We are addressing six lines of prophetic controversy that have occurred within the history of Adventism from 1798 until the present day.

Biz 1798-yildan to hozirgi kungacha Adventizm tarixi davomida yuzaga kelgan bashoratga oid bahs-munozaraning olti yo‘nalishini ko‘rib chiqmoqdamiz.

“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.

“Tarix va bashoratda Xudoning Kalomi haqiqat bilan xato o‘rtasidagi uzoq davom etgan kurashni tasvirlaydi. Bu kurash hanuz davom etmoqda. Ilgari bo‘lgan narsalar yana takrorlanadi. Eski bahslar qayta jonlanadi, va yangi nazariyalar muttasil ravishda paydo bo‘lib turadi. Ammo o‘z e’tiqodida va bashoratning bajo keltirilishida birinchi, ikkinchi va uchinchi farishtalarning xabarlarini e’lon qilishda o‘z ulushini ado etgan Xudoning xalqi qayerda turganini biladi. Ular nozik oltindan ham qimmatliroq bo‘lgan tajribaga egadirlar. Ular qoyadek sobit turishlari, ishonchlarining boshidan boshlab oxirigacha uni mahkam tutishlari kerak.” Selected Messages, 2-kitob, 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.

Avvalgi maqolada Rim hokimiyati haqidagi birinchi va oxirgi bahs ko‘rib chiqilgan edi, endi esa Uriah Smith bilan James White o‘rtasida yuz bergan bahsni ko‘rib chiqamiz. Uriah Smith o‘zining “shaxsiy talqini”ni o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatga kiritdi.

“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.

“OYAT 36. Shoh o‘z irodasiga ko‘ra ish tutadi; u o‘zini yuksaltiradi va har bir xudodan yuqori qo‘yib ulug‘laydi, xudolar Xudosiga qarshi hayratomuz so‘zlar aytadi va g‘azab ado bo‘lgunicha ravnaq topadi; chunki belgilab qo‘yilgan narsa albatta amalga oshadi.

“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 yerda taqdim etilgan shoh ilgari tilga olingan ayni kuchni, ya’ni papalik hokimiyatini anglatishi mumkin emas; chunki bu ta’riflar o‘sha kuchga tatbiq etilsa, mos kelmaydi.” 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 avvalgi oyatdagi kuch “papalik Rimi” ekanini tan oldi, biroq o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatning xususiyatlari papalik Rimini aniqlab beradigan bashoratli xususiyatlar emas, deb da’vo qiladi. Bu da’vo yolg‘ondir. Shuni yodda tutish kerakki, 1863-yildagi isyonda Levilar kitobining yigirma oltinchi bobidagi yetti zamon chetga surib qo‘yildi, va shu sababli Habakkukning har ikkala jadvalidagi yetti zamonning tasviri rad etildi. 1843-yilgi ham, 1850-yilgi jadvallar ham yetti zamonni jadvallarning ayni markazida tasvirlaydi, va har ikkala tasvir ham xochni yetti zamon chizig‘ining markaziga joylashtiradi. 1856-yilda yetti zamon haqidagi yangi nur kelib, keyinchalik rad etilganida, bu Habakkukning ikki jadvalining, shuningdek har ikkala jadval ham Xudo tomonidan yo‘naltirilganini shu qadar ravshan aniqlab beradigan Bashorat Ruhining hokimiyatining rad etilishini belgiladi.

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.

Opa Uaytga ko‘ra, Shaytonning so‘nggi aldovi — Xudoning Ruhining guvohligini ta’sirsiz qilishdir; bu yerda esa birinchi aldov ham Xudoning Ruhining guvohligini ta’sirsiz qilishdan iborat edi, va u, shuningdek, ikki jadvaldagi asosiy haqiqatlarning, yanada aniqrog‘i, yetti zamonning bir vaqtning o‘zida rad etilishini ham ifodalagan.

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-yildagi isyon chog‘ida 1863-yilgi soxta jadvalni yaratgan kishi aynan Uriya Smitning o‘zi edi; u yetti zamon chizig‘ini olib tashladi. 1863-yilga kelib, Uriya Smit yetti zamonning nuriga ko‘zlarini yumgan edi va Doniyor aniqlab ko‘rsatadigan ikki “g‘azab” borligini ko‘ra olmas edi. Bu ikki g‘azab Isroilning shimoliy shohligi va Yahudoning janubiy shohligiga qarshi bo‘lgan yetti zamonni ifodalaydi. Birinchisi shimoldagi o‘nta qabilaga qarshi miloddan avvalgi 723-yilda boshlangan va 1798-yilda yakunlangan, ikkinchisi esa miloddan avvalgi 677-yilda boshlangan va 1844-yilda yakunlangan.

