Article

# Rome Establishes the Vision - Number Six

Loos Mas Tsim Tus Yog Toog Pom Kev—Tus Zauv Rau

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

Cov Teeb Meem Txog Yaj Saub hauv Keeb Kwm Adventist: Kev Nkag Siab Txog Kev Tsis Sib Haum Ntawm Uriah Smith thiab James White hais txog Daniel 11:36

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

August 14, 2024

Formats

PDF Unavailable
Word Unavailable
Song MP3

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

Peb tab tom hais txog rau kab ntawm kev sib cav txog lus faj lem uas tau tshwm sim nyob hauv keeb kwm ntawm Adventism txij xyoo 1798 mus txog rau niaj hnub nim no.

> “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.

> “Hauv keeb kwm thiab tej lus faj lem, Vajtswv Txojlus qhia txog qhov kev tawm tsam uas kav ntev mus li ntawm qhov tseeb thiab qhov yuam kev. Qhov kev tawm tsam ntawd tseem tab tom muaj ntxiv mus. Tej yam uas twb muaj lawm yuav rov tshwm sim dua. Tej kev sib cav qub yuav raug tsa rov los dua, thiab tej kev qhuab qhia tshiab yuav tshwm sim tsis tseg. Tiamsis Vajtswv haiv neeg, uas nyob hauv lawv txoj kev ntseeg thiab hauv kev ua kom tiav raws li tej lus faj lem tau ua ib feem hauv kev tshaj tawm ntawm thawj tug timtswv, tug timtswv thib ob, thiab tug timtswv thib peb tej lus ceeb toom, paub tseeb tias lawv sawv qhov twg. Lawv muaj ib qho kev paub uas muaj nqis tshaj kub lim. Lawv yuav tsum sawv ruaj khov ib yam li ib lub pob zeb, tuav rawv qhov pib ntawm lawv txoj kev tso siab kom ruaj nreb mus txog thaum kawg.” Selected Messages, phau 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.

Tsab ntawv dhau los no tau hais txog qhov kev sib cav thawj zaug thiab qhov kawg hais txog lub hwj chim Loos, thiab nim no peb yuav los hais txog qhov kev sib cav uas tau tshwm sim nruab nrab ntawm Uriah Smith thiab James White. Uriah Smith tau ntxig nws tus kheej “kev txhais raws li nws lub siab” rau hauv nqe peb caug rau.

> “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.

> “NQE 36. Thiab tus vajntxwv yuav ua raws li nws lub siab nyiam; thiab nws yuav tsa nws tus kheej siab, thiab qhuas nws tus kheej loj dua txhua tus vajtswv, thiab yuav hais tej lus txaus ntshai tawm tsam Vajtswv tus Vajtswv, thiab nws yuav vam meej mus txog thaum txoj kev chim siab tiav lawm; vim qhov uas tau txiav txim cia lawm yuav tsum muaj tiav.

> “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.

> “Tusking uas raug coj los nthuav tawm ntawm no tsis tuaj yeem txhais tau hais tias yog tib lub hwjchim uas nyuam qhuav raug hais txog kawg ntawd; uas yog, lub hwjchim papal; vim cov lus piav qhia tshwjxeeb no yuav tsis phim raws li qhov tseeb yog muab siv rau lub hwjchim ntawd.” 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 lees paub tias lub hwjchim hauv nqe ua ntej ntawd yog “papal Rome,” tabsis hais tias cov yam ntxwv ntawm nqe peb caug-rau tsis yog cov yam ntxwv cev faj lem uas txheeb qhia papal Rome. Lo lus hais ntawd yog cuav. Yuav tsum nco ntsoov tias hauv kev ntxeev siab xyoo 1863, xya lub sijhawm ntawm Leviticus tshooj nees nkaum-rau raug muab tso tseg, thiab yog li ntawd daim sawv cev ntawm xya lub sijhawm ntawm ob daim phiaj ntawm Habakkuk raug tsis lees txais. Ob daim chart xyoo 1843 thiab xyoo 1850 qhia txog xya lub sijhawm nyob rau hauv nruab nrab kiag ntawm daim chart, thiab ob daim duab qhia ntawd tibsi muab tus ntoo khaub lig tso rau hauv nruab nrab ntawm txoj kab xya lub sijhawm. Thaum txoj kev kaj tshiab hais txog xya lub sijhawm tuaj txog xyoo 1856 thiab tom qab ntawd raug tsis lees txais, nws cim txog kev tsis lees txais ob daim phiaj ntawm Habakkuk, thiab kuj yog kev tsis lees txais txoj cai ntawm Ntsuj Plig Yaj Saub, uas txheeb qhia meej heev tias ob daim chart ntawd raug Vajtswv coj.

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.

Raws li Muam White, Xatas txoj kev dag ntxias kawg yog ua kom Vajtswv tus Ntsuj Plig zaj lus tim khawv tsis muaj txiaj ntsig li; thiab ntawm no, txoj kev dag thawj zaug kuj yog ua kom Vajtswv tus Ntsuj Plig zaj lus tim khawv tsis muaj txiaj ntsig li, thiab nws kuj sawv cev rau ib txoj kev tsis lees txais tib lub sijhawm rau cov lus tseeb hauv paus uas nyob saum ob daim chart, thiab tshwj xeeb tshaj yog xya lub sij hawm.

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.

