We are addressing six lines of prophetic controversy that have occurred within the history of Adventism from 1798 until the present day.
Nu ngi jàppale juróom-benn rëdd yu werantey yónent yi amoon ci biir jaar-jaaru Adventisme, dale ci atum 1798 ba tey jii.
“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.
“Ci jaar-jaar ak yonent, Kàddu Yàlla dafay wone xeex bu yàgg te sax diggante dëgg ak juumte. Xeex boobu dafa nekk ba tey di dem. Yëf yi amoon, dinañu dellu amaat. Xuloo yu mag yi dinañu dekkat, te njàngale yu bees dinañu sax a di yéngu. Waaye askanu Yàlla, ñi ci seen ngëm ak ci seen matalug yonent doonnañu ci waareb yégleb ndaw mi njëkk, ñaareel bi, ak ñatteel bi, xam nañu fu ñuy taxaw. Am nañu njàngum dund gu ëpp solo wurus wu rafet. War nañu taxaw bu dëgër ni doj, di téye tàmbaleg seen kóolute ba mu sax ba ca muj.” Selected Messages, téere 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.
Mbindi wa jiitu bi weesu dafa jëfandikoo jëfandikooku bu njëkk ak bu mujj ci lu jëm ci kàttanu Room, te léegi dinañu jël waxtaan wi amoon diggante Uriah Smith ak James White. Uriah Smith dugal na ay “fassaraam bu boppam” ci saar fukki ak juróom-benn.
“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.
“AAYAAT 36. Buur bi dina def lu mu bëgg; dina yékkati boppam, te màggal boppam ci kaw bépp yàlla, te dina wax ay wax yu yéeme ci lu muy jàpp ci Yàlla ju Yàllay yàllë yi; te dina am njàmm ba kerem gi mat, ndaxte li dogees na, dees na ko def.
“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.
“Buur bi fiiñal ci nit kii mënuma tekki doole bi mujj gaññoon; maanaam, doole pap bu bees; ndaxte melokaan yi deesul dëppoo ak moom bu ñu ko jëfe ci doole jooju.” 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 nangoo ne doole bi nekk ci aaya wi jiitu doon na “Roomu papal,” waaye mu wax ne melokaani aaya ñeent-fukk ak juróom-benn gi du ay melokaani yu yoonu wax ji di jëfandikoo ngir xamle Roomu papal. Wax jooju du dëgg. War nañu fàttalikoo ne ci fippu ga amoon ci 1863, juróom-ñaari yoon yi ci Levitik saar ñaar-fukk ak juróom-benn dañu ko bàyyi woon, te moo tax itam melokaanu juróom-ñaari yoon yi ci ñaari taabal yi Habakkuk dañu ko bañ. Xaat bu 1843 ak bu 1850, ñoom ñépp dañuy wone juróom-ñaari yoon yi ci diggu xaat ya, te ñaari natal yi itam dañuy teg bant bi ci diggu rëdd wu juróom-ñaari yoon yi. Bi leer gu bees gu juróom-ñaari yoon yi agsee ci 1856 te gannaaw gi ñu bañ ko, loolu màndargaal na bañug ñaari taabal yi Habakkuk, ak itam sañ-sañu Xel mu Yëgle, mi leer lool ne ñaari xaat ya Yàlla moo leen jëbbal.
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.
Ci Sister White waxee ne, naxub Seytaane bu mujj bi mooy a def ba seedu Xelum Yàlla amul doole; te fii itam naxub jëkk bi mooyoon a def ba seedu Xelum Yàlla amul doole, te loolu itam dafa doon wone benn bañu gu àndandoo ci dëgg yu sës ci ñaari làkka yi, te gën a xóot ci juróom-ñaari yoon yi.
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.
Ci jamono waññi ga 1863, kenn du ku ko Uriah Smith moo sos natalu fen baat bi 1863, bi dindi woon rëddiin “juróom-ñaari waxtu yi.” Ci 1863, Uriah Smith ubbulul woon ay bëtam ci leerug “juróom-ñaari waxtu yi,” te mënu koona gis ne am na ñaari “mer” yu Daniel jox xamle. Ñaari mer yooyu dañuy tegtal “juróom-ñaari waxtu yi” yi jëm ci nguuru bëj-gànnaaru Israayil ak nguuru bëj-saalumu Yuda. Bi njëkk bi jëm woon ci fukki giir yu bëj-gànnaar yi, tàmbalee na ci 723 BC te jeex na ci 1798, te bi ñaareel bi tàmbalee na ci 677 BC te jeex na ci 1844.