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.

Jabroil Doniyorning sakkizinchi bobida marah vahiyini tushuntirish uchun keldi va o‘z xizmati bilan bog‘liq holda, 1844-yilga ikkinchi guvohlikni taqdim etdi. Doniyor kitobining sakkizinchi bobidagi ikki ming uch yuz yil 1844-yilda nihoyasiga yetdi, ammo shimoliy va janubiy shohliklarga qarshi bo‘lgan ikki g‘azabning oxirgisi ham aynan o‘sha yilda tugadi.

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.

Va u dedi: Mana, g‘azabning oxirgi intihosida nima bo‘lishini senga ma’lum qilaman; chunki tayinlangan vaqtda oxirat bo‘lur. Doniyor 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.

So‘nggi nihoya birinchi nihoyani oldindan faraz qiladi. Ikki g‘azabning so‘nggisi — bu shunchaki yetti vaqtning boshqa bir ifodasidir — 1844-yilda tugadi, birinchi g‘azab esa 1798-yilda tugadi. Smit papa hokimiyatiga oid hech qanday belgilashlarni o‘z ichiga olmaydi deb da’vo qilgan oyat, papalik o‘limli yarasini qabul qiladigan yilni aniqlab bergan edi.

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.

Podshoh o‘z irodasiga ko‘ra ish tutadi; u o‘zini yuksaltiradi va har bir xudodan yuqori qo‘yib ulug‘laydi, xudolar Xudosiga qarshi ajoyib so‘zlar aytadi va g‘azab ado bo‘lguncha ravnaq topadi; chunki belgilab qo‘yilgan narsa amalga oshadi. Doniyor 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.

O‘ttiz oltinchi oyatdagi “shoh” “g‘azab nihoyasiga yetguncha ravnaq topadi”. Smit, papalik hokimiyati o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatni bajo keltirish uchun zarur bo‘lgan to‘g‘ri xususiyatlarga ega emas, deb da’vo qilgan ayni kitobida, Doniyor kitobining sakkizinchi bobi yigirma uchinchi va yigirma to‘rtinchi oyatlari haqida nima yozganiga e’tibor bering.

“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-OYAT. Va ularning saltanatining oxirgi davrida, gunohkorlar me’yoriga yetganda, yuzi qahrli, jumboqli gaplarni anglaydigan bir shoh bosh ko‘taradi. 24. Uning qudrati kuchli bo‘ladi, ammo o‘z qudrati bilan emas; u g‘oyat dahshatli ravishda vayron qiladi, muvaffaqiyat qozonadi va amal qiladi, qudratlilarni ham, muqaddas xalqni ham halok qiladi. 25. O‘z siyosati bilan ham u makrning o‘z qo‘lida ravnaq topishiga sabab bo‘ladi; u yuragida o‘zini ulug‘laydi va tinchlik orqali ko‘plarni halok qiladi; u amirlarning Amiriga ham qarshi bosh ko‘taradi; ammo qo‘lsiz sindiriladi.

“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 qudrat echki shohligining to‘rt bo‘linmasidan ularning shohligining keyingi davrida, ya’ni ularning hukmronligi nihoyasiga yaqin paytda voris bo‘lib chiqadi. Albatta, bu 9-oyatdan boshlab zikr etilgan kichik shoxning o‘zi bilan aynandir. Buni 9-oyatga doir izohlarda bayon etilganidek Rimga tatbiq eting, shunda hammasi uyg‘un va ravshan bo‘ladi.

“‘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.

“‘Qahrli chehrali bir podshoh.’ Muso, ayni shu qudrat tomonidan yahudiylar ustiga keladigan jazoni oldindan aytar ekan, uni ‘qahrli chehrali bir xalq’ deb ataydi. Qonunlar takrori 28:49, 50. Harbiy safda rimliklardan ko‘ra dahshatliroq ko‘rinish bergan xalq bo‘lmagan. ‘Sirli iboralarni anglaydigan.’ Muso, hozirgina tilga olingan Muqaddas Yozuvda shunday deydi: ‘Sen uning tilini tushunmaysan.’ Buni yahudiylarga nisbatan bobilliklar, forslar yoki yunonlar haqida aytib bo‘lmas edi; chunki Xaldey va yunon tillari Falastinda ozmi-ko‘pmi ishlatilgan edi. Ammo lotin tili bilan bunday emas edi.”