Thaum txog lub sij hawm kev tawm tsam xyoo 1863, tus uas tsim daim ntawv qhia cuav xyoo 1863 uas tau tshem txoj kab ntawm xya lub sij hawm ntawd, yeej tsis yog lwm tus li tsuas yog Uriah Smith xwb. Txog xyoo 1863 Uriah Smith twb tau kaw nws lub qhov muag rau qhov kaj ntawm xya lub sij hawm lawm, thiab tsis muaj peev xwm pom tau tias muaj ob qhov “kev chim” uas Daniyees tau qhia tseg. Ob qhov kev chim ntawd sawv cev rau xya lub sij hawm tawm tsam lub nceeg vaj qaum teb ntawm Ixayees, thiab lub nceeg vaj qab teb ntawm Yudas. Thawj zaug tawm tsam kaum xeem qaum teb pib xyoo 723 BC thiab xaus rau xyoo 1798, hos zaug thib ob pib xyoo 677 BC thiab xaus rau xyoo 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 tau tuaj cuag Daniel hauv tshooj yim los piav txog lub zeem muag marah, thiab nyob rau hauv kev txuas nrog nws txoj hauj lwm, nws tau muab ib zaj tim khawv thib ob rau xyoo 1844. Ob txhiab peb puas xyoo ntawm Daniel tshooj yim tau xaus rau xyoo 1844, thiab tib yam nkaus li ntawd, qhov kawg ntawm ob txoj kev npau taws tawm tsam lub nceeg vaj sab qaum teb thiab lub nceeg vaj sab qab teb kuj tau xaus thiab.

> 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.

> Thiab nws hais tias, Saib seb, kuv yuav ua kom koj paub yam uas yuav tshwm sim rau thaum kawg ntawm txoj kev chim siab ntawd; rau qhov thaum lub sijhawm uas twb teem tseg lawm, qhov kawg yuav los. 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.

Qhov xaus kawg twb xav tias yuav tsum muaj ib qho xaus thawj. Qhov kawg ntawm ob txoj kev npau taws no, uas tsuas yog lwm txoj kev hais txog xya lub sij hawm xwb, tau xaus rau xyoo 1844, thiab thawj txoj kev npau taws tau xaus rau xyoo 1798. Nqe vajlugkub uas Smith tau hais tias tsis muaj ib qho kev qhia tshwj xeeb txog hwj chim papal ntawd, yeej tau qhia meej txog lub xyoo uas lub papacy yuav raug nws qhov txhab tuag taus.

> 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.

> Thiab vajntxwv yuav ua raws li nws lub siab nyiam; thiab nws yuav tsa nws tus kheej siab, thiab ua kom nws tus kheej loj dua txhua tus vajtswv, thiab nws yuav hais tej lus txawv kawg tawm tsam tus Vajtswv ntawm txhua tus vajtswv, thiab nws yuav vam meej mus txog thaum txoj kev chim siab tiav lawm; rau qhov yam uas tau txiav txim cia lawm yuav tsum muaj tiav. Daniyee 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.

“Tus vajntxwv” hauv nqe peb caug rau yuav “vam meej mus txog thaum qhov kev npau taws tiav lawm.” Ceev faj saib qhov Smith sau txog Daniyees tshooj yim, nqe nees nkaum peb thiab nees nkaum plaub, hauv tib phau ntawv uas nws hais tias hwjchim papal tsis muaj cov cwj pwm raug uas yuav ua kom tiav tau nqe peb caug rau.

> “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.

> “NQE 23. Thiab hauv lub sijhawm kawg ntawm lawv lub nceeg vaj, thaum cov neeg txhaum cai twb puv npo lawm, yuav sawv ib tug vaj ntxwv uas muaj ntsej muag tsiv tsaim, thiab txawj to taub tej lus tsaus ntuj. 24. Thiab nws lub hwj chim yuav loj kawg, los tsis yog los ntawm nws tus kheej lub hwj chim: thiab nws yuav rhuav tshem yam txaus ntshai, thiab vam meej, thiab ua tiav nws tej hauj lwm, thiab yuav rhuav tshem cov muaj hwj chim thiab haiv neeg dawb huv. 25. Thiab los ntawm nws tej tswv yim nws kuj yuav ua kom kev dag ntxias vam meej hauv nws txhais tes: thiab nws yuav tsa nws tus kheej loj hauv nws lub siab, thiab los ntawm kev thaj yeeb nws yuav rhuav tshem coob leej: nws kuj yuav sawv tawm tsam tus Tub Vaj Ntxwv ntawm cov tub vaj ntxwv; tiam sis nws yuav raug rhuav tshem yam tsis yog los ntawm txhais tes.

> “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.

> “Lub hwjchim no tshwm los hloov chaw rau plaub feem faib ntawm lub nceeg vaj tus tshis ntawd nyob rau lub sij hawm kawg ntawm lawv lub nceeg vaj, uas yog, ze rau thaum xaus ntawm lawv txoj kev kav. Yog lawm, nws yog tib yam li tus kub me ntawm nqe 9 thiab txuas ntxiv mus. Cia siv nws rau Loos, raws li tau muab hais tseg hauv cov lus piav txog nqe 9, ces txhua yam yuav sib haum xeeb thiab meej.”

> “‘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.