Gabriel came to Daniel in chapter eight to explain the marah vision, and in connection with his work, he provided a second witness to 1844. The twenty-three hundred years of Daniel chapter eight ended in 1844, but so too did the last of the two indignations against the northern and southern kingdoms.
Gabriel ñëw na Daniel ci sarax 8 ngir leeral gis-gis bu marah bi, te ci jokkoo ak liggéeyam, mu joxe beneen seede gu ñaareel ci 1844. Ñaari junni ak ñetti téeméeri at yi nekk ci Daniel sarax 8 jeex nañu ci 1844, waaye noonu itam la mujj ci ñaari mer mbandam yi ci kaw nguur gu bëj-gànnaar ak nguur gu bëj-saalum.
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.
Mu ne ko: Xoolal, dinaa la xamal li war a am ci mujju mer mi; ndaxte ci jamono ji Yàlla tëral, mujj ga dina am. 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.
Muju mujje mi teg ci muju njëkk. Muju ñaari mer yooyu, te lii nekk rekk beneen waxin bu “juróom-ñaari yoon yi,” dafa jeexee ci 1844, te mer mu njëkk mi jeexee ci 1798. Aaya bi Smith waxoon ne amul benn ndigël walla xamle gu mat ci mbirum dooley papoos bi, mooyoon aaya bi jëfandikoo ngir xam at mi papoos bi di jël gaaw ga réy.
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.
Te buur bi dina def li mu soob; dina yékkati boppam, màggal boppam ci kaw bépp yàlla, te dina wax wax yu yéemee ci sañse Yàlla ju kaw bépp yàlla, te dina am njàmbaar ba keroog mer ma mat; ndaxte li ñu dogal mooy li war a am. 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.
“Buur bi” ci sarax bu ñetti-fukk ak juróom-benn bi dina “jàmmoo ba kerug mer mi mat.” Seetleen li Smith bind ci mbind mi ñuy wax Daniyeel saar ñett ci juróom-ñaar ak juróom-ñett, aaya ñaar-fukk ak ñett ak ñaar-fukk ak ñeent, ci benn téere bi mu waxe ne kàttanu baabal bi amul jikko yu baax yi ngir matal aaya juróom-ñett bi.
“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.
“AAYA 23. Te ci mujjug jamonoy seen nguur gi, bu ñi tooñ yegg ba mat, buur bu metti kanam, te xam wax yu kumpa, dina jóg. 24. Te dooleem dina réy, waaye du ci dooleem bopp; dina alag lu yéeme, te dina am ndam, te jëf, te dina alag ñi bare doole ak xeet wu sell wi. 25. Te itam ci ay pexeem dina tax nax gu mat a am ndam ci loxoom; dina yékkati boppam ci xolam, te ci jàmm dina alag ñu bare; dina itam jóg a weddi Buur bi sut buur yépp; waaye dees na ko dagg ci lu nekkul loxo.”
“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.
“Ndo kàttan bii moo wuutu ñaari ñenti xaaj yi ci nguurug bëy-sax bi ci jamono ju mujj jooju ci seen nguur, maanaam, jëm ci jeexital seen doxalin. Lu wóor la ne, mooy benn ak ndaw ragal gi ci aaya 9 ak li ci topp. Boo ko jëfe ci Room, ni ko leerale ci kàddu yi ñu wax ci aaya 9, kon lépp dina ànd ak jàmm te leer.”
“‘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.
“‘Buur bu metti kanam.’ Muuse, bi muy wax lu jëm ci mbugal mi war a dal Yawut yi jógé ci doole boobu sax, woowe na ko ne mooy ‘xeet wu metti kanam.’ Deut. 28:49, 50. Amul woon benn xeet bu feeñoon gëna ragal ci xare gu ñu sol yérey xare ni Roomankat yi. ‘Xam wax yu lëmb.’ Muuse, ci Mbind mi ñu bëgg a wax fii, ne na: ‘Seen làkk du la xam.’ Loolu mënul a waxu ci Bàbilonkat yi, Persekat yi, walla Gerekkat yi, ci seen mbir ak Yawut yi; ndax làkku Kalde ak làkku Gereeg jëfandikoo nañu leen ci Palestiin ci lu ëpp walla lu néew. Waaye loolu nekku woon ak Laateng.”
“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.
«Bi ñi mat aaykat yi matalee seenub pecca.» Ci biir loolu mépp, ñi ngi wone bu baax jokkoo gi nekk diggante askanu Yàlla ak ñi leen di sonal. Ndax bàkkaar yi askanam def lañu leen jaay ngir ñu dugg ca njaam ga. Te seen sax ci bàkkaar moo jur mbugal mu gëna tar. Amul benn waxtu bu Yawut ya, ci seen nekkinu réew, yàquwoon nañu ci mbirum jikko ak yërmande, ni ba ci jamono ji ñu dugg under nguurug Room.
