Article

# Rome Establishes the Vision - Number Six

Roma Ta Kafa Wahayin — Lamba Ta Shida

The Prophetic Controversies in Adventist History: Understanding the Conflict Between Uriah Smith and James White on Daniel 11:36

Rigingimun Annabci a Tarihin Adventist: Fahimtar Rikicin Tsakanin Uriah Smith da James White game da Daniyel 11:36

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

August 14, 2024

Formats

PDF
Word

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

Muna magana ne a kan layuka shida na muhawarar annabci da suka faru a cikin tarihin Adventism tun daga 1798 har zuwa yau.

> “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.

> “A cikin tarihi da annabci, Maganar Allah tana bayyana dogon rikicin da ya daɗe yana gudana tsakanin gaskiya da kuskure. Har yanzu wannan rikici yana ci gaba. Abubuwan da suka taɓa faruwa za su sāke faruwa. Tsoffin muhawarori za a tayar da su kuma, sabbin ka’idoji kuwa za su riƙa tasowa a kai a kai. Amma mutanen Allah, waɗanda a cikin bangaskiyarsu da kuma cikar annabci suka taka rawa a cikin shelar saƙonnin mala’iku na fari, na biyu, da na uku, sun san inda suke tsaye. Suna da irin ƙwarewar rayuwa wadda ta fi zinariya zallar tsabta daraja. Ya kamata su tsaya daram kamar dutse, suna riƙe farkon tabbacin bangaskiyarsu da ƙarfi har zuwa ƙarshe.” Selected Messages, littafi na 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.

Maqalar da ta gabata ta yi bayani game da gardama ta farko da ta ƙarshe game da ikon Roma, kuma yanzu za mu ɗauki gardamar da ta faru tsakanin Uriah Smith da James White. Uriah Smith ya saka tasa “fassarar kansa” cikin aya ta talatin da shida.

> “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.

> “AYA TA 36. Sarkin kuwa zai aikata bisa ga nufinsa; zai ɗaukaka kansa, ya kuma girmama kansa fiye da kowane allah, zai kuma faɗi abubuwa masu banmamaki gāba da Allahn alloli, kuma zai yi nasara har sai fushin ya cika; gama abin da aka ƙaddara za a aikata shi.

> “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.

> “Sarkin da aka gabatar a nan ba zai iya nufin wannan ikon ɗaya da aka ambata a ƙarshe ba; wato, ikon papal; gama takamaiman bayanan ba za su yi daidai ba idan aka aiwatar da su ga wannan ikon.” 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 ya yarda cewa ikon da ake magana a kai a aya ta baya shi ne “Roma ta paparoma,” amma yana da’awar cewa siffofin aya ta talatin da shida ba siffofin annabci ba ne da ke bayyana Roma ta paparoma. Wannan da’awa ƙarya ce. Ya kamata a tuna cewa a cikin tawaye na 1863, an ajiye sau bakwai na Leviticus sura ta ashirin da shida a gefe, sabili da haka aka ƙi wakilcin sau bakwai na alluna biyu na Habakkuk. Duka jadawalin 1843 da na 1850 suna bayyana sau bakwai a tsakiyar jadawalan ƙwarai, kuma duka waɗannan zane-zanen suna sanya gicciye a tsakiyar layin sau bakwai. Sa’ad da sabon haske game da sau bakwai ya zo a 1856 kuma daga baya aka ƙi shi, ya nuna ƙin alluna biyu na Habakkuk, da kuma ikon Ruhun Annabci, wanda yake fayyace sarai cewa Allah ne ya ba da jagoranci ga duka jadawalan biyu.

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.

Bisa ga Sister White, ruɗin ƙarshe na Shaiɗan shi ne ya mai da shaidar Ruhun Allah marar amfani; kuma a nan ruɗin farko shi ne ya mai da shaidar Ruhun Allah marar amfani, kuma hakan ma ya wakilta ƙin yarda a lokaci guda da muhimman gaskiyoyi da ke kan alluna biyun, musamman ma lokuta bakwai.

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.

A cikin tawaye na 1863, ba wani ba ne face Uriah Smith wanda ya ƙirƙiri jadawalin jabu na 1863, wanda ya cire layin bakwai ɗin lokuta. Zuwa shekara ta 1863, Uriah Smith ya rufe idanunsa ga hasken bakwai ɗin lokuta, kuma bai iya ganin cewa akwai “fushoshi” biyu da Daniyel ya fayyace ba. Waɗannan fushoshin biyu suna wakiltar bakwai ɗin lokuta da aka ɗora a kan masarautar arewacin Isra’ila, da kuma masarautar kudancin Yahuda. Na farkon, a kan kabilu goma na arewa, ya fara a 723 K.H.K. kuma ya ƙare a 1798, na biyun kuma ya fara a 677 K.H.K. kuma ya ƙare a 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.