> “‘Ib tug vajntxwv uas muaj ntsej muag tsiv tsawv.’ Mauxes, thaum yaj saub txog txoj kev rau txim uas yuav los rau cov Yudais los ntawm tib lub hwjchim no, hu nws tias ‘ib haiv neeg uas muaj ntsej muag tsiv tsawv.’ Kevcai 28:49, 50. Tsis muaj ib haiv neeg twg uas muaj daim duab txaus ntshai hauv kev teeb rog tshaj cov Loos. ‘Nkag siab tej lus tsaus ntuj nti.’ Mauxes, hauv nqe Vajlugkub uas nyuam qhuav hais ntawd, hais tias, ‘Lawv tej lus koj yuav tsis to taub.’ Qhov no yuav tsis raug hais txog cov Npanpiloo, cov Pawxia, lossis cov Kili rau cov Yudais; vim hais tias cov lus Khaltees thiab lus Kilis tau raug siv nyob rau hauv Palestine ntau los yog tsawg. Tiamsis qhov no tsis yog li ntawd rau lus Lathee.”

> “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.

> “Thaum cov neeg txhaum cai puv npo.” Tas mus li, kev sib txuas ntawm Vajtswv haiv neeg thiab cov uas tsim txom lawv yeej raug ceev cia rau hauv kev xav. Yog vim tej kev txhaum cai ntawm Nws haiv neeg lawv thiaj raug muab muag mus rau hauv kev poob cev qhev. Thiab lawv txoj kev nyob ruaj hauv kev txhaum thiaj coj kev rau txim hnyav dua los rau lawv. Tsis muaj ib lub sij hawm twg cov Yudais yuav qias tsis huv sab kev ncaj ncees ua ib haiv neeg npaum li thaum lawv los nyob hauv qab txoj cai tswj hwm ntawm cov Loos.

> “‘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.

> “‘Muaj hwjchim loj, tiamsis tsis yog los ntawm nws tus kheej lub hwjchim.’ Txoj kev vam meej ntawm cov Loos muaj los feem coob vim yog kev pab ntawm lawv cov phoojywg koom tes, thiab vim kev sib cais nyob hauv lawv cov yeeb ncuab, yam uas lawv yeej ib txwm npaj txhij siv kom tau txiaj ntsig. Loos ntawm papacy kuj muaj hwjchim loj los ntawm cov hwjchim hauv ntiajteb uas nws siv kev tswjfwm sab ntsujplig kav saum lawv.

> “‘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.

> “‘Nws yuav ua kom puas tsuaj loj kawg nkaus.’ Tus Tswv tau hais rau cov Yudais los ntawm tus yaj saub Ezekiel tias nws yuav muab lawv cob rau hauv tes ntawm cov neeg uas ‘txawj ua kom puas tsuaj;’ thiab kev tua neeg ntawm ib lab ib puas txhiab tus Yudais thaum Yeluxalees raug cov tub rog Loos rhuav tshem, yog ib qho kev lees paub txaus ntshai rau cov lus ntawm tus yaj saub. Thiab Loos hauv nws theem thib ob, lossis theem papal, yog tus ris lub luag hauj lwm rau txoj kev tuag ntawm tsib caug lab leej tim khawv tuag rau txoj kev ntseeg.

> “‘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.

> “‘Thiab los ntawm nws txoj kev txawj ntxias nws kuj yuav ua kom kev dag ntxias vam meej nyob hauv nws txhais tes.’ Loos tau raug paub txawv tshaj txhua lub hwj chim rau ib txoj kev txawj ntxias, uas yog los ntawm ntawd nws thiaj coj tau tej haiv neeg los nyob hauv nws txoj kev tswj hwm. Qhov no muaj tseeb rau ob qho tib si Loos teev dab mlom thiab Loos ntawm papas. Thiab yog li ntawd los ntawm kev thaj yeeb nws thiaj rhuav tshem coob leej.”

> “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.

> “Thiab thaum kawg Loos, hauv tus neeg ntawm ib tug ntawm nws cov thawj kav tebchaws, tau sawv los tawm tsam Tus Tub Vaj Ntxwv ntawm cov tub vaj ntxwv, los ntawm kev txiav txim rau Yexus Khetos kom raug kev tuag. ‘Tiamsis nws yuav raug rhuav tshem tsis yog los ntawm tes,’ ib lo lus hais uas txheeb xyuas kev puastsuaj ntawm lub hwjchim no nrog txoj kev raug ntaus ntawm tus pej thuam hauv tshooj 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, ob zaug hauv nqe lus ntawd, qhia meej tias tej yam ntxwv cev Vajtswv lus ntawm Loos haiv neeg pe dab qhuas thiab Loos papacy muaj peev xwm siv sib pauv tau, vim tias lawv tsuas yog qhov kev tshwm sim ntawm Loos hauv nws ob theem xwb, ib yam li qhov sib xyaw ntawm hlau thiab av nplaum hauv Daniyees tshooj ob, uas Sister White qhia tias yog tej cim sawv cev rau kev tswj hwm los ntawm pawg ntseeg thiab kev tswj hwm los ntawm lub xeev. Thaum Daniyees qhia hauv cov nqe uas Smith tab tom hais txog ntawd—tias Loos “yuav vam meej, thiab ua raws li nws lub siab,” thiab tias Loos “yuav ua kom kev dag ntxias vam meej hauv nws txhais tes,”—Smith hais tias hauv nqe peb caug rau “vajntxwv” uas “yuav vam meej mus txog thaum txoj kev chim siab tiav,” qhia txog ib yam ntxwv cev Vajtswv lus ntawm ob qho tib si Loos haiv neeg pe dab qhuas thiab Loos papacy. Tom qab ntawd nws hais tias tsis muaj ib qho ntawm tej yam ntxwv ntawm Loos hauv nqe peb caug rau hais txog lub hwj chim papacy.

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.