“‘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.
“‘Amoon, waaye du ci dooleem bopp.’ Ndamu Room ya nag, lu bari ci mooy ndimbalug seeni bokkandoo ak xàjjaloo yi nekk ci seeni noon, te ñoom dañoo daan taxawu ba noppi ngir jëfandikoo ko. Roomu Pàpp ba itam, amoon na kàttan ci kaw ndimbalug dooley àddina yi mu daan nguuru ci seen kaw ci yoonu nguurug ruu.”
“‘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.
“‘Moom na lu yéemu ci ni muy alag.’ Boroom bi waxoon Yawut ya jaarale ko ci yonent bi Esekiel ne dina leen jébbal ci nit ñu ‘xereñ ci alag;’ te rey gi ñuy rey benn tamnde ak juróom-ñaar téeméeri junniy Yawut ci yàqute Yerusalem ak loxo mbooloom xareb Room, nekkoonoon firnde gu ragal buy dëggal waxi yonent bi. Te Room ci ñaareelu jamonoam, walla ci melokaanam bu paapal, moo doon ki war ci dee gi juróom-fukki milyoŋi seede yi.”
“‘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.
“‘Te itam ci ay pexeem, dina yokk na fenn ak nax gu am njariñ ci ay loxoom.’ Rooma feeñ na bu baax, ëpp yeneen mbooloo yu am kàttan, ci politig gu nekk fenn ak nax, jaarale ko ngir teg xeet yi ci suufu ngëneelam. Loolu dëgg la ci Rooma bu bokk ci jaamuy tuur yi ak ci Rooma gu bokk ci pap bi itam. Noonu nag, jaarale ko ci jàmm, mu alag ñu bare.”
“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.
«Te Room, ci mujj, ci nit ku bokk ci ay gouverneeram, jóg ngir xeex Buur bu ay buur yi, bi mu joxe àtteb dee ci Yeesu Kirist. “Waaye dees na ko dambal te du ci loxo nit,” wax ju mel nii mooy wone ne alkati ngir alag ndaw mii bokk na ak ñàkk gi xaarale nataal bi ci saar 2.» Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 202–204.
Smith, twice in the passage, identifies that the prophetic characteristics of pagan and papal Rome are interchangeable, for they are simply the manifestation of Rome in its two phases, such as the mixture of iron and clay in Daniel chapter two, which Sister White identifies as symbols of churchcraft and statecraft. When Daniel identifies in the verses Smith is addressing–that Rome “shall prosper, and practice,” and that Rome “shall cause craft to prosper in his hand,”–Smith claims that in verse thirty-six that the “king” who “shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished,” identifies a prophetic characteristic of both pagan and papal Rome. Then he claims that none of the characteristics of Rome in verse thirty-six refer to the papal power.
Ci biir ci wax jii, Smith wone na ñaari yoon ne melokaani yonent yu Room bu bokk ci xam-xam yu xeet yi ak Room bu paapal bi mën nañu weesante seen bopp, ndaxte dañuy rekk feeñu Room ci ñaari jamono yi mu ame, ni jaxasoo weñ ak banxas bi nekk ci Daniel saar ñaareel, te Sister White wone na leen ne dañoy misaalu liggéeyu kërg yàlla ak liggéeyu nguur. Bi Daniel waxee ci ay aaya yi Smith di jëfandikoo, ne Room “dina yéngu ba mu jariñ, te def,” ak ne Room “dina tax xeetu pexe mu jariñ ci loxoom,” Smith wax na ne ci aaya fanweeri juróom-benn-fukk ak juróom-benn, “buur” bi “dina yéngu ba mer mi mat” dafay wone melokaanu yonent buy jëm ci Room bu bokk ci xam-xam yu xeet yi ak Room bu paapal bi. Gannaaw loolu mu ne benn ci melokaani Room yi nekk ci aaya fanweeri juróom-benn-fukk ak juróom-benn du jëm ci kàttanu paapal bi.
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.
Nanu ci Smith ngir dëgëral njàngale ne Rooma mooy sacc yi di tabax peeñ mi, te benn ci ñeenti melokaani yonent yi nekk ci saar ñent fukk ak ñeent mooy ne Rooma yékkat nañu seen bopp.
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.