Jibra’ilu ya zo wurin Daniyel a babi na takwas domin ya bayyana wahayin marah, kuma dangane da aikinsa, ya ba da shaida ta biyu ga shekara ta 1844. Shekaru dubu biyu da ɗari uku na Daniyel babi na takwas sun ƙare a shekara ta 1844, amma haka kuma na ƙarshe cikin fushin nan biyu a kan masarautun arewa da kudu ya ƙare.

> 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.

> Sai ya ce, Duba, zan sanar da kai abin da zai kasance a ƙarshen fushi; gama a lokacin da aka ƙayyade ne ƙarshen zai kasance. Daniyel 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.

Ƙarshen na ƙarshe yana ɗaukar cewa akwai ƙarshen farko. Ƙarshen na biyu cikin fushin nan biyu, wanda kawai wata faɗar dabam ce ta “sau bakwai,” ya ƙare a shekara ta 1844, kuma fushin farko ya ƙare a shekara ta 1798. Ayar da Smith ya yi iƙirarin cewa ba ta ƙunshi wani takamaiman bayani game da ikon papacy ba ta nuna shekarar da papacy za ta karɓi mugun rauninta mai kashewa.

> 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.

> Kuma sarkin zai yi bisa ga nufinsa; zai ɗaukaka kansa, ya kuma mai da kansa babba fiye da kowane allah, zai kuma faɗi manyan maganganu masu banmamaki game da Allah na alloli, kuma zai yi nasara har sai fushin ya cika; gama abin da aka ƙaddara za a yi shi. Daniyel 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.

“Sarkin” da ake nufi a aya ta talatin da shida zai “ci gaba da bunƙasa har sai an cika fushin.” Ka lura da abin da Smith ya rubuta game da Daniyel sura ta takwas, ayoyi na ashirin da uku da ashirin da huɗu a cikin wannan littafi ɗaya inda yake ikirarin cewa ikon papanci ba ya da sahihan siffofin da suka dace don cika aya ta talatin da shida.

> “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.

> “AYA TA 23. Kuma a ƙarshen zamanin mulkinsu, sa’ad da masu laifi suka kai cikar muguntarsu, wani sarki mai fuska mai tsanani, mai fahimtar maganganu masu duhu, zai tashi. 24. Ikonsa kuma zai kasance mai girma, amma ba da ikonsa na kansa ba; zai yi hallaka ta banmamaki, zai kuma yi nasara, ya aikata nufinsa, ya kuma hallaka masu ƙarfi da tsarkakakkun mutane. 25. Ta wurin dabararsa kuma zai sa yaudara ta yi nasara a hannunsa; zai ɗaukaka kansa a cikin zuciyarsa, ta wurin salama kuma zai hallaka mutane da yawa; zai kuma tashi gāba da Yariman sarakuna; amma za a karya shi ba tare da hannu ba.”

> “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.

> “Wannan iko ya gāji rarrabuwar huɗu na mulkin bunsuru a ƙarshen zamanin mulkinsu, wato, kusa da cikar tafiyarsu. Tabbas, wannan shi ne ɗaya da ƙaramin ƙahon da aka ambata a aya ta 9 da kuma gaba. Aiwatar da shi ga Roma, kamar yadda aka bayyana a cikin bayanai a kan aya ta 9, kuma kome zai zama cikin jituwa da bayyane.

> “‘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.

> “‘Sarki mai mummunar fuska.’ Musa, cikin annabcin hukuncin da zai zo a kan Yahudawa daga wannan iko ɗin nan, ya kira shi ‘al’umma mai mummunar fuska.’ Kub. 28:49, 50. Babu wata al’umma da ta taɓa bayyana da firgita a cikin shirin yaƙi kamar Romawa. ‘Mai fahimtar magana mai duhu.’ Musa, a cikin Nassin da aka ambata yanzu, ya ce, ‘Wanda ba za ka fahimci harshensa ba.’ Ba za a iya faɗin wannan game da Babiloniyawa, Farisawa, ko Helenawa ba dangane da Yahudawa; gama ana amfani da harsunan Kaldiyanci da Helenanci a Falasdinu, ko fiye ko ƙasa. Amma ba haka lamarin yake ba da Latin.”