Peb twb tau hais txog Smith hauv kev txhawb nqa qhov kev txheeb xyuas tias Loos yog cov tub sab uas tsa txoj yog toog pom kom ruaj, thiab ib qho ntawm plaub yam ntxwv cev Vajtswv lus faj lem nyob hauv nqe kaum plaub yog tias Loos tsa lawv tus kheej kom siab.

> 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.

> Thiab nyob rau hauv cov sijhawm ntawd yuav muaj coob tus sawv tawm tsam tus vajntxwv sab qab teb; thiab cov neeg tub sab ntawm koj haiv neeg kuj yuav tsa lawv tus kheej siab kom tsa kom muaj tiav lub zeem muag; tiam sis lawv yuav poob. Daniyee 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 hais tias cov lus piav txog tus vajntxwv hauv nqe peb caug rau tsis phim rau lub hwjchim papal, txawm li cas los xij yav tas los nws twb tiv thaiv tias hauv nqe kaum plaub yog Loos uas tsa nws tus kheej siab. Los tus vajntxwv hauv nqe peb caug rau “yuav tsa nws tus kheej siab.” Tus vajntxwv tib tug ntawd hauv nqe peb caug rau kuj yuav “hais tej yam txawv kawg tawm tsam Vajtswv tus Vajtswv.” Hauv Daniel lub hwjchim papal “yuav hais tej lus loj tawm tsam Tus Siab Tshaj Plaws,” thiab hauv phau Ntawv Qhia Tshwm lub hwjchim papal thuam Vajtswv tawm tsam Tus Siab Tshaj Plaws.

> 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.

> Thiab tau muab ib lub qhov ncauj rau nws hais tej lus loj thiab tej lus thuam Vajtswv; thiab tau muab hwjchim rau nws kom nyob mus tau plaub caug ob lub hli. Thiab nws qhib nws lub qhov ncauj hauv txoj kev thuam Vajtswv tawm tsam Vajtswv, kom thuam nws lub npe, thiab nws lub tsev ntaub, thiab cov uas nyob saum ntuj ceeb tsheej. Qhia Tshwm 13:5, 6

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

Txhua yam kev qhia tshwj xeeb raws li lus faj lem txog hwjchim papacy raug qhia meej tseg nyob hauv nqe peb caug rau.

> 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.

> Thiab tus vajntxwv yuav ua raws li nws lub siab nyiam; thiab nws yuav tsa nws tus kheej siab, thiab qhuas nws tus kheej saum txhua tus vajtswv, thiab nws yuav hais tej lus txawv tshaj plaw tawm tsam tus Vajtswv ntawm cov vajtswv, thiab nws yuav vam meej mus txog thaum txoj kev chim siab tiav lawm; rau qhov yam uas tau teem tseg lawm yuav tsum muaj tiav. 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.

Cov neeg piav Vajlugkub feem ntau tsis muaj kev ntseeg tau, tiam sis ntau tus neeg piav Vajlugkub Adventist ua timkhawv rau qhov tseeb uas pom tseeb tias yog nqe peb caug rau uas tus timthawj Paulus tau muab hais ua lwm lo lus los ntawm 2 Thessalonians, thaum nws hais txog tus neeg ntawm txoj kev txhaum.

> 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.

> Tsis txhob cia leejtwg dag ntxias nej los ntawm ib txojkev twg li: rau hnub ntawd yuav tsis los, tsuas yog yuav tsum muaj kev thim txojkev ntseeg tshwm los ua ntej, thiab tus neeg ntawm kev txhaum raug nthuav tawm, tus tub ntawm kev puas tsuaj; tus uas tawmtsam thiab tsa nws tus kheej siab tshaj txhua yam uas hu ua Vajtswv, lossis yam uas raug pe hawm; kom nws zaum hauv Vajtswv lub tuam tsev ib yam li nws yog Vajtswv, qhia nws tus kheej tias nws yog Vajtswv. 2 Thexalaunika 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.

Nqe peb caug rau hais tias, “nws yuav tsa nws tus kheej siab, thiab qhuas nws tus kheej loj dua txhua tus vajtswv,” thiab Povlauj hais tias, “kom tus neeg ntawm kev txhaum yuav raug nthuav tawm, tus tub ntawm kev puam tsuaj; tus uas tawm tsam thiab tsa nws tus kheej siab tshaj txhua yam uas hu ua Vajtswv, lossis yam uas raug pe hawm.” Pom tseeb tias Smith tsis muaj cai cev Vajtswv lus twg li los lees tias tus vajntxwv hauv nqe peb caug rau yog txawv ntawm tus vajntxwv uas tab tom raug hais txog hauv cov nqe uas coj mus txog nqe peb caug rau. Raws li qauv sau lus, nws tsis muaj ib qho laj thawj tsim nyog li rau kev siv uas yuam kev ntawd, thiab nws qhov kev hais tias nws ua li ntawd vim nqe peb caug rau tsis muaj ib yam cwj pwm qhia txog hwj chim papacy ntawd yog ib qho kev nkhaus Vajluskub kom yuam nws txhais raws li kev txhais ntiag tug.

> 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.

> Peb kuj muaj ib lo lus faj lem uas ruaj khov dua; nej ua zoo heev yog nej mloog thiab ceev faj rau nws, ib yam li mloog ib lub teeb uas ci nyob rau hauv ib qho chaw tsaus ntuj, mus txog thaum kaj ntug tuaj, thiab lub hnub qub kaj ntug tawm los hauv nej lub siab: Ua ntej tshaj, nej yuav tsum paub qhov no, tias tsis muaj ib qho lus faj lem twg hauv Vajluskub yog los ntawm kev txhais raws li tus kheej. Vim hais tias lus faj lem tsis tau los yav tag los los ntawm tibneeg lub siab nyiam: tiam sis cov neeg dawb huv ntawm Vajtswv tau hais raws li lawv raug Vaj Ntsuj Plig Dawb Huv txhawb nqa. 2 Peter 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.

