Article

# Rome Establishes the Vision - Number Six

Rọm Na-Ewulite Ọhụhụ Ahụ — Nọmba Isii

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

Esemokwu Amụma Ndị Dị n’Akụkọ Ihe Mere eme nke Adventist: Ịghọta Esemokwu Dị n’etiti Uriah Smith na James White Banyere Daniel 11:36

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

August 14, 2024

Formats

PDF
Word
Song MP3

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

Anyị na-atụle ahịrị isii nke esemokwu amụma nke bilitere n’ime akụkọ ihe mere eme nke Adventizim site n’afọ 1798 ruo taa.

> “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.

> “N’akụkọ ihe mere eme na amụma, Okwu Chineke na-egosi ọgụ ogologo oge dị n’etiti eziokwu na njehie. Ọgụ ahụ ka na-aga n’ihu. Ihe ndị dịworo, a ga-emegharị ha ọzọ. A ga-eme ka esemokwu ochie dịrị ndụ ọzọ, echiche ọhụrụ dị iche iche ga-anọgidekwa na-apụta. Ma ndị Chineke, ndị site n’okwukwe ha na mmezu nke amụma keere òkè n’ịkpọsa ozi nke mmụọ ozi mbụ, nke abụọ, na nke atọ, maara ebe ha guzo. Ha nwere ahụmahụ dị oké ọnụ karịa ọlaedo a nụchara anụcha. Ha ga-eguzosi ike dịka nkume, na-ejidesi mmalite nke ntụkwasị obi ha ike ruo ọgwụgwụ.” Selected Messages, book 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.

Edemede gara aga lebara esemokwu mbụ na nke ikpeazụ banyere ọchịchị Rom anya, ma ugbu a, anyị ga-eburu n’aka esemokwu nke mere n’etiti Uriah Smith na James White. Uriah Smith tinyere “nkọwa nke onwe ya” n’ime amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii.

> “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.

> “AMAOKWU 36. Eze ahụ ga-emekwa dịka uche ya si dị; ọ ga-ebuli onwe ya elu, mee onwe ya ka ọ dị ukwuu karịa chi niile, ma kwuo okwu dị ịtụnanya megide Chineke nke chi niile, ọ ga-enwekwa ọganihu ruo mgbe iwe ahụ ga-emezu; n’ihi na ihe e kpebiri ga-emezu.”

> “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.

> “Eze a e webatara n’ebe a enweghị ike igosi otu ọchịchị ahụ e kwuru n’ikpeazụ; ya bụ, ọchịchị papal; n’ihi na nkọwapụta ndị ahụ agaghị adabara ma ọ bụrụ na etinyere ha n’ọrụ n’ebe ọchịchị ahụ nọ.” 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 kwetara na ike ahụ dị n’amaokwu gara aga bụ “Rome nke pope,” ma ọ na-ekwu na njirimara ndị dị n’amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii abụghị njirimara amụma ndị na-akọwapụta Rome nke pope. Nkwupụta ahụ bụ ụgha. Ekwesịrị icheta na n’ime nnupụisi nke afọ 1863, e debere oge asaa nke Levitikọs isi nke iri abụọ na isii n’akụkụ, ya mere a jụrụ nnọchianya nke oge asaa nke tebụl abụọ nke Habakọk. Ma chaatị 1843 ma nke 1850 na-egosi oge asaa ahụ kpọmkwem n’etiti chaatị ndị ahụ, ma ihe osise abụọ ahụ na-edobe obe n’etiti ahịrị nke oge asaa ahụ. Mgbe ìhè ọhụrụ nke oge asaa bịarutere n’afọ 1856 ma mesịa jụ ya, nke ahụ kpọrọ akara nke ịjụ tebụl abụọ nke Habakọk, nakwa ikike nke Mmụọ nke Amụma, nke na-akọwapụta nke ọma na chaatị abụọ ahụ bụ ndị Chineke duziri.

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.

Dị ka Nwannaanyị White si kwuo, aghụghọ ikpeazụ nke Setan bụ ime ka akaebe nke Mmụọ Chineke ghara ịdị irè, ma ebe a aghụghọ mbụ bụ ime ka akaebe nke Mmụọ Chineke ghara ịdị irè, ọ nọchikwara anya n’ịjụ n’otu oge ahụ eziokwu ndị ntọala e depụtara n’elu chaatị abụọ ahụ, ma karịa nke a kpọmkwem, ugboro asaa ahụ.

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.