> “When the transgressors are come to the full.’ All along, the connection between God’s people and their oppressors is kept in view. It was on account of the transgressions of his people that they were sold into captivity. And their continuance in sin brought more severe punishment. At no time were the Jews more corrupt morally, as a nation, than at the time they came under the jurisdiction of the Romans.

> “Sa’ad da masu laifi suka kai ga cikar muguntarsu.” A duk tsawon lokacin, ana ci gaba da sa dangantakar da ke tsakanin mutanen Allah da masu danniyarsu a gaba. Saboda laifofin mutanensa ne aka sayar da su zuwa bauta. Kuma ci gabansu cikin zunubi ya jawo hukunci mafi tsanani. A kowane lokaci, Yahudawa ba su taɓa zama masu lalacewa ta ɗabi’a fiye da yadda suka kasance a matsayinsu na al’umma a lokacin da suka shiga ƙarƙashin ikon Romawa ba.

> “‘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.

> “‘Mai ƙarfi, amma ba da ikonsa na kansa ba.’ Nasarar Romawa ta samo asali ne ƙwarai daga taimakon abokan ƙawancensu, da kuma rarrabuwar da ke tsakanin maƙiyansu, wadda koyaushe suke a shirye su yi amfani da ita. Roma ta Paparoma ita ma ta kasance mai ƙarfi ta wurin ikon duniya waɗanda take aiwatar da iko na ruhaniya a kansu.

> “‘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.

> “‘Zai hallaka ta hanya mai ban al’ajabi.’ Ubangiji ya faɗa wa Yahudawa ta bakin annabi Ezekiyel cewa zai ba da su ga hannun mutane waɗanda suke ‘gwanaye wajen hallakarwa;’ kuma kisan Yahudawa dubu ɗari goma sha ɗaya a lalatar Urushalima ta hannun rundunar Roma, ya kasance mummunar tabbaci ga kalmomin annabin. Kuma Roma a matakinta na biyu, wato na paparoma, ita ce ke da alhakin mutuwar shahidai miliyan hamsin.

> “‘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.

> “‘Kuma ta wurin dabararsa kuma zai sa yaudara ta bunƙasa a hannunsa.’ Roma ta fi dukan sauran ikoki shahara da manufar yaudara, wadda ta wurinta ta jawo al’ummai ƙarƙashin ikonta. Wannan gaskiya ne game da Roma ta arna da kuma Roma ta papanci. Kuma ta haka ne, ta wurin salama, ta hallaka mutane da yawa.

> “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.

> “Kuma Roma, a ƙarshe, a cikin mutumin ɗaya daga cikin gwamnoni nata, ta tashi gāba da Yariman sarakuna, ta wajen zartar da hukuncin kisa a kan Yesu Almasihu. ‘Amma za a kakkarye shi ba da hannu ba,’ magana ce wadda take daidaita hallakar wannan iko da bugun gunkin da aka ambata a sura ta 2.” Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 202–204.

Smith, twice in the passage, identifies that the prophetic characteristics of pagan and papal Rome are interchangeable, for they are simply the manifestation of Rome in its two phases, such as the mixture of iron and clay in Daniel chapter two, which Sister White identifies as symbols of churchcraft and statecraft. When Daniel identifies in the verses Smith is addressing–that Rome “shall prosper, and practice,” and that Rome “shall cause craft to prosper in his hand,”–Smith claims that in verse thirty-six that the “king” who “shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished,” identifies a prophetic characteristic of both pagan and papal Rome. Then he claims that none of the characteristics of Rome in verse thirty-six refer to the papal power.

Smith, sau biyu a cikin wannan nassin, ya nuna cewa siffofin annabci na Roma ta arna da ta paparoma suna iya musanyawa da juna, gama su ne kawai bayyanuwar Roma a cikin matakanta biyu, kamar cakudar ƙarfe da yumbu a cikin littafin Daniyel sura ta biyu, waɗanda ’Yar’uwa White ta bayyana a matsayin alamomin mulkin coci da mulkin ƙasa. Sa’ad da Daniyel ya bayyana a cikin ayoyin da Smith yake magana a kansu—cewa Roma “za ta yi nasara, ta aikata,” kuma cewa Roma “za ta sa dabara ta yi nasara a hannunsa,”—Smith ya yi iƙirarin cewa a aya ta talatin da shida “sarkin” nan wanda “zai yi nasara har sai an cika fushin,” yana bayyana wata siffa ta annabci da ta shafi Roma ta arna da kuma ta paparoma. Sa’an nan kuma ya yi iƙirarin cewa babu ɗaya daga cikin siffofin Roma a aya ta talatin da shida da ke nufin ikon papanci.

