Article

# The Book of Daniel - Number Three

Double Visions

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

November 25, 2023

Formats

PDF
Word

Key Takeaways

- Context of Daniel 8: Daniel’s vision in chapter 8 is divided into two parts: the “châzôn” (seen prophetic history) and “mar’eh” (heard heavenly dialogue). These distinct visions are foundational to understanding the prophecy.
- Two Hebrew Words for Vision: The words châzôn (prophetic vision) and mar’eh (appearance) are used differently in Daniel 8, and their distinction is vital to interpreting the “seven times” prophecy.
- The Role of Translation: The translation of both Hebrew words into the single English word “vision” obscures their meanings. Additionally, the inclusion of the word “sacrifice” in verse 13 is identified as a human addition not present in the original text.
- The “Seven Times” and Prophetic History: The “seven times” judgment began with Manasseh’s captivity in 677 BC and spanned 2,520 years, ending in 1844. This timeline is associated with the scattering and restoration of God’s people.
- The Indignation Periods: The “first indignation” ended in 1798, marking the papacy’s deadly wound, while the “last indignation” ended in 1844, the conclusion of the “seven times” prophecy.
- The Role of Gabriel: Gabriel was instructed to help Daniel understand the mar’eh vision (heard), not the châzôn vision (seen), underscoring the importance of the spoken prophecy of the 2,300 evenings and mornings.
- Connection to Adventism: The 1844 date is identified as the fulfillment of key prophetic events, such as the cleansing of the sanctuary and the coming of Christ into the Most Holy Place.

We are currently addressing the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six in the book of Daniel. It is hidden to those who have chosen to close their eyes, but it is there for those who wish to see. We will begin in Daniel chapter eight, and verse thirteen.

> Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? Daniel 8:13.

The verse begins with the word “then,” and is making a distinction between the vision of prophetic history Daniel has just seen in the previous ten verses. Verse one and two of the chapter, identify the year when Daniel received the vision and also that he received it by the Ulai river. From verse three to verse twelve, he “sees” the vision of prophetic history. “Then” he “hears” a heavenly dialogue consisting of a question and an answer. In verse fifteen, he begins to seek what the vision of prophetic history that he had just “seen” represented. It is essential to recognize the distinction between the vision that Daniel “saw” in verses three through twelve, and the heavenly dialogue, which he “heard”—for they are two different visions.

> But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear. Matthew 13:16.

The question in verse thirteen is, “How long shall be the vision,” and the word translated as “vision” is a different Hebrew word than the word translated as “vision” in verse sixteen.

> And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. Daniel 8:16.

By translating two different Hebrew words into the English word “vision,” the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six, became “hidden in plain sight”. Biblical students who are satisfied to simply skim the surface consider these two different Hebrew words as the same word, but they do so at their own peril.

> “To skim over the surface will do little good. Thoughtful investigation and earnest, taxing study are required to comprehend it. There are truths in the word which are like veins of precious ore concealed beneath the surface. By digging for them, as the man digs for gold and silver, the hidden treasures are discovered. Be sure that the evidence of truth is in the Scripture itself. One scripture is the key to unlock other scriptures. The rich and hidden meaning is unfolded by the Holy Spirit of God, making plain the word to our understanding: ‘The entrance of Thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.’” Fundamentals of Christian Education, 390.

We are informed that “every fact has its bearing” in the Word of God, and if we choose to ignore the fact there are two different Hebrew words translated as “vision” in chapter eight, we are responsible for inflicting Laodicean blindness upon ourselves. The old adage is, “there are none so blind as those who will not see.”

> “The Bible contains all the principles that men need to understand in order to be fitted either for this life or for the life to come. And these principles may be understood by all. No one with a spirit to appreciate its teaching can read a single passage from the Bible without gaining from it some helpful thought. But the most valuable teaching of the Bible is not to be gained by occasional or disconnected study. Its great system of truth is not so presented as to be discerned by the hasty or careless reader. Many of its treasures lie far beneath the surface, and can be obtained only by diligent research and continuous effort. The truths that go to make up the great whole must be searched out and gathered up, ‘here a little, and there a little.’ Isaiah 28:10.

> “When thus searched out and brought together, they will be found to be perfectly fitted to one another. Each Gospel is a supplement to the others, every prophecy an explanation of another, every truth a development of some other truth. The types of the Jewish economy are made plain by the gospel. Every principle in the word of God has its place, every fact its bearing. And the complete structure, in design and execution, bears testimony to its Author. Such a structure no mind but that of the Infinite could conceive or fashion.” Education, 123.