Te ci jamono, ñu bare dinañu jóg ci kaw buur bi ngëmbeel; te itam ñi saaykat yi ci say nit ñi dinañu yékkati seen bopp ngir dëgëral peeñ mi; waaye dinañu daanu. Daniel 11:14.
Smith claims that the specifications of the king in verse thirty-six do not align with the papal power, though he earlier defended that it was Rome in verse fourteen that exalts itself. Yet the king in verse thirty-six “shall exalt himself.” That very same king in verse thirty-six would “speak marvelous things against the God of gods.” In Daniel the papal power “shall speak great words against the Most High,” and in the book of Revelation the papal power blasphemes against the Most High.
Smith wax ne, jëfandikook yu buur bi nekk ci aaya juróom-benn-fukk ak juróom-ñett du dëppook ak dooley pap bi, doonakaam mu daan a aar ne, ci aaya fukk ak ñeent, Room la woon mi yékkati boppam. Waaye buur bi ci aaya juróom-benn-fukk ak juróom-ñett “dina yékkati boppam.” Benn buur boobu sax ci aaya juróom-benn-fukk ak juróom-ñett dina “wax ay mbir yu yéem ci kaw Yàlla ji ëpp yépp ay yàlla.” Ci Daniel, dooley pap bi “dina wax ay wax yu mag ci kaw Kawe ji gën a Kowe”; te ci téereb Peeñu bi, dooley pap bi di sos Yàlla Kawe ji.
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.
Te itamoon na ko wax yu mag, ak ñaawtéef; te itam joxees na ko kàttan ngir mu sax ñaar-fukk ak ñaar weer. Noonu mu ubbi gémmiñam ci ñaawtéef ci Yàlla, ngir xas turam, ak këram gu sell ga, ak ñiy dëkk ci asamaan. Peeñu 13:5, 6.
Every prophetic specification of the papal power is identified in verse thirty-six.
Mbépp misaal yu wax ci yëgleb gi te jëm ci doole pap bi, ñu ko xamle yépp ci saraxale juróom-benn fukk ak juróom-benn.
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.
Te buur di def li mu bëgg; dina yékkat boppam, dina màggal boppam ci kaw bépp yàlla, te dina wax ay wax yu yéeme ci lu jëm ci Yàlla ju kaw bépp yàlla, te dina am njàlbéen ba kera ba mer ma mat; ndaxte li ñu dogal dina am. Daniel 11:36.
Human commentators are many times unreliable, but many Adventist commentators give witness to the obvious truth that it was verse thirty-six which the apostle Paul was paraphrasing from 2 Thessalonians, when he addressed the man of sin.
Beneen nit ñi di wax ci mbir yi bari na yoon yuñu mënul a wóorlu ci seen wax; waaye bari ci ñiy tekki mbir yi ci biir Adɓantis dañuy seedeel dëgg gu leer ne ayat bi ñett-fukk ak juróom-benn la yonnent bi Pool doon parafiraase ci 2 Thessalonians, ba mu jëmale waxam ci nit ku bàkkaar.
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.
Buleen ku leen nax ci benn anam; ndaxte bés boobu du ñëw, lu jiitu ko mooy ngumb gu mag ga, te nit ku bàkkaar ka feeñ, moom doom réer gi; moom miy weddi tey yékkati boppam ci kaw lépp lu ñuy wax Yàlla walla lu ñuy jaamu; ba tax mu toog, mel ni Yàlla, ci kër Yàlla gi, di won ne mooy Yàlla. 2 Thessalonians 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.
Saaru ñaari-fukk ak juróom-benn wax na ne “moom dina kaweel boppam, te magal boppam ci kaw bépp yàlla,” te Pool nee na “na nit ku bàkkaar gi feeñ, doom ju réer gi; kiy weddi te kaweel boppam ci kaw lépp luñuy wax ne Yàlla la, walla luñuy jaamu.” Lu leer na ne Smith amul woon benn sañ-sañ bu yëgle ngir wax ne buur bi ci saar ba ñaari-fukk ak juróom-benn wuute na ak buur bi ñuy waxoon ci ay saar yi jiitu ba ci saar boobu. Ci yoonu njàngat mucc, amul woon benn càkkuteef ngir def jëfandikoo gu góor-góorlu gi, te waxam ne moo ko def ndaxte saar ba ñaari-fukk ak juróom-benn amul benn melokaan yu jëme ci dooleb paapal bi, dafa doon jéngal Mbind mi ngir taxawal benn tekkiin bu boppam.
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.