N’ime nnupụisi nke 1863, ọ bụghị onye ọzọ kama ọ bụ Uriah Smith mere chaatị ụgha nke 1863, nke wepụrụ ahịrị nke oge asaa ahụ. Ka ọ na-erule 1863, Uriah Smith emechiela anya ya n’ìhè nke oge asaa ahụ, ma ọ nweghị ike ịhụ na e nwere “iwe” abụọ nke Daniel na-akọwapụta. Iwe abụọ ahụ na-anọchi anya oge asaa ahụ megide alaeze ugwu nke Izrel, na alaeze ndịda nke Juda. Nke mbụ megide ebo iri ahụ nke ugwu bidoro na 723 BC ma kwụsị na 1798, nke abụọkwa bidoro na 677 BC ma kwụsị na 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.

Gebriel bịakwutere Daniel n’isi nke asatọ ịkọwara ya ọhụụ marah ahụ, ma n’ihe metụtara ọrụ ya, o nyerekwa akaebe nke abụọ banyere 1844. Afọ puku abụọ na narị atọ nke Daniel isi nke asatọ kwụsịrị na 1844, ma n’otu aka ahụkwa ka iwe ikpeazụ n’ime iwe abụọ ahụ megide alaeze ugwu na alaeze ndịda kwụsịrị.

> 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.

> O wee sị, Lee, aga m eme ka ị mata ihe ga-adị n’ọgwụgwụ ikpeazụ nke iwe ahụ: n’ihi na n’oge ahụ a kara aka ka ọgwụgwụ ga-adị. 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.

Ọgwụgwụ ikpeazụ na-eburu n’uche na e nwere ọgwụgwụ mbụ. Nke ikpeazụ n’ime iwe abụọ ahụ, nke bụ naanị okwu ọzọ e ji akọwa ugboro asaa ahụ, kwụsịrị n’afọ 1844, nke mbụ n’ime iwe ahụ kwụsịrị n’afọ 1798. Amaokwu ahụ Smith kwuru na ọ nweghị nkọwa ọ bụla banyere ike ọchịchị papal ahụ, kọwara afọ nke ọchịchị papacy ga-anata ọnya ọnwụ ya.

> 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.

> Eze ahụ ga-emekwa dịka ọchịchọ ya si dị; ọ ga-ebulikwa onwe ya elu, ma mee onwe ya ka ọ dị ukwuu karịa chi ọ bụla, ọ ga-ekwukwa okwu dị ịtụnanya megide Chineke nke chi niile, ọ ga-enwekwa ihe ịga nke ọma ruo mgbe iwe ahụ ga-emezu; n’ihi na a ga-emezu ihe ahụ e kpebiri. Daniel 11:36.

“The king” in verse thirty-six would “prosper till the indignation be accomplished.” Notice what Smith writes about Daniel chapter eight, verses twenty-three and twenty-four in the same book where he claims the papal power does not possess the correct attributes to fulfill verse thirty-six.

“Eze” ahụ n’amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii ga “aga nke ọma ruo mgbe iwe ahụ ga-emezu.” Lezienụ anya n’ihe Smith dere banyere Daniel isi nke asatọ, amaokwu nke iri abụọ na atọ na nke iri abụọ na anọ, n’otu akwụkwọ ahụ ebe ọ na-ekwu na ike ọchịchị popu enweghị àgwà ziri ezi ndị a chọrọ iji mezuo amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii.

> “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.

> “AMAOKWU 23. N’oge ikpeazụ nke alaeze ha, mgbe ndị na-emebiga iwu ókè erutela izu oke, eze nke ihu ya dị egwu, ma na-aghọta ilu gbara ọchịchịrị, ga-ebili. 24. Ike ya ga-adị ukwuu, ma ọ bụghị site n’ike nke aka ya: ọ ga-ebibikwa n’ụzọ dị ịtụnanya, ọ ga-enwekwa ọganihu, mee ihe ya, bibiekwa ndị dị ike na ndị nsọ. 25. Sitekwa n’amụma aghụghọ ya, ọ ga-eme ka aghụghọ nwee ọganihu n’aka ya: ọ ga-ebulikwa onwe ya elu n’obi ya, sitekwa n’udo ọ ga-ebibi ọtụtụ mmadụ: ọ ga-ebilikwa imegide Onyeisi nke ndịisi; ma a ga-agbaji ya n’enweghị aka.

> “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.

> “Ike a sị na ike a nọchiri nkewa anọ nke alaeze ehi ahụ n’oge ikpeazụ nke alaeze ha, ya bụ, n’ebe njedebe nke ije ha dị. N’ezie, ọ bụ otu ihe ahụ dị ka mpi nta ahụ a kpọrọ n’amaokwu nke 9 gaa n’ihu. Tụnye ya n’ọrụ banyere Rom, dịka e gosipụtara n’ihe e kwuru banyere amaokwu nke 9, ma ihe niile ga-adị n’otu nkwekọ ma doo anya.

> “‘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.