Thoob plaws hauv ntau lub xyoos ntawm Laodicean Adventism no, tau muaj ntau tus kws txawj kev ntseeg Adventist, cov xibhwb, thiab cov sau ntawv uas tau hais txog seb lawv xav tias Smith txoj kev siv ntawd puas yog los tsis yog. Ib tug xibhwb Australian, Louis Were, uas twb tau tas sim neej ntev lawm, tau siv feem coob ntawm nws txoj haujlwm qhuab qhia los tawm tsam Smith tus qauv yaj saub cuav. Qhov uas nws tawm tsam ntawd tsis yog tsuas yog vim Smith thaum kawg tau txheeb tus vajntxwv uas los txog nws qhov kawg hauv nqe plaub caug tsib tias yog Turkey xwb, tiam sis Smith lub hauv paus kev qhia ntawd kuj tau tsim ib txoj kev siv Armageddon uas tsis raug thiab. Nyob rau xyoo 1980s los sis thaj tsam ntawd, ib tug kws sau ntawv Adventist tau sau ib phau ntawv muaj npe tias, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Tus sau ntawv ntawd hu ua Donald Mansell, thiab phau ntawv ntawd tseem muaj nyob.

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 taug qab keeb kwm uas coj mus txog Tsov Rog Thoob Ntiaj Teb Zaum Ib thiab Tsov Rog Thoob Ntiaj Teb Zaum Ob, qhia tias thaum pom tias ob qho tsov rog ntawd tab tom los ze, cov tshaj tawm txoj moo zoo Adventist tau pib siv Smith txoj kev siv tsis raug uas hais txog Qaib Cov Txwv kev mus rau lub nroog Yeluxalees tiag tiag ua ib qho cim qhia txog Armageddon thiab hnub kawg ntawm lub ntiaj teb. Nws ua pov thawj los ntawm cov ntaub ntawv teev npe tswvcuab hauv pawg ntseeg tias thaum txhua zaus tsov rog ntawd tab tom los ze, coob tus ntsuj plig tau raug coj los nkag rau hauv kev ua tswvcuab ntawm pawg ntseeg Adventist, raws li qhov kev hais txog yaj saub uas cov tshaj tawm txoj moo zoo tau tsa los ntawm Smith txoj kev pom Armageddon uas muaj qhov yuam kev.

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.

Thaum ib qho twg ntawm ob zaug tsov rog xaus lawm, thiab cov lus twv ua yaj saub uas tsis raug ntawd tsis tau muaj tiav, pawg ntseeg poob tswv cuab ntau dua li cov uas lawv tau txais los ntawm tus qauv yaj saub uas Smith tau tsim tsa.

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.

Vim Smith tsis kam lees txais zaj lus tseem ceeb uas yog lub hauv paus ntawm cov Millerites, thiab vim nws txaus siab los txhawb nws tus kheej txoj kev txhais ntawm nqe peb caug rau txog plaub caug tsib hauv Daniel, Smith txoj kev xav thiaj tsim tau ib qauv yaj saub raws li tej xwm txheej uas tab tom muaj tshwm sim.

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.”

Hauv qhov kev sib cav ntawm Smith thiab James White hais txog tus vajntxwv uas los txog rau nws qhov kawg nyob rau nqe kawg ntawm Daniyees kaum ib, James White tau nthuav ib lub laj thawj uas luv thiab meej heev sawv cev rau Smith lub hauv paus yaj saub uas zoo li xuab zeb. White tau qhia tias “yaj saub yug keeb kwm, tab sis keeb kwm tsis yug yaj saub.”

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.

Cov neeg tshaj tawm txoj moo zoo ntawm Kev Ntseeg Adventist uas ua hauj lwm ua ntej ob qho kev tsov rog tau siv keeb kwm uas tab tom nthuav los nthuav tawm Smith tus qauv cev Vajtswv lus hais txog Armageddon uas muaj qhov yuam kev, thiab lawv txoj hauj lwm, uas zoo li tau txais koob hmoov heev nyob rau hauv lub sijhawm ua ntej cov tsov rog ntawd, thaum kawg tau ua rau muaj kev poob qis tag nrho thaum tus qauv cev Vajtswv lus ntawd raug qhia meej tias yog tsim los saum ib qho kev txhais tshwj xeeb ntawm tus kheej.

> 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.

> Ceev faj txog cov yaj saub cuav, uas tuaj cuag nej hnav tsoos yaj, tiamsis sab hauv lawv yog hma nyiag noj uas tshaib plab heev. Nej yuav paub lawv los ntawm lawv tej txiv. Puas muaj neeg mus de txiv hmab ntawm pos, lossis txiv cuav ntswv ntawm nroj tsuag pos? Ib yam li ntawd, txhua tsob ntoo zoo txi txiv zoo; tiamsis tsob ntoo phem txi txiv phem. Tsob ntoo zoo txi tsis tau txiv phem, thiab tsob ntoo phem kuj txi tsis tau txiv zoo. Txhua tsob ntoo uas tsis txi txiv zoo raug muab txiav pov tseg, thiab muab pov rau hauv hluav taws. Yog li ntawd, nej yuav paub lawv los ntawm lawv tej txiv. Mathais 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.