Nun am itam itam kàddug waxu yónen gu gëna wóor; te dangeen def lu baax bu ngeen ko déglu, ni leer gu di fenk ci bérab bu lëndëm, ba bés bi setee, te biddéewu suba si génne ci seen xol: xamleen li njëkk, ne, benn yónenbii ci Mbind mi nekkul ci tekkiinu nit ku nekk ci boppam. Ndaxte yónenbi jógewul woon ci jamono yu njëkk ci coobare nit; waaye nit yu sell yu Yàlla ñoo waxoon, bi leen Xelum Mi Sell di yóbbu. 2 Piyeer 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.
Ci atum yi ci jamonoy Adventisme bu Laodice gi, am na ay teologiyen yu Adventist, ay sërñ yi di topp njàngale, ak ay bindkat yu bare, yu waxoon mbir mi di ne ndax ñoom dañuy gis ne jëfandikoo gi Smith def baax na walla baaxul. Ab sërñ bu Australia, bu tudd Louis Were, mi yàgg a faatu, dafa joxe li ëpp ci ay atam yu ministère ngir weddi modele profetik bu jubadi bu Smith. Li waraloon weddeem du rekk ne ci mujj Smith santoon buur bi di ag ci mujam ci aaya juróom-ñeent-fukk ak juróom-benn ne mooy Turkey; waaye itam saxab-platformam moo jur jëfandikoo bu baaxul ci Armageddon. Ci at-i 1980 yi walla lu jege noonu, ab bindkat bu Adventist bindoon na téere bu tudd, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Turu bindkat bi mooy Donald Mansell, te téere bi ba tey manees na koo jot.
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 topp na jaar-jaaru cosaanu baatu àdduna bi jëkk, ak àdduna bi ñaareel, te mu wone ne bi ñu gisee ne ñaari xare yooyu di jëgësi, yéglekat yu Adventiste yi tàmbalee jëfandikoo ñaaw njariñu Smith bi ci ne Turkiy di dox jëm ci Yerusalem bu dëggu ngir muy màndarga Armageddon ak jeexital àdduna bi. Mu firndeel ko ci limu àndug mbooloom kanam yi ci iglesia Adventiste ne, bi ku nekk ci xare yooyu di jëgësi, ñu bare ci bakkan yi dugg ci àndug iglesia Adventiste, ndax ci dëgëral gu yéglekat yi boole ci waxu yonent bi, te mu jóge ci gis-gis bu jubadi Smith ci Armageddon.
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.
Bu benn xare ba jeexee, te yonnee yi amul solo yu mat, mbooloom gëm-gëm gi ñàkk na ay cér yu gën a bari ñi mu woon jële ci misaal-u wax ci kanam bi Smith tabaxoon.
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.
Ci bañ ajiitu bu njëkk ba ñu tëraloon ci yoonu Millerites, ak ndigalame ngir jëfe ay taxawaayam yu boppam ci tekki aaya fanweeru juróom-benni ba fanweeru juróom-ñeent ak juróom-benn ci Daniel, xel mi Smith jurë a sos benn meloon bu wax ne waxu yonent bi dafa sukkandiku ci mbir yi di xew fii ak léegi.
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.”
Ci xulóo yi diggante Smith ak James White ci mbirum buur bi di ñëw ci mujjam ci aaya bu mujj ci Daniel fukki benn, James White indi na xel mu gàtt te leer, buy wone ndàmbu yoon wu ñuul wu kàdduyontey Smith. White jàngale ne, “yonent gi mooy jur jaar-jaari jamono, waaye jaar-jaari jamono du jur yonent.”
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.
Waarek Adventisme yi doon liggéey lu jiitu ñaari xare ya, jëfandikoo woon jaar-jaari mboolem történ bu yokk ngir wone xalaat gu ñaawguy Kàddu-yàlla gu Smith ci mbirum Armageddon, te seen liggéey ga, mi mel ni am na barke bu réy ba pareek xare ya, jur na ci mujje benn yàqule gu ànd ak xañ, bi wonee ne moomeel gu kàddu-yàlla ga dafa sampu woon ci benn tekki bu nit ki moom rekk.
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.
Wottuleen ci yonent yu dul dëgg, ñi leen di ñëw ci yéréy xar, waaye ci biir ñoom ay góor-góorlu buux ak naaw lañu. Dingeen leen xàmmee ci seen meññent. Ndax nit ñi daan nañu dajale reseñ ci garab gu am xonn, mbaa fig ci xob yu am xonn? Noonu itam, bépp garab gu baax di meññal meññent mu baax; waaye garab gu bon di meññal meññent mu bon. Garab gu baax manul a meññal meññent mu bon, niki noonu itam garab gu bon manul a meññal meññent mu baax. Bépp garab gu meññalul meññent mu baax, dañuy ko dagg, sànni ko ci safara. Kon nag, dingeen leen xàmmee ci seen meññent. Matthew 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.