The word “vision” occurs ten times in Daniel chapter eight, but those ten times consist of two different Hebrew words, and the meanings of those words are not the same. If they meant the same thing, Daniel would have only used one of those words in each of the ten occurrences. Daniel wrote two words, for each of those two words possess their own meanings, and one represents a vision Daniel “saw”, and the other a vision he “heard”. In verse thirteen, the word translated as “vision” is châzôn, and it means “a sight”, or “a vision”, “a dream” or “an oracle”. I call it the “vision of prophetic history” based upon its definition and on how Daniel employs it.

In verse one, of Daniel chapter eight, Daniel says “a vision appeared unto me,” and in verse two he twice states that he “saw in a vision.” Then in verse thirteen, the question is raised of “how long shall be the vision.” All of those usages are the Hebrew word “châzôn.” Then in verse fifteen, we come to perhaps the most important time Daniel used that very same word, for he says, “when I”…“had seen the vision and sought for the meaning.” After Daniel had seen the châzôn vision, he wanted to understand what it meant. This is a fact that has great bearing on the hiding of the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six in the chapter.

He also uses the word châzôn in verses seventeen and twenty-six. The word “vision” appears ten times in Daniel chapter eight, and the word châzôn represents seven of those occurrences. Daniel uses the other Hebrew word that is translated as “vision” four times. The other Hebrew word is mar’eh, and means “appearance”.

Châzôn is found seven times in Daniel chapter eight, and mar’eh is found four times, and together they represent the ten times the English word “vision” occurs in Daniel chapter eight. Seven plus four is eleven, for one of the times Daniel employed the word mar’eh, it was translated just as it is defined, for in verse fifteen, when Daniel “sought for the meaning” of the châzôn vision of prophetic history, there “stood before” him “as the appearance of a man.” The word “appearance” is mar’eh. Therefore, mar’eh is used by Daniel four times in Daniel eight, and it is translated once in agreement with its primary definition of “appearance,” and the other three times it is translated as “vision.”

I am not suggesting any criticism of the men who translated the King James Bible. It needs to be noted though, that in verse thirteen, is found the only added word in the King James Bible (sacrifice), that inspiration states definitively, “does not belong to the text.” Inspiration further states that the added word had been “added by human wisdom.” In the very same chapter, two different Hebrew words are both translated as the same English word. The reason it is essential to recognize the distinction between these two words is profoundly important.

> And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man. And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. Daniel 8:15, 16.

As Daniel “sought for the meaning” of the “châzôn vision” which he had just “seen,” Christ informs Gabriel to “make” Daniel to understand the “mar’eh vision” which he had just “heard”. Daniel wanted to understand the vision of prophetic history, but Christ, who had been identified in verse thirteen as Palmoni (that certain saint which spake), instructed Gabriel to make Daniel understand the “mar’eh vision”, not the “châzôn vision”. In verses fifteen and sixteen, the stated purpose for Gabriel is that he is to make Daniel understand the “mar’eh vision”, which is the word translated as “vision” which means “appearance,” not the vision of prophetic history which Daniel wanted to understand. Without recognizing Gabriel’s job assignment, the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six is hidden in plain sight.

In verse twenty-six both Hebrew words that are translated as “vision” are located in the same verse, and the verse becomes one of the primary keys to opening the truth of Daniel’s testimony of the “seven times.”

> And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. Daniel 8:26.

In verse twenty-six, the “vision of the evening and mornings” is the mar’eh vision, meaning “appearance”, but the vision that was to be “shut up,” is the châzôn vision of prophetic history. The expression “evening and mornings” is what isolates and identifies the distinction between the two visions. It does so with another illustration of the human factor in producing the Bible. The human factor consisted of both the prophets that recorded the words of the Bible, but also of those that translated the Bible. The Bible, as with Christ, represents a combination of divinity and humanity. That humanity descended down through history, from Adam after he sinned to those who recorded and translated the Bible. Christ and the Bible are both the Word of God, and the Word of God’s is pure, for the divinity of the combination always overruled any limitations that existed in the flesh.

> Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. Romans 1:1–3.

