde görkezilen patyşanyň hut şol özüniň bolmalydygyny talap edýändigini-de äsgermezlik etdi.
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.”
Ýene biri, hususy düşündirişiň düýpli hakykatlaryň ret edilmegi bolmagydyr. Ýene biri, onuň Pygamberlik Ruhunyň ygtyýarlylygynyň ret edilmegini aňladýandygydyr. Ýene bir aýratynlygy, Rim barada ilkinji nädogry pikiriň adamzat synag möhletiniň soňuna golaýlaşýarka, adamyň öz geýimlerini saklamagyna ýol bermeýän pygamberlik nusgasyna alyp barjakdygydyr. Ýene biri, onuň öz hususy düşündirişini aç-açan wagyz etmäge taýýarlyk görkezmegidi. Ýene biri, hususy düşündirişiň hemişe täze nur hökmünde tanadylýandygydyr. Bu häsiýetleriň hemmesi häzirki “halkyňyň talaňçylary” baradaky ara alnyp maslahatlaşmada görkezilýär.
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.
Rimiň halkyňyň “garakçylary” diýlip tanadylanlaryny görkezýän ilkinji dawasy arkaly öňden nusgalanan soňky dawasy Uriýa Smit bilen Jeýms Waýtyň dawaly pygamberlik çyzygy bilen bir ýere getirilen wagtynda, biz bir toparyň esas goýujy hakykaty ret edýän hususy düşündirişiň üstünde öz pygamberlik nusgasyny gurjakdygyny göreris.
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.
Esasy hakykatlaryň ret edilmegi, şol esasy hakykatlary şeýle pugta goraýan Pygamberlik Ruhunyň ygtyýarlygynyň hem ret edilýändigini öz-özünden aňladýar. Şeýle topar, bu taglymyň bütin dünýäde Hudaýyň halkyna ýetirip biljek täsiri barada nähili aladalar orta atylan hem bolsa, öz garaýyşlaryny köpçüligiň öňünde beýan etmäge hem taýýar bolar.
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-nji ýyldan dessine soň, Adventizmiň ilkinji neslinde Rim barada ýene bir jedel orta atyldy. Şol jedel Adventizmiň üçünji neslinde ýalan garaýyş kabul edilýänçä dowamly gozgalyp durdy. Biz häzir setir üstüne setir nusgasynda garap çykýan alty ugryň dördünjisi hökmünde “gündelik” baradaky jedeli gözden geçireris.
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.”
Emma Rim bilen çekişmeleriň dördünji ugruna geçmezimizden öň, öňki makalada, biz Danyýel kitabynyň on birinji babynyň onunjy aýatyna ýüzlenýärkäk, şeýle diýendigimizi ýatda saklamak zerurdyr: “Onunjy aýat hem Levitler ýigrimi altydaky «ýedi wagty» gizlin taryh bilen gös-göni baglanyşdyrýar, ýöne şol hakykat ugry biziň bu ýerde beýan edýän zadymyzyň daşyndadyr.”
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 1863-nji ýylda ýedi wagty ret etmekde ýolbaşçy boldy. Ol şol mesele boýunça bilimleriň artmagyny eýýäm ret edipdi; bu bilimler Hiram Edson tarapyndan ýazylyp, 1856-njy ýylda Review-da çap edilen şol mesele baradaky makalalarda beýan edilipdi. Smitiň ýedi wagty öňe süren bir hereket bilen baglanyşykly bolup, soňra bolsa hut şol mesele boýunça bilimleriň artmagyny ret etmeginiň netijeleri hem Smitiň demirgazygyň patyşasy baradaky meselede täze nur diýip öňe süren zadynyň giriziliş aýratynlyklary baradaky mowzugyň çäginden daşarydyr; emma Rim baradaky Adventist jedelleriniň ugry boýunça umumy synymyzy jemlänimizden soň, biz hem Danyýel 11-nji bapdaky onunjy aýatyň ähmiýetine, hem-de 1856-njy ýylda ýedi wagt baradaky bilimleriň artmagy bilen gelen Laodikýa habaryny Smitiň ret etmeginiň nämäni aňladýandygyna gaýdyp dolanarys.
“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.
“Birinji, ikinji we üçünji perişdeleriň habarlaryna degişli iman düşünjämiz dogrydy. Biziň geçip gelen beýik ýol belgilerimiz sarsmazdyr. Jähennemiň goşunlary olary öz binýadyndan goparmaga synanyşyp, muny başardyklary baradaky pikir bilen ýeňiş gazanýan ýaly bolsalar-da, şonda-da olar üstünlik gazanmaýarlar. Hakykatyň bu sütünleri ebedi depeler ýaly berk durýarlar, adamlaryň ähli tagallalary Şeýtanyň we onuň goşunynyň tagallalary bilen birleşdirilen ýagdaýynda-da ýerinden gymyldadylmaýarlar. Biz köp zady öwrenip bileris, we bu zatlaryň şeýle bolup-bolmaýandygyny görmek üçin Mukaddes Ýazgylary hemişe içgin barlamalydyrys.” 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.
Hakykatyň beýik ýol görkeziji alamatlary, pygamberlik taryhynda bize ugrumyzy görkezýän bu alamatlar, üns bilen goralmaly, ýogsam olar ýykylyp, olaryň ýerine hakyky ýagtylykdan beter bulaşyklyk getirjek nazaryýetler ornaşdyrylar. Selected Messages, book 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
“Şu döwürde mukaddes ýer baradaky meselemizde imanymyzy sarsdyrmak üçin köp tagallalar ediler; emma biz yralmaly däldiris. Imanymyzyň binýatlaryndan bir iňňe-de ýerinden gozgalmaly däldir. Hakykat henizem hakykatdyr. Şübhelenmäge başlanlar ýalňyş nazaryýetlere ugrar we ahyrynda, hakykatyň nämedigi barada öňden bäri elimizde bolan subutnamalara görä, özlerini imansyz ýagdaýda taparlar. Köne ýol belgileri goralyp saklanmalydyr, şeýdip ugrumyzdan azaşmarys.” Manuscript Releases, 1-nji tom, 55