“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.

“Qachonki gunohkorlar o‘z to‘liqligiga yetganda.” Butun davomida Xudoning xalqi bilan ularning zolimlari o‘rtasidagi bog‘liqlik nazarda tutiladi. Ular O‘z xalqining gunohlari tufayli asirlikka sotilgan edilar. Va ularning gunohda davom etishi yanada og‘irroq jazoni keltirib chiqardi. Yahudiylar, millat sifatida, rimliklar hukmronligi ostiga kirgan paytda bo‘lganchalik axloqan buzilgan hech qachon bo‘lmagan edilar.

“‘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.

“‘Qudratli bo‘lur, ammo o‘z qudrati bilan emas.’ Rimliklarning muvaffaqiyati ko‘p jihatdan ularning ittifoqchilari yordami va dushmanlari orasidagi bo‘linishlar tufayli edi; ular bundan foydalanishga doimo tayyor edilar. Papalik Rimi ham o‘zi ruhiy nazoratni amalga oshirgan dunyoviy hokimiyatlar vositasida qudratli bo‘lgan.”

“‘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.

“‘U ajoyib tarzda vayron qiladi.’ Egamiz yahudiylarga Hizqiyol payg‘ambar orqali ularni ‘halok qilishga mohir’ odamlarga topshirishini aytgan edi; va Quddus Rim lashkari tomonidan vayron qilinganida bir million bir yuz ming yahudiyning qirg‘in etilishi, payg‘ambarning so‘zlarining dahshatli tasdig‘i bo‘ldi. Rim esa o‘zining ikkinchi, ya’ni papalik bosqichida ellik million shahidning o‘limi uchun javobgar bo‘ldi.”

“‘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.

“‘Va o‘z siyosati orqali ham u hiyla-nayrangni o‘z qo‘lida ravnaq toptiradi.’ Rim, xalqlarni o‘z hukmronligi ostiga keltirgan hiyla siyosati bilan boshqa barcha hokimiyatlardan ko‘ra ko‘proq ajralib turgan. Bu butparast Rimga ham, papalik Rimiga ham taalluqlidir. Shunday qilib, u tinchlik orqali ko‘plarni halok qildi.

“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.

“Va nihoyat, Rim o‘z noiblaridan biri timsolida hokimlar Hukmdoriga qarshi turdi, Iso Masihga o‘lim hukmini chiqarish orqali. ‘Lekin u qo‘lsiz sindiriladi’, bu ifoda ushbu qudratning yo‘q qilinishini 2-bobdagi haykalning urib tushirilishi bilan aynanlashtiradi.” 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 ushbu parchada ikki marta butparast Rim va papalik Rimiyning bashoratli xususiyatlari o‘zaro almashinuvchan ekanini ta’kidlaydi, chunki ular shunchaki Rimning ikki bosqichdagi namoyon bo‘lishidir; xuddi Doniyor kitobining ikkinchi bobidagi temir bilan loy aralashmasi kabi, uni Opa Uayt cherkovchilik va davlatchilikning ramzlari deb belgilaydi. Doniyor, Smit sharhlayotgan oyatlarda, Rim “ravnaq topadi va ish yuritadi”, hamda Rim “hiyla-nayrangning uning qo‘lida ravnaq topishiga sabab bo‘ladi”, deb ko‘rsatganda, Smit o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatda “g‘azab to‘liq amalga oshguncha ravnaq topadigan” “shoh” butparast Rim va papalik Rimiyning har ikkalasiga ham xos bashoratli xususiyatni ifodalaydi, deb da’vo qiladi. So‘ngra u o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatdagi Rimga oid xususiyatlarning hech biri papalik hokimiyatiga taalluqli emas, deb ta’kidlaydi.

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.

Biz vahiyni mustahkamlaydigan talonchilar Rim ekanini aniqlashni qo‘llab-quvvatlashda Smithga murojaat qildik, va o‘n to‘rtinchi oyatdagi to‘rtta bashoratli xususiyatdan biri shuki, Rim o‘zini yuksaltiradi.

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.

O‘sha zamonlarda janub podshohiga qarshi ko‘plar bosh ko‘taradilar; xalqing ichidagi zo‘ravonlar ham vahiy­ni qaror toptirmoq uchun o‘zlarini yuksaltiradilar; ammo ular yiqiladilar. Doniyor 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.