The expression “evening and morning” is found repeatedly in God’s Word, and it is always translated as “evening and morning,” as it is in verse twenty-six, and as it is so often translated in the creation story in Genesis that repeatedly states, “and the evening and the morning were….” In fact, and every fact has its bearing (and this fact is essential to understand), the only place in the Bible that the expression “evening and morning” is not translated as “evening and morning” (as it is in verse twenty-six), is in verse fourteen of Daniel eight. There, and only there in God’s Word the phrase “evening and morning” is translated as simply “days.”

> And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel 8:14.

Twelve verses later, in the same chapter of Daniel, the Hebrew phrase “evening and morning” is translated as it always is; but in the verse that is the central pillar and foundation of Adventism, the phrase is simply translated as “days.” What influence led the translators of the King James Bible to make such a glaring contradiction? They had translated the phrase in verse twenty-six in agreement with every other occurrence of the phrase in the rest of the Bible. But twelve verses before verse twenty-six, in verse fourteen, their humanity placed a special distinction upon the answer to the question of verse thirteen. And the question of verse thirteen, included the one word (sacrifice), that was not to be added to the Bible. God wanted verse fourteen, to stand out in a very profound and distinctive way. In doing so, he also identified what Gabriel was instructed to make Daniel understand.

In verse sixteen, Jesus commanded Gabriel to make Daniel understand the mar’eh vision, in spite of the fact that Daniel was seeking to understand the châzôn vision of prophetic history. Verse twenty-six says the “vision of the evenings and mornings which was told” was “true.” The châzôn vision had been a prophetic “sight”, but the mar’eh vision was “told,” for it had been spoken. It had been spoken in verse fourteen when Palmoni said “unto two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Verse twenty-six, employs the expression “evening and mornings,” as it identifies it as the vision that had been “spoken” to identify the distinction between the two visions in Daniel chapter eight. The vision of prophetic history that Daniel had “seen”, and that Daniel wished to understand, was different from the vision that was “spoken” which Daniel had “heard”. More importantly, the vision that Daniel “heard” was the vision that Gabriel was to give Daniel understanding of.

The humanity that participated in creating the Holy Bible recorded the word “vision” ten times in Daniel chapter eight, and in so doing it hid the distinction of a vision that was “seen” and another vision that was “heard”. In doing so, it obscured the emphasis that identifies that Christ’s intent was for Daniel to understand the vision he had “heard”, above understanding the vision he had “seen”. We can now consider what Gabriel does in order to fulfill his job assignment.

> So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision. Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright. 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 8:17–19.

Gabriel now begins his work of making Daniel to understand the vision of the twenty-three hundred evenings and mornings, which is true. He first informs him that the vision of prophetic history, the châzôn vision, would be at the “time of the end.” Then, while Daniel was in a prophetic sleep, Gabriel touched Daniel and set him upright. He informs him “I will make thee know.”

That is what Palmoni (Christ), had told Gabriel to do, when he said, “Gabriel, make this man to understand the mar’eh vision” of the evening and mornings. Gabriel says that he will make Daniel “know what shall be in the last end of the indignation.” There it is! There is the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six! It is hidden by the very prophetic technique which Gabriel had led the prophets repeatedly to testify to and employ in their writings! That technique is “line upon line, here a little and there a little”.

In the book “Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation”, by Uriah Smith (which all Adventists, and even their neighbors, should be familiar with), Smith comments on verses seventeen to nineteen of Daniel chapter eight:

> “With a general statement that at the time appointed the end shall be, and that he will make him to know what shall be in the last end of the indignation, he enters upon an interpretation of the vision. The indignation must be understood to cover a period of time. What time? God told his people Israel that he would pour upon them his indignation for their wickedness; and thus he gave directions concerning the ‘profane wicked prince of Israel:’ ‘Remove the diadem, and take off the crown. . . . I will overturn, overturn, overturn it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.’ Ezekiel 21:25–27, 31.

> “Here is the period of God’s indignation against his covenant people; the period during which the sanctuary and host are to be trodden under foot. The diadem was removed, and the crown taken off, when Israel was subjected to the kingdom of Babylon. It was overturned again by the Medes and Persians, again by the Grecians, again by the Romans, corresponding to the three times the word is repeated by the prophet. The Jews then, having rejected Christ, were soon scattered abroad over the face of the earth; and spiritual Israel has taken the place of the literal seed; but they are in subjection to earthly powers, and will be till the throne of David is again set up,—till He who is its rightful heir, the Messiah, the Prince of peace, shall come, and then it will be given him. Then the indignation will have ceased. What shall take place in the last end of this period, the angel is now to make known to Daniel.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 201, 202.