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.

Mun yi nuni ga Smith wajen goyon bayan tantance Roma a matsayin ’yan fashi waɗanda suka kafa wahayi, kuma ɗaya daga cikin siffofi huɗu na annabci a aya ta goma sha huɗu shi ne cewa Roma ta ɗaukaka kanta.

> 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.

> A waɗannan lokuta kuwa, da yawa za su tashi su yi gāba da sarkin kudu; haka kuma, ’yan ta’adda daga cikin mutanenka za su ɗaukaka kansu domin su tabbatar da wahayi; amma za su fāɗi. Daniyel 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 yana da’awar cewa siffofin sarkin da ke aya ta talatin da shida ba su yi daidai da ikon papanci ba, ko da yake tun da farko ya kare cewa Roma ce a aya ta goma sha huɗu wadda take ɗaukaka kanta. Duk da haka, sarkin da ke aya ta talatin da shida “zai ɗaukaka kansa.” Wannan sarki ɗin nan ɗaya a aya ta talatin da shida zai “faɗi abubuwan banmamaki a gāba da Allahn alloli.” A cikin Daniyel ikon papanci “zai faɗi manyan kalmomi a gāba da Maɗaukaki,” kuma a cikin littafin Ru’ya ta Yohanna ikon papanci yana yin saɓo a kan Maɗaukaki.

> 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.

> Kuma aka ba shi baki mai faɗin manyan maganganu da saɓo; kuma aka ba shi iko ya ci gaba har wata arba'in da biyu. Sai ya buɗe bakinsa cikin saɓo ga Allah, domin ya yi saɓo ga sunansa, da alfarwarsa, da waɗanda suke zaune a sama. Ru’ya ta Yohanna 13:5, 6.

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

An bayyana kowane takamaiman siffa ta annabci game da ikon papanci a aya ta talatin da shida.

> 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.

> Sarkin kuwa zai aikata bisa ga nufinsa; zai ɗaukaka kansa, ya mai da kansa girma fiye da kowane allah, kuma zai faɗi abubuwa masu ban al’ajabi gāba da Allahn alloli, kuma zai yi nasara har sai an cika fushi; gama abin da aka ƙaddara za a yi shi. Daniyel 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 in Second Thessalonians, when he addressed the man of sin.

Masu sharhin mutane sau da yawa ba su da abin dogaro, amma masu sharhin Adventist da yawa suna ba da shaida ga gaskiya bayyananniya cewa aya ta talatin da shida ce manzo Bulus yake sake fayyacewa a cikin Tasalonikawa ta Biyu, sa’ad da ya yi magana game da mutumin zunubi.

> 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.

> Kada kowa ya ruɗe ku ta kowace hanya; gama wannan rana ba za ta zo ba, sai in an fara yin ridda, kuma mutumin nan na zunubi ya bayyana, ɗan hallaka; wanda yake gāba, yana kuma ɗaukaka kansa bisa dukan abin da ake kira Allah, ko abin da ake wa sujada; har ya zauna a cikin haikalin Allah kamar shi Allah ne, yana nuna kansa cewa shi Allah ne. 2 Tasalonikawa 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.

Aya ta talatin da shida tana cewa, “zai ɗaukaka kansa, ya kuma girmama kansa fiye da kowane allah,” kuma Bulus ya ce, “a bayyana mutumin nan na zunubi, ɗan hallaka; wanda yake hamayya, yana kuma ɗaukaka kansa fiye da dukan abin da ake kira Allah, ko kuwa abin da ake yi wa sujada.” A bayyane yake cewa Smith ba shi da wani ikon annabci da zai sa ya yi iƙirarin cewa sarkin da ake magana a kai a aya ta talatin da shida ya bambanta da sarkin da ake magana a kansa a ayoyin da suka gabaci aya ta talatin da shida. Ta fuskar nahawu, ba shi da wata hujja da za ta tabbatar da kuskuren amfani da ya yi, kuma iƙirarinsa cewa ya yi haka ne domin aya ta talatin da shida ba ta ɗauke da wata alama ta ikon Paparoma ba, karkatar da Nassi ne a ƙoƙarin kafa wata fassara ta kansa.

> 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.