Smithning da’vosiga ko‘ra, o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatdagi shohning tavsiflari papalik hokimiyatiga mos kelmaydi, holbuki u avvalroq o‘n to‘rtinchi oyatda o‘zini yuksaltiradigan narsa Rim ekanini himoya qilgan edi. Biroq o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatdagi shoh “o‘zini yuksaltiradi.” O‘sha o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatdagi ayni shoh “xudolar Xudosiga qarshi ajoyib so‘zlar aytadi.” Doniyor kitobida papalik hokimiyati “Oliy Zotga qarshi katta so‘zlar aytadi,” Vahiy kitobida esa papalik hokimiyati Oliy Zotga qarshi kufr so‘zlaydi.

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.

Va unga katta narsalar va kufr so‘zlaydigan bir og‘iz berildi; va unga qirq ikki oy davom etish uchun hokimiyat berildi. Va u Xudoga qarshi kufr bilan og‘zini ochdi, Uning nomiga, Uning maskaniga va osmonda yashovchilarga kufr qilish uchun. Vahiy 13:5, 6.

Every prophetic specification of the papal power is identified in verse thirty-six.

O‘ttiz oltinchi oyatda papalik hokimiyatining har bir bashoratli tavsifi aniqlab ko‘rsatilgan.

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.

Shoh esa o‘z xohishiga ko‘ra ish tutadi; u o‘zini ulug‘laydi va har bir xudodan yuqori qo‘yadi, xudolar Xudosiga qarshi g‘aroyib so‘zlar aytadi va g‘azab to‘liq ado bo‘lgunicha ravnaq topadi; chunki belgilab qo‘yilgan narsa albatta amalga oshadi. Doniyor 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.

Insoniy sharhlovchilar ko‘p hollarda ishonchsiz bo‘ladilar, biroq ko‘plab Adventist sharhlovchilar aniq haqiqatga guvohlik beradilarki, havoriy Pavlus gunoh odami haqida so‘z yuritganida, 2 Salonikaliklardagi o‘sha oyatni parafraz qilayotgan edi — ya’ni o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatni.

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.

Hech kim sizni hech bir yo‘l bilan aldamasin; chunki avval murtadlik yuz bermaguncha va halokat o‘g‘li bo‘lgan gunoh odami oshkor qilinmaguncha, o‘sha kun kelmaydi; u Xudo deb ataladigan yoki sajda qilinadigan hamma narsaga qarshi turadi va o‘zini ulardan yuqori qo‘yadi; natijada u Xudodek Xudoning ma’badiga o‘tirib, o‘zini Xudo ekanini ko‘rsatadi. 2 Salonikaliklarga 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.

O‘ttiz oltinchi oyatda “u o‘zini yuksaltiradi va har bir xudodan yuqori qo‘yib ulug‘laydi,” deb aytiladi, Pavlus esa: “gunoh odami, halokat o‘g‘li oshkor bo‘lsin; u Xudo deb atalgan yoki sajda qilinadigan hamma narsaga qarshi turadi va o‘zini ulardan yuqori ko‘taradi,” deydi. Ravshanki, Smitda o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatdagi podshoh undan oldingi oyatlarda muhokama qilinayotgan podshohdan boshqa ekanini da’vo qilish uchun hech qanday bashoratli vakolat yo‘q edi. Grammatik jihatdan ham u o‘zining nuqsonli tatbiqini qilish uchun hech qanday asosga ega emas edi, va u buni o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatda papalik hokimiyatining hech qanday alomatlari yo‘q bo‘lgani uchun qilganini aytishi, xususiy talqinni o‘rnatishga urinish maqsadida Muqaddas Yozuvni buzib talqin qilish edi.

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.

Bizda yana ham ishonchliroq bashorat kalomi bor; sizlar unga qorong‘i joyda porlayotgan chiroqqa e’tibor bergandek quloq tutsangiz, yaxshi qilgan bo‘lursizlar, to tong otsin va tong yulduzi yuraklaringizda porlasin. Avvalo shuni bilinglarki, Muqaddas Yozuvdagi hech bir bashorat o‘zicha talqin qilinmaydi. Chunki bashorat qadimda inson irodasi bilan kelmagan, balki Xudoning muqaddas odamlari Muqaddas Ruh tomonidan ilhomlantirilgan holda so‘zlaganlar. 2 Butrus 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.