Smith qhov kev kam txhawb ib txoj qauv yaj saub ntiag tug hais txog tus vajntxwv hauv nqe peb caug rau tau txi txiv los ntawm kev tsim ib txoj kev siv tsis raug rau lub phaum thib rau thiab Amakedoo thiab.

> 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.

> Ces tus tim tswv thib rau tau muab nws lub rwj nchuav rau saum tus dej loj Euphrates; ces nws cov dej qhuav tag, kom txoj kev rau cov vajntxwv ntawm sab hnub tuaj thiaj raug npaj cia. Thiab kuv pom peb tug dab qias tsis huv zoo li qav tawm hauv lub qhov ncauj ntawm tus zaj, thiab tawm hauv lub qhov ncauj ntawm tus tsiaj nyaum, thiab tawm hauv lub qhov ncauj ntawm tus yaj saub cuav. Rau qhov lawv yog tej ntsujplig ntawm dab phem, ua tej txujci tseemceeb, uas tawm mus cuag cov vajntxwv hauv ntiajteb thiab thoob plaws lub qab ntuj, kom sau lawv los ua ke rau kev sib ntaus ntawm hnub loj ntawd ntawm Vajtswv tus Muaj Hwjchim Loj Kawg Nkaus. Saib seb, kuv los zoo li ib tug tub sab. Foom koob hmoov rau tus uas zov faj, thiab ceev nws tej tsoos tsho, tsam nws taug kev liab qab thiab luag pom nws txojkev txajmuag. Thiab nws tau sau lawv los ua ke rau hauv ib qho chaw uas hu ua Armageddon hauv lus Henplais. Tshwmsim 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.”

Raws li peb tau taw tes lawm yav tas los, kev raug mob thib rau los tom qab lub sij hawm uas tibneeg txoj kev sim siab raug kaw lawm, yog li ntawd lo lus ceeb toom uas hais kom khaws nej tej tsoos tsho, yuav tsum yog hais txog ib qho teeb meem kev sim uas tshwm sim ua ntej Michael sawv tsees thiab tibneeg txoj kev sim siab raug kaw thiab kev raug mob thawj zaug pib. Kev raug mob thib rau qhia meej txog tej haujlwm ntawm tus zaj, tus tsiaj qus, thiab tus yaj saub cuav, uas yog kev koom ua peb txheej uas sib sau los ua ke thaum txoj cai Sunday uas yuav los sai no tshwm sim. Qhov kev koom ua peb txheej ntawd yog Loos Niaj Hnub No, thiab lub cim uas qhia kom paub thiab tsa kom ruaj qhov kev koom ua peb txheej ntawm Loos Niaj Hnub No ntawd, yog “cov tub sab ntawm koj haiv neeg,” uas “tsa lawv tus kheej kom tsa lub zeem muag kom ruaj” thiab “poob.”

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.

Kev ceeb toom ntawm phaum rau, thaum to taub lawm, pub rau ib tug ntsuj plig khaws tau nws tej tsoos tsho, tab sis yog muab tsis lees txais ces nws tseg ib tug ntsuj plig liab qab, uas yog ib yam ntawm tsib yam cwj pwm ntawm ib tug Laodicean. Lub cim uas tsa txoj kev ceeb toom ntawd yog cov tub sab ntawm koj haiv neeg, uas tsa lawv tus kheej siab thiab thaum kawg poob. Xalaumoo hais tias yog Vajtswv haiv neeg tsis muaj lub zeem muag ntawd, lawv yuav piam puas.

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

> Qhov chaw uas tsis muaj yog toog pom, haiv neeg yuav puam tsuaj; tiamsis tus uas coj raws li txoj kevcai, tus ntawd yog tus muaj koob hmoov. Paj Lug 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.

Lo lus Henplais “perish” txhais tias “ua kom liab qab,” thiab Yauhas tau sau tseg tias, “Foom koob hmoov rau tus uas ceev faj, thiab khaws nws tej tsoos tsho, tsam nws mus kev liab qab, thiab lawv pom nws txoj kev txaj muag.” Smith tau yuam kev txog Vajntxwv ntawm Sab Qaum Teb, thiab lub hauv paus cuav ntawm tej lus faj lem ntawd tau pub nws tsim kom muaj ib qho kev siv tej lus faj lem uas, yog raug lees txais, yuav ua rau muaj kev liab qab, uas yog ib lub cim ntawm cov neeg Laodicea, cov uas raug nti tawm ntawm tus Tswv lub qhov ncauj.

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 tsis muaj teeb meem li hauv kev sib cav txhawb nws qhov kev txheeb qhia cuav tshiab hais txog Vajntxwv Qaum Teb tawm tsam James White, uas yog tus txiv ntawm tus pojniam cev Vajtswv lus ntawd. Cov kws keeb kwm Adventist, thiab Sister White, tau hais txog lawv qhov kev tsis sib haum xeeb uas nto moo ntawd. Ellen White tau cem ob leeg—nws tus txiv thiab Smith—vim lawv tau cia lawv qhov kev sib txawv ntawm tswv yim hais txog leejtwg yog tus uas Vajntxwv Qaum Teb hauv Daniyees tshooj kaum ib sawv cev rau, raug muab coj mus rau hauv pej xeem sawvdaws paub. Hauv thawj phau ntawv luam tawm Adventist tom qab Kev Poob Siab Loj ntawm xyoo 1844, James White tau sau tias:

> “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.