> Muna kuma da kalmar annabci mafi tabbatacciya; wadda kuke yi da kyau in kun kula da ita, kamar yadda ake kula da haske mai haskakawa a cikin wuri mai duhu, har sai gari ya waye, tauraron safiya kuma ya ɓullo a cikin zukatanku: Kuna fara sanin wannan, cewa babu wani annabcin Nassi da yake na fassarar kansa. Gama annabcin bai taɓa zuwa a dā ta wurin nufin mutum ba: sai dai tsarkakan mutanen Allah suka yi magana ne kamar yadda Ruhu Mai Tsarki ya motsa su. 2 Bitrus 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.

A cikin shekarun Adventism na Laodicea, an sami masana tauhidin Adventist, fastoci, da marubuta da yawa waɗanda suka yi bayani kan ko suna ganin amfani da Smith ya yi da wannan ya yi daidai ko kuma bai yi daidai ba. Wani fasto ɗan Ostiraliya, Louis Were, wanda ya daɗe da rasuwa, ya shafe mafi yawan hidimarsa yana adawa da ƙirar annabci ta ƙarya ta Smith. Dalilin adawarsa ba kawai cewa a ƙarshe Smith ya bayyana sarkin da ya zo ga ƙarshe a aya ta arba’in da biyar a matsayin Turkiyya ba ne, amma kuma tsarin Smith ya haifar da kuskuren amfani da Armageddon. A shekarun 1980 ko kusan lokacin nan, wani marubucin Adventist ya rubuta wani littafi mai take, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Sunan marubucin Donald Mansell ne, kuma har yanzu littafin yana nan a samuwa.

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 ya bibiyi tarihin da ya kai ga Yaƙin Duniya na Ɗaya da na Biyu, yana nuna cewa sa’ad da aka ga waɗannan yaƙe-yaƙe biyu suna gabatowa, masu wa’azin bishara na Adventist suka fara amfani da kuskuren fassarar Smith na tafiyar Turkiyya zuwa ainihin Urushalima a matsayin alamar Armageddon da ƙarshen duniya. Ya tabbatar ta wurin rijistar membobin coci cewa, yayin da kowane ɗaya daga cikin waɗannan yaƙe-yaƙe ke gabatowa, an kawo rayuka da yawa cikin membobin cocin Adventist, bisa ga jaddadawar annabci ta mai wa’azi wadda aka samo daga gurɓatacciyar fahimtar Smith game da 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.

Sa’ad da kowane ɗaya daga cikin yaƙe-yaƙen ya ƙare, kuma kurakuran annabce-annabcen da aka yi ba su cika ba, ikkilisiya ta yi asarar mambobi fiye da waɗanda ta samu daga tsarin annabci da Smith ya gina.

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.

Ta wajen ƙin amincewar Smith da saƙon asali na Millerites, da kuma shirinsa na yaɗa fassararsa ta kansa game da aya ta talatin da shida zuwa arba’in da biyar na Daniel, tunaninsa ya haifar da wani tsarin annabci da aka gina bisa ga abubuwan da ke faruwa a lokacin.

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.”

A cikin muhawarar da ta gudana tsakanin Smith da James White game da sarkin da ya kai ga ƙarshensa a aya ta ƙarshe ta Daniyel goma sha ɗaya, James White ya gabatar da wata hujja mai taƙaitaccen bayani wadda ta bayyana a sarari gindin annabcin Smith mai raunin tushe. White ya koyar da cewa, “annabci ne ke haifar da tarihi, amma tarihi ba ya haifar da annabci.”

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.

Masu wa’azin bisharar Adventism waɗanda suka yi aiki kafin yaƙe-yaƙen biyu sun yi amfani da tarihin da ke bunƙasa domin gabatar da gurɓataccen tsarin annabcin Armageddon na Smith, kuma aikinsu, wanda ya zama kamar an yi masa albarka sosai a gabanin yaƙe-yaƙen, ya haifar da asara gaba ɗaya sa’ad da aka nuna cewa wannan tsarin annabcin ya ginu ne a kan fassara ta kai.

> 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.

> Ku yi hankali da annabawan ƙarya, waɗanda suke zuwa gare ku cikin tufafin tumaki, amma a cikinsu kerkecai ne masu farautar ganima. Za ku gane su ta wurin ’ya’yansu. Shin mutane suna tsince inabi daga ƙaya, ko ɓaure daga sarƙaƙƙiya? Haka nan kowane itace mai kyau yana ba da ’ya’ya masu kyau; amma itace marar kyau yana ba da ’ya’ya marasa kyau. Itace mai kyau ba zai iya ba da ’ya’ya marasa kyau ba, haka kuma itace marar kyau ba zai iya ba da ’ya’ya masu kyau ba. Duk itacen da ba ya ba da ’ya’ya masu kyau ana sare shi, a jefa shi cikin wuta. Saboda haka, za ku gane su ta wurin ’ya’yansu. Matiyu 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.