Laodikiyalik Adventizm yillari davomida Smitning tatbiqi to‘g‘ri yoki noto‘g‘ri ekanligi masalasiga murojaat qilgan ko‘plab adventist ilohiyotchilar, pastorlar va mualliflar bo‘lgan. Allaqachon uzoq yillar avval vafot etgan avstraliyalik bir pastor — Louis Were — o‘z xizmatining asosiy qismini Smitning soxta bashoratli modeliga qarshi chiqishga bag‘ishlagan. Uning qarshiligining sababi shunchaki Smit qirq beshinchi oyatda o‘z nihoyasiga yetadigan shohni oxir-oqibat Turkiya deb aniqlagani emas edi, balki Smitning platformasi Armageddonning noto‘g‘ri tatbiqini ham yuzaga keltirgan edi. 1980-yillarda yoki shunga yaqin davrda bir adventist muallif “Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy?” nomli kitob yozdi. Muallifning ismi Donald Mansell, va bu kitob hanuz mavjud.

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 Birinchi jahon urushi va Ikkinchi jahon urushigacha olib borgan tarixiy jarayonni kuzatib, shu ikki urush yaqinlashayotgani ayon bo‘lgan paytda Adventist voizlari Armageddon va dunyoning oxiri belgisi sifatida Smitning Turkiyaning tom ma’nodagi Quddusga yurishi haqidagi noto‘g‘ri tatbiqini qo‘llay boshlaganliklarini ko‘rsatadi. U jamoat a’zoligi ro‘yxatlari orqali shuni isbotlaydiki, urushlarning har biri yaqinlashgan sari Smitning Armageddon haqidagi nuqsonli qarashidan kelib chiqqan voizlarning payg‘ambarlik urg‘usiga asoslanib, ko‘plab jonlar Adventist jamoatining a’zoligiga olib kirilgan.

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.

Har qaysi urush yakunlanganda ham, nuqsonli bashoratlar amalga oshmagani bois, cherkov Smit tomonidan tuzilgan bashoratli andoza orqali qo‘lga kiritganidan ko‘ra ko‘proq a’zolarini yo‘qotdi.

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.

Smitning Millerchilarning asosiy xabarini rad etishi va Doniyordagi o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatdan qirq beshinchi oyatgacha bo‘lgan parchaga doir o‘zining shaxsiy talqinini ilgari surishga tayyorligi natijasida, Smitning mantiqi joriy voqealarga asoslangan bashoratli bir modelni yuzaga keltirdi.

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.”

Doniyorning o‘n birinchi bobining so‘nggi oyatida o‘z oxiriga yetadigan shoh haqidagi masalada Smit bilan Jeyms Uayt o‘rtasidagi bahsda, Jeyms Uayt Smitning qum ustiga qurilgan bashoriy poydevorini lo‘nda ifodalab beradigan bir mantiqni ilgari surdi. Uayt shunday ta’lim bergan edi: “bashorat tarixni yuzaga keltiradi, ammo tarix bashoratni yuzaga keltirmaydi.”

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.

Har ikki urushdan oldin faoliyat yuritgan Adventizm xushxabarchilari Smitning Armageddon haqidagi nuqsonli bashoratli modelini taqdim etish uchun rivojlanib borayotgan tarixdan foydalandilar; urushlar arafasida shunchalik barakali ko‘ringan ularning mehnati esa, bashoratli model shaxsiy talqinga asoslangani namoyon bo‘lgach, yakunida sof yo‘qotish keltirdi.

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.

Soxta payg‘ambarlardan ehtiyot bo‘linglar; ular sizlarning oldingizga qo‘y terisiga burkanib keladilar, ammo ichlarida yirtqich bo‘rilardir. Sizlar ularni mevalaridan tanib olasizlar. Axir, odamlar tikonlardan uzum, qariyag‘ochlardan anjir teradilarmi? Xuddi shunday, har bir yaxshi daraxt yaxshi meva beradi; ammo chirigan daraxt yomon meva beradi. Yaxshi daraxt yomon meva bera olmaydi, chirigan daraxt ham yaxshi meva bera olmaydi. Yaxshi meva bermaydigan har bir daraxt kesib tashlanadi va olovga uloqtiriladi. Shunday ekan, sizlar ularni mevalaridan tanib olasizlar. Matto 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.

Smitning o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatdagi podsho haqidagi xususiy bashoratli andozani ilgari surishga tayyorligi, oltinchi vabo hamda Armageddonning ham noto‘g‘ri tatbiqini yuzaga keltirish mevasini 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.