Nangu Smith jàppale woon ci yokkute ab misaal bu yéeme bu buur bi ci saar ñett-fukk ak juróom-benn, jur na itam mu sos ab jëfandikoo bu baaxul ci ñetteelu musiba bi ak Armageddon.
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.
Noonu juróom-ñaareel bi tuur na ayalameem ci dex gu mag gi, mooy Efrat; noonu ndoxam wowu wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow wow dafa wow, ngir yoonu buur yi jóge penku mëna waajal. Te gis naa ñetti rab yu sobe mel ni ñaay yu génn ci gémmiñu njàng mi, ak ci gémmiñu rab wa, ak ci gémmiñu yonent bu dëggul bi. Ndaxte ñoom ay rab lañu yu jinney, di def kéemaan, te di dem ca buur yi ci suuf si ak adduuna bépp ba, ngir dajale leen ci xareb bés bu mag ba bu Yàlla Aji Man Ji. “Xool-leen, maa ngi ñëw ni sacc. Ku xool te di sàmm ay yéreem barkeel na, ngir bañ a dox rafetul, ba nit ñi gis ay rusam.” Noonu mu dajale leen ci bérab bu ñuy wax ci làkku Ebrë Armageddon. Peeñu 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.”
Nii nu wax nu jëkk a won, ñetteelu musiba mi ñëw gannaaw buñ tëjjee jébbalu nit ñi; kon nag, waxtaan wi ne ñu sàmm seen yére, dafa wara jëme ci benn mbirum nattu bu xew laata Mixael jóg, ba noppi jébbalu nit ñi tëju te musiba bu njëkk tàmbali. Ñetteelu musiba mi mooy wone jëf yi ajina ji, rab wi ak yonent bu falso bi di def, ñoom ñetti bi booloo buy daje ci yoonu Dimaas bu Diumay-jàppandi bi di ñëw léegi. Booloo boobu ñetti mooy Room gu bees gi, te màndarga mi di ràññee te taxawal booloo boobu ñetti ci Room gu bees gi, mooy “sàcc yi bokk ci sa xeet,” ñi “yékkati seen bopp ngir saxal peeñ mi” te “daan.”
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.
Waxtaanu mboolem juróom-benni musiba bi, buñ ko dégge, dina may bakkan mu sàmm yéreem; waaye buñ ko bañee, dina bàyyi bakkan bu rafetul, te loolu mooy benn ci juróomi melokaani waa Laodise. Nataal wi taxawal waxtaanu mboolem boobu mooy sàcc yi bokk ci sa askan, ñi di yékkati seen bopp te mujj a daanu. Sulaymaan wax na ne su askanu Yàlla amul peeñ ma, dañuy sànku.
Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he. Proverbs 29:18.
Fu ampee gis-gis nekkul, nit ñi dañuy sànku; waaye ku sàmm yoon wi, barkeel la. Kàddu yu Xelu Yàlla 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.
Baatu Ebrë bu ñuy waxe “perish” mooy “def lu barey”, te Yowaana bind na ne: “Yéendu na kiy xool te di sàmm yéréem, ngir bañ a dox barey, ñu gis ay rusam.” Smith dafa juum ci mbirum Buur bi bokk ak bëj-gànnaar, te fondemaŋu yonent gu dul dëgg googu may na ko mu sos ab jëfandikoo gu yonent, te bu ñu ko nangu, di jur barey, muy misaal u Lawodise yi, ñi Boroom bi di tufli génne ci gémmiñam.
Smith had no problem arguing his new false identification of the King of the North against the prophetess’ husband James White. Adventist historians, and Sister White, address their famous disagreement. Ellen White rebuked both her husband and Smith for allowing their difference of opinion on who was represented by the king of the north in Daniel eleven, to be put into the public domain. In the very first Adventist publication after the Great Disappointment of 1844, James White wrote:
Smith amul woonul benn xel ci yëgleem gu bees gu dul dëgg ngir melokaanu Buur bu Bëj-gànnaar, te mu jëfandikoo ngir jàppale ko ci kanam njëkk-jàngat bi, James White, jëkkëru yonent bu jigéen bi. Historiyankat yi ci biir Adventist, ak Sister White, wax nañu ci seen juuyoo gu siiw. Ellen White yedd na jëkkëram ak Smith ñoom ñaar, ndaxte dañoo maye seen wuute xalaat ci ku nekk ki ñu tekki ci Buur bu Bëj-gànnaar bi nekk ci Daniel fukk ak benn, ba mu dugg ci mbirum mbooloo mi. Ci njëlbéenu njëkk aji-binde Adventist ginnaaw tiis bu mag bañub 1844, James White bind na:
“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.