Yarda da Smith ya yi na inganta wani keɓaɓɓen tsari na annabci game da sarkin da ke aya ta talatin da shida ya haifar da kuma ƙirƙirar kuskuren amfani da Annoba ta Shida da 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.

> Sai mala’ika na shida ya zub da kwalbansa a kan babban kogin Yufiretis; ruwansa kuwa ya bushe, domin a shirya hanyar sarakunan gabas. Sai na ga ruhohi marasa tsarki guda uku kamar kwaɗi suna fitowa daga bakin macijin nan, da kuma daga bakin dabbar nan, da kuma daga bakin annabin ƙarya. Gama su ne ruhohin aljanu, masu yin mu’ujizai, waɗanda suke fita zuwa wurin sarakunan duniya da na dukan duniya, domin su tattara su zuwa yaƙin wannan babbar rana ta Allah Maɗaukaki. Ga shi, ina zuwa kamar ɓarawo. Mai-albarka ne wanda yake tsaro, yana kuma kiyaye tufafinsa, kada ya yi tafiya tsirara, su kuma ga kunyarsa. Sai ya tattara su wuri ɗaya da ake kira da harshen Ibraniyanci Armageddon. Ru’ya ta Yohanna 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.”

Kamar yadda muka riga muka nuna, annoba ta shida tana zuwa ne bayan an rufe lokacin jarrabawar ɗan Adam; saboda haka, gargaɗin da ya ƙunshi “kiyaye tufafinka” dole ne ya koma ga batun gwaji wanda yake faruwa kafin Mika’ilu ya tashi tsaye, kafin a rufe lokacin jarrabawar ɗan Adam, kuma kafin annoba ta fari ta fara. Annoba ta shida tana bayyana ayyukan macijin, da dabbar, da annabin ƙarya, waɗanda su ne haɗin kai sau uku da yake haɗuwa a dokar Lahadi mai zuwa nan ba da daɗewa ba. Wannan haɗin kai sau uku shi ne Roma ta Zamani, kuma alamar da take bayyana tare da tabbatar da wannan haɗin kai sau uku na Roma ta Zamani ita ce “’yan fashin mutanenka,” waɗanda “suke ɗaukaka kansu domin su tabbatar da wahayi,” amma “su fāɗi.”

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.

Gargaɗin annoba ta shida, idan aka fahimce shi, yana ba wa rai damar kiyaye tufafinsa; amma idan aka ƙi shi, yakan bar rai tsirara, wanda kuwa yana ɗaya daga cikin siffofi biyar na mutumin Laodicea. Alamar da ta kafa wannan gargaɗi ita ce ’yan fashin mutanenka, waɗanda suke ɗaukaka kansu kuma a ƙarshe su fāɗi. Sulemanu ya ce idan mutanen Allah ba su da wannan wahayi, sukan lalace.

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

> Inda babu wahayi, mutane sukan lalace; amma mai kiyaye doka, mai albarka ne. Misalai 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.

Kalmar Ibrananci da aka fassara da “halaka” tana nufin “sa ya zama tsirara”, kuma Yohanna ya rubuta, “Mai albarka ne wanda yake tsaro, yake kuma kiyaye tufafinsa, kada ya yi tafiya tsirara, su kuma ga kunyarsa.” Smith ya yi kuskure game da Sarkin Arewa, kuma wannan tushen annabci na ƙarya ya ba shi damar gina wani amfani na annabci wanda, idan aka karɓe shi, yake haifar da tsiraici, wanda alama ce ta Laodikiyawa, waɗanda ake tofar da su daga bakin Ubangiji.

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 bai ga wata matsala ba wajen kare sabon tantancewarsa ta ƙarya game da Sarkin Arewa a kan James White, mijin annabiya. Masana tarihin Adventist, da ’Yar’uwa White, sun tabo sanannen sabaninsu. Ellen White ta tsawata wa mijinta da Smith duka biyu saboda sun bar bambancin ra’ayinsu game da wanda sarkin arewa a cikin Daniyel sura ta goma sha ɗaya yake wakilta ya shiga fili a gaban jama’a. A cikin farkon littafin Adventist na farko da aka buga bayan Babban Cizon Rai na shekara ta 1844, James White ya rubuta:

> “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.