Oltinchi farishta o‘z kosasini buyuk Furot daryosi ustiga to‘kdi; va uning suvi qurib qoldi, toki sharq podshohlarining yo‘li tayyorlansin. Va men ajdahoning og‘zidan, hayvonning og‘zidan va soxta payg‘ambarning og‘zidan baqalarga o‘xshash uch nopok ruh chiqayotganini ko‘rdim. Chunki ular mo‘jizalar ko‘rsatadigan jinlar ruhlaridir; ular Qodir Xudoning o‘sha ulug‘ kunidagi jangga ularni to‘plash uchun yer yuzining va butun olamning podshohlari oldiga chiqadilar. Mana, Men o‘g‘ri kabi kelaman. Uyg‘oq bo‘lib, kiyimlarini saqlaydigan kishi baxtlidir, toki u yalang‘och yurmasin va uning uyatini ko‘rmasinlar. Va ularni ibroniy tilida Armageddon deb ataladigan joyga to‘pladi. Vahiy 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.”

Avval ta’kidlaganimizdek, oltinchi balo insoniy sinov muddati yopilgandan keyin keladi; shu bois “kiyimlaringni saqla” degan undagi ogohlantirish, Mixail oyoqqa turishidan, insoniy sinov muddati yopilishidan va birinchi balo boshlanishidan oldin yuz beradigan sinov masalasiga taalluqli bo‘lishi kerak. Oltinchi balo ajdaho, mahluq va soxta payg‘ambarning faoliyatini aniqlab ko‘rsatadi; bular yaqin orada keladigan Yakshanba qonuni paytida birlashadigan uch tomonlama ittifoqdir. O‘sha uch tomonlama ittifoq Zamonaviy Rimdir, va Zamonaviy Rimning ana shu uch tomonlama ittifoqini aniqlab beradigan hamda mustahkamlaydigan ramz — “o‘z xalqingning qaroqchilari” bo‘lib, ular “vahiy(ni) barpo etish uchun o‘zlarini yuksaltiradilar” va “yiqiladilar.”

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.

Oltinchi baloning ogohlantirishi anglab yetilganda, jon o‘z liboslarini saqlab qola oladi; ammo u rad etilsa, jon yalang‘och qoladi, bu esa Laodikiyalikning besh xususiyatidan biridir. O‘sha ogohlantirishni mustahkamlaydigan ramz — o‘zlarini yuksaltiradigan va oxir-oqibat yiqiladigan xalqingning qaroqchilaridir. Sulaymon aytgan ediki, agar Xudoning xalqida o‘sha vahiy bo‘lmasa, ular halok bo‘ladilar.

Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. Proverbs 29:18.

Vahiy bo‘lmagan joyda xalq halok bo‘lur; ammo qonunni saqlovchi baxtlidir. Hikmatlar 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.

Ibroniycha “halok bo‘lmoq” so‘zi “yalang‘och qilmoq” degan ma’noni anglatadi, va Yuhanno shunday deb yozgan: “Baxtlidir o‘sha hushyor turgan va kiyimlarini saqlagan kishi; toki u yalang‘och yurmasin va uning uyati ko‘rinmasin.” Smith Shimol Podshohi masalasida xato qilgan edi, va o‘sha soxta bashoratli poydevor unga shunday bir bashoratli tatbiqni rivojlantirishga imkon berdi-ki, agar u qabul qilinsa, yalang‘ochlikni keltirib chiqaradi; bu esa Rabbimizning og‘zidan qusib tashlanadigan Laodikiyaliklarning ramzidir.

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 Shimol Podshohning o‘zining yangi soxta talqinini payg‘ambar ayolning eri Jeyms Uaytga qarshi himoya qilishda hech qanday qiyinchilikka duch kelmadi. Adventist tarixchilari va Opa-singil Uayt ularning mashhur kelishmovchiligiga to‘xtaladilar. Ellen Uayt eri hamda Smitni Doniyorning o‘n birinchi bobidagi Shimol Podshohi kimni ifodalashi borasidagi fikr farqlarining jamoatchilikka oshkor etilishiga yo‘l qo‘yganliklari uchun koyidi. 1844-yildagi Buyuk Hafsalasizlikdan keyingi ilk Adventist nashridayoq Jeyms Uayt shunday deb yozgan edi:

“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.