The “indignation” that Smith is identifying, began when Manasseh was carried to Babylon by the Assyrians in 677 BC. Unfortunately, Smith takes Zedekiah’s overthrow in 586 BC and assigns that as the starting point of the period of the “indignation” of verse nineteen. Smith simply does not address what it means that the verse states “the last end of the indignation.” He treats it as simply “indignation,” though if there is a “last end” of the indignation, grammar and logic demand that there is also at minimum a “first end” of the indignation. Smith knew the seventy years of captivity began with the first attack of Nebuchadnezzar against Jehoiakim in 606 BC, but determined the starting for the period of the indignation was the third of Nebuchadnezzar’s attacks, which was carried out against Zedekiah, the last Judean king.

> “Though we have a more minute account of his [Daniel’s] early life than is recorded of that of any other prophet, yet his birth and lineage are left in complete obscurity, except that he was of the royal line, probably of the house of David, which had at this time become very numerous. He first appears as one of the noble captives of Judah, in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, at the commencement of the seventy years’ captivity, BC 606. Jeremiah and Habakkuk were yet uttering their prophecies. Ezekiel commenced soon after, and a little later, Obadiah; but both these finished their work years before the close of the long and brilliant career of Daniel. Three prophets only succeeded him, Haggai and Zechariah, who exercised the prophetic office for a brief period contemporaneously, BC 520–518, and Malachi, the last of the Old Testament prophets, who flourished a little season about BC 397.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 19.

Smith correctly identified the “indignation” of verse nineteen as a period of time. He correctly identified the period as the treading down of the sanctuary and host in agreement with Daniel chapter eight verse thirteen, and he correctly identified the ending point as October 22, 1844.

Smith was partially correct, but missed the truth by doing what was the characteristic of his prophetic applications. He allowed history to guide his interpretation of the prophetic word, instead of allowing the prophetic word to guide his understanding of history. If we allow the Bible to define prophetic history, we then have the correct information to approach history.

The Bible teaches that by whom a man is overcome, he is that man’s servant.

> While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. 2 Peter 2:19.

Manasseh was taken captive to Babylon in 677 BC. It is there that Judah was overcome and brought into bondage. This is the starting point that is represented on both the 1843 and the 1850 charts, which Sister White endorses as correct. Smith starts the treading down of Daniel chapter eight, and verse thirteen with Zedekiah, the last of Judah’s kings. Zedekiah was the end of a progressive judgment and not the beginning. Sister White identifies that Manasseh’s captivity in Babylon was an “earnest” of what was to come. An “earnest” is a down payment, and marks the beginning of a purchase that has other payments to follow.

> “Faithfully the prophets continued their warnings and their exhortations; fearlessly they spoke to Manasseh and to his people; but the messages were scorned; backsliding Judah would not heed. As an earnest of what would befall the people should they continue impenitent, the Lord permitted their king to be captured by a band of Assyrian soldiers, who ‘bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon,’ their temporary capital. This affliction brought the king to his senses; ‘he besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers, and prayed unto Him: and He was entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord He was God.’ 2 Chronicles 33:11–13. But this repentance, remarkable though it was, came too late to save the kingdom from the corrupting influence of years of idolatrous practices. Many had stumbled and fallen, never again to rise.” Prophets and Kings, 382.

Manasseh marked the “down payment” that began the “curse” of the “seven times,” which was the last “indignation,” for the “first indignation,” had already begun when the northern kingdom was taken into captivity in 723 BC. Then at Jehoiakim’s overthrow, when Daniel was carried into captivity, the seventy years of captivity that Jeremiah identified began in 606 BC. Two kings after Jehoiakim, Jerusalem was destroyed and the last Judean king, Zedekiah, watched as his sons were slain before him, then he had his eyes gouged out and was carried captive into Babylon.

Smith assigned the entire progressive judgment to Zedekiah and employed the judgment of Zedekiah as the proof text for his supposition. The judgment of Zedekiah, who was the “wicked and profane prince,” did identify that the crown of Judah was to be removed until Christ came to set up a kingdom. Smith said, “they are in subjection to earthly powers, and will be till the throne of David is again set up,—till He who is its rightful heir, the Messiah, the Prince of peace, shall come, and then it will be given him.” On October 22, 1844, in fulfillment of Daniel chapter seven, and verses thirteen and fourteen, Christ, represented as the Son of man, came before the Father to receive a kingdom.