> “Cewa Yesu ya tashi, ya rufe ƙofa, ya zo wurin Mai Tsufa na Kwanaki, domin ya karɓi mulkinsa, a wata na 7, 1844, na gaskata ƙwarai. Duba Luka 13:25; Matiyu 25:10; Daniyel 7:13,14. Amma tsayawar Mika’ilu, Daniyel 12:1, ya bayyana cewa wani al’amari ne dabam, domin wata manufar dabam. Tashinsa a 1844, domin ya rufe ƙofa, ya zo wurin Ubansa, ya karɓi mulkinsa, da ikon yin mulki; amma tsayawar Mika’ilu kuwa, domin a bayyana ikon sarautarsa, wanda yake da shi tun da farko, cikin hallakar miyagu, da kuma cikin kuɓutar mutanensa. Mika’ilu zai tsaya a lokacin da iko na ƙarshe a babi na 11, ya kai ga ƙarshensa, ba tare da wani ya taimake shi ba. Wannan iko shi ne na ƙarshe da yake tattake ikilisiyar Allah ta gaskiya: kuma da yake har yanzu ana tattake ikilisiya ta gaskiya, ana kuma jefar da ita waje ta dukan Kiristendam, sai ya biyo baya cewa ikon zalunci na ƙarshe bai “kai ga ƙarshensa” ba; kuma Mika’ilu bai tsaya ba. Wannan iko na ƙarshe da yake tattake tsarkaka an kawo shi a gani cikin Ru’ya ta Yohanna 13:11-18. Lambarsa ita ce 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.

Sa’ad da Smith ya gabatar da abin da ya kira “sabon haske” game da batun “iko na ƙarshe a cikin Daniel sura ta goma sha ɗaya,” James White ya ɗauki yadda Smith ya yi amfani da wannan batu ba a matsayin sabon haske ba, sai dai a matsayin hari a kan tushen bangaskiya. Rigimar da ta shafi Roma a matsayin sarkin arewa a cikin Daniel sura ta goma sha ɗaya, wadda ta faru tsakanin Uriah Smith da James White, tana da takamaiman siffofi waɗanda mu, a matsayin masu nazarin annabci, ya kamata mu haɗa su tare da sauran rigingimu a tarihin Adventist dangane da alamar Roma.

One of those attributes is the introduction of a private interpretation. Another attribute is that the application of the private interpretation requires a wresting of simple grammar, for Smith not only disregarded that every prophetic attribute in verse thirty-six addresses Rome, but he disregarded that the grammatical structure demands that the king of verse thirty-six must be the same king as represented in the previous passage.

Ɗaya daga cikin waɗannan siffofi shi ne shigar da fassara ta kashin kai. Wata siffa kuma ita ce, amfani da wannan fassara ta kashin kai yana bukatar karkatar da nahawu mai sauƙi, domin Smith ba kawai ya yi watsi da gaskiyar cewa kowace siffar annabci a aya ta talatin da shida tana magana ne game da Roma ba, amma kuma ya yi watsi da cewa tsarin nahawu yana bukatar sarkin da ake magana a kansa a aya ta talatin da shida ya zama shi ne sarkin nan ɗaya da aka wakilta a cikin sashen da ya gabata.

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.”

Wani kuma shi ne cewa fassarar kai-tsaye ta mutum ƙin amincewa ce da muhimman gaskiya na tushe. Wani kuma shi ne cewa tana wakiltar ƙin amincewa da ikon Ruhun Annabci. Wata sifa kuma ita ce, ra’ayi na farko mai kuskure game da Roma zai kai ga tsarin annabci da ba ya barin mutum ya kiyaye tufafinsa yayin da suke kusantar ƙarshen lokacin jarrabawar ɗan adam. Wani kuma shi ne shirinsa na yaɗa fassararsa ta kai-tsaye ta mutum a bainar jama’a. Wani kuma shi ne cewa fassarar kai-tsaye ta mutum kullum ana bayyana ta a matsayin sabon haske. Dukan waɗannan siffofi suna wakiltuwa a cikin tattaunawar da ake yi a yanzu game da “’yan fashin mutanenka.”

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.

Sa’ad da aka haɗa rikici na ƙarshe na Roma, wanda rikicin farko na Roma ya siffanta ta wurin gano “ɓarayin mutanenka,” da layin annabci na rikicin Uriah Smith da James White, za mu ga cewa rukuni ɗaya zai kasance yana gina tsarin annabtcinsa a kan fassara ta kansa, wadda take ƙin gaskiyar tushe.