> “Yexus sawv tsees, kawv lub qhov rooj, thiab los cuag Tus Uas Muaj Hnub Nyoog Kawg Kawg, kom txais nws lub nceeg vaj, rau lub hli 7, xyoo 1844, kuv ntseeg ntawd tag siab tag ntsws. Saib Luka 13:25; Mathais 25:10; Daniyee 7:13,14. Tiamsis Mika-eej sawv tsees, Daniyee 12:1, zoo li yog ib qho xwm txheej dua, rau lwm lub hom phiaj. Nws sawv tsees xyoo 1844, yog kom kawv lub qhov rooj, thiab los cuag nws Leej Txiv, kom txais nws lub nceeg vaj, thiab hwjchim los kav; tiamsis Mika-eej sawv tsees, yog kom nthuav tawm nws lub hwjchim ua vajntxwv, uas nws twb muaj lawm, hauv kev rhuav tshem cov neeg phem, thiab hauv kev cawm dim nws haiv neeg. Mika-eej yuav sawv tsees rau lub sijhawm uas lub hwjchim kawg hauv tshooj 11 los txog nws qhov kawg, thiab tsis muaj leejtwg pab nws. Lub hwjchim no yog lub kawg uas tsuj raws pawg ntseeg tseeb ntawm Vajtswv: thiab vim pawg ntseeg tseeb tseem raug tsuj raws, thiab raug ntiab tawm los ntawm tag nrho ntiajteb kev ntseeg Khixatia, ces kuj raws tias lub hwjchim tsim txom kawg tseem tsis tau ‘los txog nws qhov kawg;’ thiab Mika-eej tseem tsis tau sawv tsees. Lub hwjchim kawg no uas tsuj raws cov neeg dawb huv raug muab coj los pom hauv Tshwmsim 13:11-18. Nws tus lej yog 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.

Thaum Smith nthuav tawm yam uas nws hu ua “teeb tshiab” hais txog “lub hwjchim kawg hauv Daniel tshooj kaum ib,” James White pom Smith txoj kev siv ntawd tsis yog li ib qho teeb tshiab, tiamsis yog ib qho kev tawm tsam rau cov hauv paus kev ntseeg. Kev sib cav txog Loos raws li vajntxwv sab qaum teb hauv Daniel tshooj kaum ib, uas tau tshwm sim ntawm Uriah Smith thiab James White, muaj tej yam ntxwv tshwjxeeb, uas peb, raws li cov kawm txog tej lus faj lem, yuav tsum coj los sib txuas nrog lwm yam kev sib cav hauv keeb kwm Adventist uas hais txog lub cim ntawm Loos.

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.

Ib qho ntawm cov cwj pwm ntawd yog kev coj kev txhais raws li kev xav ntiag tug los qhia tawm. Lwm lub cwj pwm yog tias kev coj qhov kev txhais ntiag tug ntawd los siv yuav tsum yuam kev hloov cov qauv lus yooj yim, rau qhov Smith tsis yog tsuas tsis quav ntsej tias txhua yam cim cwj pwm qhia txog yav tom ntej hauv nqe peb caug rau hais txog Loos xwb, tiam sis nws kuj tsis quav ntsej tias cov qauv kab lus raws kev cai lus kuj yuam kom tus vajntxwv hauv nqe peb caug rau yuav tsum yog tib tug vajntxwv uas tau raug sawv cev hauv nqe lus ua ntej ntawd.

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.”

Lwm qhov ntxiv yog tias kev txhais raws li yus tus kheej ntawd yog ib qho kev tsis lees txais tej qhov tseeb hauv paus. Lwm qhov ntxiv yog tias nws sawv cev rau kev tsis lees txais txoj cai ntawm Tus Ntsuj Plig ntawm Kev Yaj Saub. Lwm yam ntxwv ntxiv yog tias thawj lub tswv yim yuam kev hais txog Loos yuav coj mus rau ib tug qauv yaj saub uas tsis pub ib tug neeg khaws nws tej tsoos tsho kom dawb huv thaum lawv tab tom los ze rau lub sij hawm kaw ntawm tib neeg txoj kev sim siab. Lwm qhov ntxiv yog qhov kam txaus siab los txhawb nws txoj kev txhais raws li yus tus kheej ntawd rau pej xeem. Lwm qhov ntxiv yog tias txoj kev txhais raws li yus tus kheej ntawd ib txwm raug cim tias yog qhov kaj tshiab. Tag nrho tej yam ntxwv no raug sawv cev nyob hauv qhov kev sib tham tam sim no hais txog cov “tub sab ntawm koj haiv neeg.”

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.

Thaum kev sib cav kawg ntawm Loos, uas raug ua duab sawv cev los ntawm thawj txoj kev sib cav ntawm Loos uas txheeb qhia txog “cov tub sab ntawm koj haiv neeg,” raug coj los txuas ua ke nrog txoj kab cev lus faj lem ntawm Uriah Smith thiab James White txoj kev sib cav, peb yuav pom tias muaj ib pab yuav tab tom txhim tsa lawv tus qauv cev lus faj lem saum ib txoj kev txhais tshwj xeeb rau tus kheej, uas tsis lees txais qhov tseeb hauv paus.

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.

Kev tsis lees txais tej qhov tseeb uas yog lub hauv paus ntawd, yeej txhais tau tias yog kev tsis lees txais txoj cai muaj hwjchim ntawm tus Ntsuj Plig ntawm Kev Yaj Saub, uas tiv thaiv tej qhov tseeb ntawd ruaj khov kawg nkaus. Cov neeg nyob hauv pawg ntawd kuj yuav txaus siab tshaj tawm lawv txoj kev xav rau sawv daws paub, tsis hais yuav muaj kev txhawj xeeb twg raug tsa los txog rau tej kev cuam tshuam uas txoj kev qhia ntawd yuav muaj rau Vajtswv haiv neeg thoob plaws lub ntiaj teb.