“Ne Yeesu jóg, tëj bunt bi, te dem baat ba ñëw ci kanam Moom miy Boroom Fan yu Yàgg, ngir jot ay nguuram, ci weer wu juróom-ñaarël bi, atum 1844, loolu gëm naa ko bu baax. Xoolal Luug 13:25; Macë 25:10; Danyeel 7:13,14. Waaye taxawug Mikayel bi, ci Danyeel 12:1, mel na ne mooy beneen dhacxal, ngir beneen njariñ. Jógam ci 1844 mooy ngir tëj bunt bi, te dem ca Baayam, ngir jot nguuram ak kàttan gu mu nguuree; waaye taxawug Mikayel mooy ngir wone kàttanam gu buur, gi mu am ba noppi, ci alagug ña bon ña, ak ci musal ga ñoñam. Mikayel dina taxaw ci jamono ji doole bu mujj bi ci saar 11, di agsi ci jeexitam, te kenn du ko dimbali. Doole boobu mooy bu mujj bi di dëj dëj kërkër gu dëggu Yàlla: te gannaaw kërkër gu dëggu gi ba tey dañuy ko dëj dëj, di ko sànni biti ak ci anam yu Kiristaan yépp, nekk na ci ne doole bu sonal boobu bu mujj bi “agsiagul ci jeexitam”; te Mikayel taxawaagul. Doole bu mujj bii di dëj dëj gaayi Yàlla yu sell yi, feeñ na ci Peeñu 13:11-18. Limam mooy 666.” James White, A Word to the Little Flock, 8.
When Smith introduced his so-called “new light” on the subject of “the last power in Daniel chapter eleven,” James White saw Smith’s application, not as new light, but as an attack upon the foundations. The controversy of Rome as the king of the north in Daniel eleven that took place between Uriah Smith and James White possesses specific attributes, that as students of prophecy, we are to bring together with the other controversies of Adventist history concerning the symbol of Rome.
Bi Smith tàmbalee li mu doon wax ne mooy “leer gu bees” ci mbirum “doole bu mujj bi ci Daniel saar 11,” James White gis na jëfandikoo boobu Smith, du ni leer gu bees, waaye ni xeex ci fondasioŋ yi. Werante bi ci ne Room mooy buurub bëj-gànnaar ci Daniel 11, bi amoon diggante Uriah Smith ak James White, am na ay melokaan yu mat, yu war a booleel ak yeneen werante yi ci nettali taariixu Adventist yi, yu jëm ci misaalu Room, nu nek ay taalibe yi yeneen.
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.
Benn ci màndarga yi mooy dugalinu benn tekki bu sell. Beneen màndarga mooy ne, jëfandikoo tekki bu sell boobu dafa laaj ngir nit wéyët njàngat wu yomb wi ci kaadug wax, ndaxte Smith du rekk bàyyi woon ne bépp màndarga gu yégle ci aaya ñent-fukk ak juróom-benn gi jëm ci Room, waaye it bàyyi na ne tabaxu kaadug wax gi dafa laaj buur bi ci aaya ñent-fukk ak juróom-benn gi nekk benn buur ak buur bi ñu teewaloon ci xaaj bi jiitu.
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.”
Beneen mooy ne, tekki gu boppam googu dafa doon bañ dëgg yu cosaan yi. Beneen it mooy ne, muy tektal bañ sañ-sañu Xelu Kóolute gi. Beneen melokaan mooy ne, jëfekaayu xalaat bu njëkk bi ju aju ci Room, te am na ay càkkute, dina jur benn melo yëgle gu wax ci lu ñuy xam ne kenn mënul a sàmm ay yéreem ba ñuy jegesi jeexital jéggalu nit. Beneen mooy ne, amoon na cëru yéenee woowu ci yégle tekki gu boppam googu ci kanam mbooloo mi. Beneen it mooy ne, tekki gu boppam googu dees na ko faral di tudde leer gu bees. Jikko yooyu yépp dees leen fekk ci waxtaan wi fi nekk léegi ci mbirum “sàcc yi ci sa askan wi.”
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.
Bu mujj gu Roma, mi jëkk gi woon misaal ci jëfandikukat yu nit ña sawar, su booloo ak sàrtu yéglebi Uriah Smith ak James White, dinañu gis ne benn xeetu nit dina tabax seen royukaay yégle ci kaw benn tekki bu boppu nit, buy bañ dëgg yu njëkk yu taxaw.