> I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. Daniel 7:13, 14.

Sister White confirms that Daniel chapter seven, and verses thirteen and fourteen were fulfilled on October 22, 1844.

> “The coming of Christ as our high priest to the most holy place, for the cleansing of the sanctuary, brought to view in Daniel 8:14; the coming of the Son of man to the Ancient of Days, as presented in Daniel 7:13; and the coming of the Lord to His temple, foretold by Malachi, are descriptions of the same event; and this is also represented by the coming of the bridegroom to the marriage, described by Christ in the parable of the ten virgins, of Matthew 25.” The Great Controversy, 426.

Smith did not address the key element of the “last end of the indignation.” He avoided the biblical principle that identified that Judah was overcome in the time of Manasseh, and that the captivity which began two kings before Zedekiah, also represented that Judah was already in subjection to Babylon, before Zedekiah met his fate. With these blatant omissions, he still stated, “here is the period of God’s indignation against his covenant people; the period during which the sanctuary and host are to be trodden under foot.” He therefore, directly associates “the period of God’s indignation” with Daniel chapter eight, and verse thirteen’s question of “how long.” The answer in verse fourteen, was until October 22, 1844.

The scattering into Babylonian slavery was a progressive history beginning in 677 BC, and continuing until 1844. That period equates to twenty-five hundred and twenty years, which is of course the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six. The end of that period of time on October 22, 1844 provided Daniel with a second witness to the “mar’eh vision” of the twenty-three hundred evening and mornings.

Gabriel was told to make Daniel understand that vision, and what Gabriel did was provide a second witness to the termination date of October 22, 1844. Not only did he provide a second witness to establish the date of the fulfillments of both time prophecies, but as Smith correctly pointed out, the period of time associated with the second witness to 1844, had been identified in verse thirteen, as the period that the sanctuary and host were to be trodden under foot. The question in verse thirteen is, “How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?” That period of time was the “seven times” of Leviticus twenty-six.

What Smith did not see, or avoided identifying, was that the “indignation” of verse nineteen, was the “last end” of that indignation. If there is a “last” then there is also a “first”, and Daniel identifies when the “first indignation” ended, in chapter eleven. He is identifying the papacy reigning during the Dark Ages, and he states that the papacy would prosper until the indignation was accomplished, or ended.

> And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous 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.

Verse thirty-six is widely understood to be the verse the apostle Paul paraphrases in his second letter to the Thessalonians.

> 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 2:3, 4.

Paul’s “man of sin” who is also “the son of perdition,” who “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped,” is also the “king” who “shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god.” Both passages refer to the pope of Rome. Daniel writes that the pope would prosper, which means push forward, until the “indignation be accomplished.” The indignation in verse thirty-six had been “determined.” The word “determined” means “to wound”.

The papacy received its “deadly wound” in 1798, and at that point the “first indignation” was accomplished or terminated. The word “accomplish” means to end or cease. The end of “the indignation” in chapter eight, and verse nineteen identified the end of the period that the sanctuary and host were to be trampled down. It ended in 1844, but the “first” indignation ended in 1798.

The “last indignation” ended in 1844, twenty-five hundred and twenty years after king Manasseh was carried to Babylon by the Assyrians in 677 BC. The “first” indignation ended in 1798, twenty-five hundred and twenty years after the northern kingdom of Israel was carried into slavery by the Assyrians in 723 BC.

There is more to say about the hidden “seven times” in the book of Daniel and we will address that in our next article.

> “‘And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write: These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of My mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.’

> “The Lord here shows us that the message to be borne to His people by ministers whom He has called to warn the people is not a peace-and-safety message. It is not merely theoretical, but practical in every particular. The people of God are represented in the message to the Laodiceans as in a position of carnal security. They are at ease, believing themselves to be in an exalted condition of spiritual attainments. ‘Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.’

> “What greater deception can come upon human minds than a confidence that they are right when they are all wrong! The message of the True Witness finds the people of God in a sad deception, yet honest in that deception. They know not that their condition is deplorable in the sight of God. While those addressed are flattering themselves that they are in an exalted spiritual condition, the message of the True Witness breaks their security by the startling denunciation of their true condition of spiritual blindness, poverty, and wretchedness. The testimony, so cutting and severe, cannot be a mistake, for it is the True Witness who speaks, and His testimony must be correct.” Testimonies, volume 3, 252.

Back to Articles