“Isoning 1844-yilning yettinchi oyida o‘rnidan turib, eshikni yopgani va O‘z shohligini qabul qilish uchun Qadimiy Kunlar huzuriga kelgani — bunga men to‘la ishonaman. Qarang: Luqo 13:25; Matto 25:10; Doniyor 7:13, 14. Ammo Doniyor 12:1 dagi Mixoilning o‘rnidan turishi boshqa bir voqea, boshqa bir maqsad uchun bo‘lib ko‘rinadi. Uning 1844-yilda o‘rnidan turishi eshikni yopish, O‘z Otasi huzuriga kelish, O‘z shohligi va hukmronlik qilish qudratini qabul qilish uchun edi; ammo Mixoilning o‘rnidan turishi esa, allaqachon O‘zida mavjud bo‘lgan shohona qudratini fosiqlarni halok qilishda va O‘z xalqini qutqarishda namoyon etish uchundir. Mixoil 11-bobdagi oxirgi hokimiyat o‘z nihoyasiga yetib, unga yordam beruvchi hech kim qolmaydigan vaqtda o‘rnidan turishi kerak. Bu hokimiyat Xudoning haqiqiy jamoatini oyoq osti qiladigan oxirgi hokimiyatdir; va haqiqiy jamoat hanuz butun xristian olami tomonidan oyoq osti qilinib, haydab chiqarilayotgan ekan, bundan kelib chiqadiki, bu oxirgi zulmkor hokimiyat hali ‘o‘z nihoyasiga yetmagan’; va Mixoil ham o‘rnidan turmagan. Muqaddaslarni oyoq osti qiladigan bu oxirgi hokimiyat Vahiy 13:11–18 da ko‘rsatilgan. Uning soni 666-dir.” 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 Daniel kitobining o‘n birinchi bobidagi “oxirgi hokimiyat” mavzusi bo‘yicha o‘zining go‘yoki “yangi nur”ini taqdim etganida, Jeyms Uayt Smitning bu tatbiqini yangi nur sifatida emas, balki poydevorlarga qilingan hujum sifatida ko‘rdi. Danielning o‘n birinchi bobida shimol podshohi sifatida Rim masalasida Uriya Smit bilan Jeyms Uayt o‘rtasida yuz bergan bahs, muayyan xususiyatlarga ega bo‘lib, biz bashorat tadqiqotchilari sifatida ularni Adventistlar tarixidagi Rim ramziga oid boshqa bahslar bilan birlashtirishimiz kerak.

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.

Ana shu xususiyatlardan biri xususiy talqinning kiritilishidir. Yana bir xususiyat shundaki, xususiy talqinni qo‘llash sodda grammatikani buzib talqin qilishni talab etadi, chunki Smith nafaqat o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatdagi har bir bashoratli xususiyat Rimga taalluqli ekanini e’tiborsiz qoldirdi, balki grammatik tuzilish o‘ttiz oltinchi oyatdagi shoh avvalgi parchada tasvirlangan o‘sha shohning o‘zi bo‘lishi kerakligini talab etishini ham e’tiborsiz qoldirdi.

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.”

Yana biri shuki, xususiy talqin asosiy haqiqatlarning rad etilishi edi. Yana biri shuki, u Bashorat Ruhi hokimiyatining rad etilishini ifodalaydi. Yana bir xususiyat shuki, Rim haqidagi birinchi nuqsonli g‘oya insoniy sinov muddatining yakuniga yaqinlashar ekan, kishining o‘z liboslarini saqlab qolishiga yo‘l qo‘ymaydigan bashoratli bir andozaga olib boradi. Yana biri uning o‘z xususiy talqinini omma oldida targ‘ib qilishga tayyor bo‘lganidadir. Yana biri shuki, xususiy talqin doimo yangi nur sifatida taqdim etiladi. Bu sifatlarning barchasi “sening xalqingning qaroqchilari” haqidagi hozirgi muhokamada o‘z ifodasini topgan.

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.

Rimning “xalqingning qaroqchilari”ni aniqlab bergan birinchi bahsi orqali timsollangan so‘nggi bahsi Uriya Smit va Jeyms Uayt bahsining bashoratli qatori bilan birlashtirilganda, biz bir toifa o‘z bashoratli modelini asosiy haqiqatni rad etadigan xususiy talqin ustiga qurayotganini ko‘ramiz.

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.

Asosiy haqiqatlarning rad etilishi, o‘sha asosiy haqiqatlarni shu qadar qat’iy himoya qiladigan Bashorat Ruhi hokimiyatining rad etilishini ham o‘z-o‘zidan anglatadi. O‘sha toifa, bu ta’limotning butun dunyo bo‘ylab Xudoning xalqiga qanday ta’sir ko‘rsatishi haqida qanday tashvishlar bildirilishidan qat’i nazar, o‘z qarashlarini ommaviy ravishda bayon etishga ham tayyor bo‘ladi.