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.
Bañ bañug dëgg yu samp te di màndargal yi day tegu ci boppam bañ sañ-sañu Xelu Kàddug Yónent bi, mi doon aar ak dëgg gu mat dëgg yooyu yu samp te di màndargal. Gànnaar goo gu mel noonu dinañu itam ñeme joxe seen gis-gis ci kanam mbooloo mi, te duñu faale benn xalaat bu ñuy yégle ci mbirum noonu njàngale miy mën a am ci kaw askanu Yàlla ci àddina bépp.
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.
Gannaaw 1844, ci njëkk xeetu Awaanteyis, beneen werante ci mbirum Rooma dugg. Werante woowu sax nañu ko yëngu ba noppi gis-gis gu dul dëgg ga nangu ci ñetteelu xeetu Awaanteyis. Dinaa xool werante gu “bés bu nekk” ni mooy ñeenteelu ci juróom-benn waat yi nu ngi leeral léegi ci misaalu rëddale ci kaw rëddale.
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.”
Waaye bala ñu jël ñetteelu sàppeb njàngale yi Room di xëccoo, war nañu fàttaliku ne ci maqaal mi jiitu, ba nu doon wax ci aaya fukki ci Daniel saar fukki ak benn, waxoon nañu ne: “Aaya fukk bi itam lëkkale na ci yoon wu jub ‘juróom-ñaari waxtu yi’ yi nekk ci Levitik saar ñaar-fukk ak juróom-benn ak jaar-jaaru nettali bu nëbb bi, waaye sàppeb dëgg boobu bokkul ci li nu fii di wone.”
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 moo doon jiite ci bañ waxtu juróom-ñaari fan yi ci atum 1863. Moom dafa bañoon yokkute xam-xam bi ci mbir moomu, miñ ko indiloon ci artik yi ci mbir moomu, te Hiram Edson bind ko, ñu feeñal ko ci Review bi ci atum 1856. Li nekk ci ginnaaw loolu ci nekkug Smith ak yëngu-yëngu wu jébbale woon waxtu juróom-ñaari fan yi, waaye gannaaw loolu mu bañ yokkute xam-xam ci benn mbir moomu sax, itam bokkul ci mbir mi jëm ci melokaani dugalug Smith ci li mu wax ne moo doon leer gu bees ci mbir buur bu bëj-gànnaar bi; waaye bu nu tëj sunu gis-gis bu yàgg ci réewu xuloo yi Adventist yi ak Rooma, dinañu dellusi ci solo aaya fukk bi ci benn-fukki saar wa ak benn ci Daniel, ak itam ci li bañug Smith xebaaru Laodikee, bi agsee woon ci atum 1856 ak yokkute xam-xam ci waxtu juróom-ñaari fan yi di tegtal.
“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.
«Sunu gëm ci jëmaleek yégle yi ñetteel malaaka bi njëkk, ñaareel bi, ak ñetteel bi dafa nekkoon lu jub. Màndarga yu mag yi nu weesuñu dañuy toog te duñu yëngu. Doonte mbooloom safara yi mën a jéema xàññ leen ci seen fondamaa, te bég ci xalaat ne dañoo ci am ndam, waaye duñu ci am ndam. Yeeni dëgg yii taxaw nañu bu dëgër ni tundu ba fàww, te duñu yëngu ndax mbooleem jéef yi nit ñi boole ak yi Seytaane ak mbooloom def. Mën nanu jàng lu bare, te war nanu sax ci seet Mbind mi Ngir xam ndax loolu mel noonu la.» 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.
“Mandarga yu mag dëgg dëgg, yi nuy won sunuy yoon ci jaar-jaaru waxi yonent yi, war nañu leen a aar bu baax, ngir bañ ñu daaneel leen, te wuutu leen ak teori yu ñuy indi lëq-lëq gën a indi leer gu dëgg.” 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
“Ci jamono, ñu bari dinañu def ay jéem ngir yëngal sunu ngëm ci mbirum bérab bu sell bi; waaye warunuñu yëngu. Benn pin bu nekk ci fondemaŋu sunu ngëm warul a jëfandikoo ngir yëngal ko. Dëgg mooy tey dëgg. Ñi nekk ci nëbbu xel walla wóoradiwul dinañu wuyu ci ay njàngale yu wuute te juum, te ci mujj dinañu gis seen bopp nekk ay ñàkk ngëm ci lu jëm ci seede yi weesu yi nu amoon ci mbirum li doon dëgg. War nañu sàmm ay màndarga yu yàgg yi, ngir bañ a réer sunu yoon.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55