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.

Tam sim ntawd tom qab xyoo 1844, hauv thawj tiam ntawm Kev Ntseeg Adventist, muaj ib qho kev sib cav ntxiv txog Loos raug muab coj los nthuav tawm. Qhov kev sib cav ntawd tseem raug txhawb thiab ntxias mus txuas ntxiv, mus txog thaum txoj kev xav cuav ntawd raug lees txais hauv tiam thib peb ntawm Kev Ntseeg Adventist. Peb yuav los xyuas txog qhov kev sib cav ntawm “qhov niaj hnub” ua kab thib plaub ntawm rau kab uas peb tab tom xav txog tam sim no hauv tus qauv ntawm kab nyob saum kab.

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.”

Tiamsis ua ntej peb yuav los hais txog kab plaub ntawm cov kev sib cav ntawm Loos, yuav tsum nco ntsoov tias hauv tsab xov xwm ua ntej, thaum peb tab tom piav txog nqe kaum ntawm Daniyee tshooj kaum ib, peb tau hais tias, “Nqe kaum kuj txuas ncaj qha rau “xya lub sijhawm” ntawm Levi Teev Npe nees nkaum rau nrog rau keeb kwm uas muab zais cia, tiam sis kab ntawd ntawm qhov tseeb nyob sab nraud ntawm yam peb tab tom nthuav tawm ntawm no.”

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 yog tus thawj coj hauv kev tsis lees txais xya lub sij hawm ntawd nyob rau xyoo 1863. Nws tau tsis lees txais qhov kev nce ntxiv ntawm kev paub txog qhov ncauj lus ntawd uas tau muab nthuav tawm hauv cov ntawv hais txog qhov ncauj lus ntawd, uas Hiram Edson tau sau thiab luam tawm hauv Review xyoo 1856. Qhov txhais los ntawm qhov uas Smith tau koom nrog ib qho kev txav uas tau nthuav qhia xya lub sij hawm, tab sis tom qab ntawd ho tsis lees txais qhov kev nce ntxiv ntawm kev paub txog qhov ncauj lus ntawd tib si, kuj nyob sab nraud ntawm qhov ncauj lus hais txog tej yam ntxwv ntawm Smith txoj kev qhia txog yam uas nws tau hais tias yog lub teeb tshiab hais txog tus vaj ntxwv qaum teb; tiam sis thaum peb xaus peb txoj kev tshuaj xyuas txog kab ntawm Adventist cov kev sib cav txog Loos, peb yuav rov qab los saib ob qho tib si—qhov tseem ceeb ntawm nqe kaum hauv Daniyees tshooj kaum ib, thiab qhov uas raug sawv cev los ntawm Smith txoj kev tsis lees txais zaj lus ntawm Laodicea uas tau los txog xyoo 1856 nrog qhov kev nce ntxiv ntawm kev paub txog xya lub sij hawm.

> “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.

> “Peb txoj kev ntseeg hais txog tej xov ntawm tus tim tswv thawj, tus tim tswv ob, thiab tus tim tswv peb yog qhov tseeb. Cov cim tseem ceeb loj uas peb tau hla dhau lawm yog yam ruaj khov tsis txav. Txawm yog tej pab tub rog ntawm dab phem yuav sim ntsoov rub lawv tawm ntawm lawv lub hauv paus, thiab zoo siab xav tias lawv twb ua tiav lawm los, los lawv yeej tsis ua tiav. Cov ncej ntawm qhov tseeb no sawv ruaj khov ib yam li tej toj roob mus ib txhis, tsis txav txawm yog los ntawm txhua txoj kev siv zog uas tib neeg koom nrog Xatas thiab nws pab tub rog ua los xij. Peb kawm tau ntau yam, thiab tsim nyog tshawb nrhiav Vaj Lug Kub tsis tu ncua kom pom tias tej no puas yog li ntawd.” 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.

> “Cov cim tseem ceeb loj ntawm qhov tseeb, uas qhia peb txog peb txoj hauj lwm nyob hauv keeb kwm yaj saub, yuav tsum raug ceev faj tiv thaiv kom ruaj, tsam lawv raug rhuav tshem pov tseg, thiab raug hloov chaw los ntawm tej kev qhuab qhia uas yuav coj kev kub ntxhov los ntau dua li qhov kaj tseeb tiag.” Selected Messages, phau ntawv 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

> “Nyob rau lub sijhawm no yuav muaj ntau yam kev rau siab ua kom peb txoj kev ntseeg txog lo lus nug ntawm lub tuam tsev dawb huv raug ntxhov; tiam sis peb yuav tsum tsis txhob ua siab ywj fab. Tsis pub txav ib tug ntsia thawv tawm ntawm cov hauv paus ntawm peb txoj kev ntseeg. Qhov tseeb tseem yog qhov tseeb. Cov uas pib tsis ruaj siab yuav maj mam ntws mus rau hauv tej kev qhuab qhia yuam kev, thiab thaum kawg yuav pom tias lawv tus kheej poob rau txoj kev tsis ntseeg txog cov pov thawj yav tag los uas peb tau txais hais txog yam twg yog qhov tseeb. Cov ciam qub yuav tsum raug khaws cia, kom peb tsis txhob poob peb txoj kev taw qhia.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55

Back to Articles