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.

Ƙin amincewa da muhimman gaskiyoyi na asali kai tsaye yana wakiltar ƙin yarda da ikon Ruhun Annabci, wanda yake kāre waɗannan muhimman gaskiyoyi na asali da ƙarfi sosai. Irin wannan rukuni kuma za su kasance a shirye su gabatar da ra’ayinsu a bainar jama’a, ba tare da la’akari da kowace damuwa da za a iya tasowa game da irin tasirin da wannan koyarwa za ta iya yi a kan mutanen Allah a faɗin duniya ba.

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.

Nan da nan bayan 1844, a ƙarni na farko na Adventism, an gabatar da wata gardama kuma game da Roma. Aka ci gaba da tayar da wannan gardama, har sai da aka karɓi ra’ayi na ƙarya a ƙarni na uku na Adventism. Za mu yi la’akari da gardamar “daily” a matsayin ta huɗu cikin layuka shida da muke yanzu nazari a kansu a cikin tsarin layi bisa layi.

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.”

Amma kafin mu ɗauki layi na huɗu na muhawarorin Roma, ya kamata a tuna cewa a labarin da ya gabata, sa’ad da muke magana a kan aya ta goma ta Daniyel sura ta goma sha ɗaya, mun faɗa cewa, “Aya ta goma kuma tana haɗa ‘lokuta bakwai’ na Littafin Lawiyawa ashirin da shida kai tsaye da ɓoyayyen tarihi, amma wannan layin gaskiya yana wajen abin da muke gabatarwa a nan.”

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 shi ne jagora wajen ƙin karɓar “seven times” a shekara ta 1863. Ya ƙi karɓar ƙarin sani game da wannan batu da aka gabatar a cikin maƙalolin da Hiram Edson ya rubuta, aka kuma buga su a cikin Review a shekara ta 1856. Abubuwan da ke tattare da kasancewar Smith yana da alaƙa da wani motsi da ya gabatar da “seven times”, amma daga baya ya ƙi karɓar ƙarin sani a kan wannan batu ɗin, su ma suna wajen batu na siffofin gabatarwar Smith na abin da ya yi da’awar sabon haske ne a kan batun sarkin arewa; amma idan muka kammala bitar mu ta jerin rigingimun Adventist game da Roma, za mu koma ga muhimmancin aya ta goma na sura ta goma sha ɗaya ta littafin Daniyel, da kuma abin da ƙin karɓar saƙon Laodicea da Smith ya yi—wanda ya iso a shekara ta 1856 tare da ƙarin sani a kan “seven times”—ke wakilta.

> “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.

> “Bangaskiyarmu game da saƙonnin mala’ika na fari, na biyu, da na uku daidai take. Manyan alamomin hanya da muka riga muka wuce ba za su jijjigu ba. Ko da rundunonin jahannama su yi ƙoƙarin tsinke su daga harsashinsu, su kuma yi murna da tunanin cewa sun yi nasara, duk da haka ba su yin nasara. Waɗannan ginshiƙan gaskiya suna tsaye daram kamar tsaunuka madawwama, ba sa motsuwa da dukan ƙoƙarin mutane haɗe da na Shaidan da rundunarsa. Za mu iya koyan abubuwa da yawa, kuma ya kamata mu kasance kullum muna binciken Nassosi domin mu ga ko waɗannan abubuwa haka suke.” 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.

> “Manyan alamomin gaskiya, waɗanda suke nuna mana matsayarmu a cikin tarihin annabci, ya kamata a kiyaye su da matuƙar kulawa, kada a rushe su, kuma a maye gurbinsu da ra’ayoyi waɗanda za su kawo ruɗani maimakon haske na gaskiya.” Selected Messages, littafi na 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

> “A wannan lokaci za a yi ƙoƙari masu yawa domin girgiza bangaskiyarmu game da batun Wuri Mai Tsarki; amma kada mu ja da baya. Ko ƙaramar allura ma ba za a motsa daga harsasan bangaskiyarmu ba. Gaskiya har yanzu gaskiya ce. Waɗanda suka zama masu rashin tabbas za su yi ta kaucewa zuwa ga koyarwoyi marasa daidai, kuma a ƙarshe za su tsinci kansu cikin rashin bangaskiya game da shaidun da muka samu a dā na abin da yake gaskiya. Dole ne a kiyaye tsofaffin alamomin hanya, domin kada mu rasa tantance alkiblarmu.” Manuscript Releases, juzu’i na 1, 55

Back to Articles