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-yildan darhol keyin, Adventizmning birinchi avlodida Rim haqidagi yana bir bahs kiritildi. Bu bahs Adventizmning uchinchi avlodida soxta qarash qabul qilinguncha qo‘zg‘atilib turdi. Biz “kundalik” haqidagi bahsni hozir satr ustiga satr andozasida ko‘rib chiqayotgan olti yo‘nalishning to‘rtinchisi sifatida ko‘rib chiqamiz.

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.”

Ammo Rimning bahs-munozaralariga oid to‘rtinchi yo‘nalishni ko‘rib chiqishdan oldin, avvalgi maqolada Doniyor kitobining o‘n birinchi bobidagi o‘ninchi oyatni sharh etayotganimizda shunday deganimizni esda tutish lozim: “O‘ninchi oyat ham Levilar kitobining yigirma oltinchi bobidagi “yetti vaqt”ni yashirin tarix bilan bevosita bog‘laydi, biroq bu haqiqat yo‘nalishi bu yerda bayon etayotganlarimiz doirasidan tashqaridadir.”

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.

Uriya Smit 1863-yilda “yetti vaqt”ni rad etishda yetakchi bo‘lgan edi. U bu mavzuga oid bilimning ortishini ham rad etgan edi; bu ortish Hiram Edson tomonidan qalamga olingan va 1856-yilda Review’da chop etilgan ushbu mavzuga doir maqolalarda taqdim etilgan edi. Smitning “yetti vaqt”ni ilgari surgan bir harakat bilan bog‘liq bo‘lgani, biroq keyinchalik aynan o‘sha mavzudagi bilim ortishini rad etgani bilan bog‘liq oqibatlar ham Smitning shimol shohi mavzusida o‘zi “yangi nur” deb da’vo qilgan ta’limotni kiritishining xususiyatlari mavzusidan tashqaridadir; biroq biz Adventistlarning Rim haqidagi bahs-munozaralari yo‘nalishiga doir umumiy ko‘rib chiqishimizni yakunlaganimizda, Doniyor 11-bobning o‘ninchi oyatining ahamiyatiga ham, shuningdek 1856-yilda “yetti vaqt” haqidagi bilim ortishi bilan birga kelgan Laodikiya xabarini Smit rad etishi nimani ifodalashiga ham qaytamiz.

“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.

“Birinchi, ikkinchi va uchinchi farishtalarning xabarlari haqidagi e’tiqodimiz to‘g‘ri edi. Biz bosib o‘tgan ulkan yo‘l-belgilar qimirlamasdir. Do‘zax lashkarlari ularni poydevoridan yulib tashlashga urinib, bunga muvaffaq bo‘ldik, degan o‘y bilan tantana qilsalar ham, baribir muvaffaq bo‘la olmaydilar. Bu haqiqat ustunlari abadiy tepaliklar kabi sobit turadi; odamlarning barcha sa’y-harakatlari Shayton va uning lashkari sa’y-harakatlari bilan qo‘shilgan taqdirda ham, ular qimirlamaydi. Biz ko‘p narsani o‘rganishimiz mumkin, va bu narsalar haqiqatan shundaymi-yo‘qmi, ko‘rish uchun Muqaddas Yozuvlarni doimo tadqiq etib borishimiz kerak.” 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.

“Payg‘ambarlik tarixida yo‘nalishimizni ko‘rsatib turuvchi haqiqatning buyuk belgilarini ehtiyotkorlik bilan asrash kerak; toki ular buzib tashlanib, ularning o‘rniga chin nurdan ko‘ra chalkashlik keltiradigan nazariyalar qo‘yilmasin.” Selected Messages, 2-kitob, 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

“Bu paytda muqaddas ma’bad masalasiga doir imonimizni larzaga keltirish uchun ko‘plab sa’y-harakatlar qilinadi; ammo biz ikkilanmasligimiz kerak. Imonimizning poydevoridan biror igna ham qo‘zg‘atilmasligi lozim. Haqiqat hanuz haqiqatdir. Noaniq bo‘lib qoladiganlar adashgan nazariyalar tomon og‘ib ketadilar va oxir-oqibat, haqiqat nima ekanligi haqidagi biz ega bo‘lgan avvalgi dalillarga nisbatan o‘zlarini imonsiz holatda topadilar. Eski yo‘l belgilarini saqlab qolish lozim, toki yo‘nalishimizni yo‘qotib qo‘ymaylik.” Manuscript Releases, 1-jild, 55