> “‘Eze nwere ọdịdị ihu siri ike.’ Mosis, n’ịkọwa tupu oge eruo ntaramahụhụ ga-abịakwute ndị Juu site n’otu ike a, kpọrọ ya ‘mba nwere ọdịdị ihu siri ike.’ Deut. 28:49, 50. Ọ dịghị ndị mmadụ ọ bụla gosipụtara onwe ha n’usoro agha n’ụzọ dị egwu karịa ndị Rom. ‘Na-aghọta okwu omimi.’ Mosis, n’Akwụkwọ Nsọ ahụ e kwuworo banyere ya ugbu a, sịrị, ‘onye asụsụ ya ị gaghị aghọta.’ A pụghị ikwu nke a banyere ndị Babilọn, ndị Peshia, ma ọ bụ ndị Gris, n’ihe metụtara ndị Juu; n’ihi na e ji asụsụ Kaldia na nke Gris mee ihe, nke ukwuu ma ọ bụ nke nta, na Palestine. Ma nke a abụghị otú ahụ n’ihe banyere asụsụ Latịn.”

> “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.

> “Mgbe ndị mmehie mezuru oke.” N’ime ya niile, a na-edobe njikọ dị n’etiti ndị nke Chineke na ndị na-emegbu ha ka ọ pụta ìhè. Ọ bụ n’ihi njehie nke ndị Ya ka e rere ha nye n’agha mbuso; ma nnọgide ha n’ime mmehie wetara ntaramahụhụ ka njọ karịa. N’oge ọ bụla, ndị Juu adịghị emebi emebi n’ụzọ omume, dịka mba, karịa n’oge ha bịara n’okpuru ọchịchị ndị Rom.

> “‘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.

> “‘Dị ike, ma ọ bụghị site n’ike nke ya.’ Ihe ịga nke ọma nke ndị Rom sitere n’ụzọ dị ukwuu n’enyemaka nke ndị ha na ha jikọrọ aka, nakwa n’ọdịiche dị n’etiti ndị iro ha, nke ha na-adị njikere mgbe niile iji were rite uru. Rom nke Pọp kwa dị ike site n’aka ike ọchịchị nke ụwa nke ọ na-achịkwa n’ụzọ ime mmụọ.

> “‘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.

> “‘Ọ ga-ebibi n’ụzọ dị ịtụnanya.’ Onye-nwe-anyị gwara ndị Juu site n’ọnụ onye-amụma Ezekiel na Ọ ga-enyefe ha n’aka ndị ikom bụ ‘ndị maara nkà ibibi;’ ma mgbukpọ nke otu nde na otu narị puku ndị Juu n’oge mbibi nke Jerusalem site n’aka agha ndị Rom, bụ nkwenye dị egwu nke okwu onye-amụma ahụ. Ma Rom n’ọkwa ya nke abụọ, ya bụ, nke ndị pope, kpatara ọnwụ nke nde iri ise nke ndị martir.”

> “‘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.

> “‘Site n’amụma ya kwa, ọ ga-eme ka aghụghọ gaa nke ọma n’aka ya.’ E kewapụrụ Rom karịa ike ndị ọzọ niile n’ụkpụrụ aghụghọ, nke o ji wetara mba dị iche iche n’okpuru ọchịchị ya. Nke a bụ eziokwu banyere ma Rom nke ndị na-ekpere arụsị ma Rom nke popu. Ma otu a, site n’udo ka o bibiri ọtụtụ.”

> “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.

> “Ma Rom, n’ikpeazụ, n’onye nke otu n’ime ndị ọchịchị ya, biliri imegide Onye-isi nke ndị-isi, site n’inye ikpe ọnwụ megide Jisọs Kraịst. ‘Ma a ga-agbaji ya n’enweghị aka,’ okwu nke na-eme ka mbibi nke ike a bụrụ otu ihe ahụ na iti ihe oyiyi ahụ nke isi nke 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, ugboro abụọ n’akụkụ akwụkwọ ahụ, na-egosi na àgwà amụma nke Rom nke ndị ọgọ mmụọ na nke Rom nke popu pụrụ ịgbanwe ibe ha, n’ihi na ha bụ nanị ngosipụta nke Rom n’usoro abụọ ya, dịka ngwakọta nke ígwè na ụrọ dị na Daniel isi nke abụọ, nke Sister White na-akọwa dị ka ihe nnọchianya nke churchcraft na statecraft. Mgbe Daniel na-akọwapụta n’amaokwu ndị Smith na-ekwu maka ha–na Rom “ga-eme nke ọma, ma rụọ ọrụ,” nakwa na Rom “ga-eme ka aghụghọ nwee ọganihu n’aka ya,”–Smith na-ekwu na n’amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii na “eze” ahụ nke “ga-eme nke ọma ruo mgbe iwe ahụ ga-ezu,” na-egosi àgwà amụma nke ma Rom nke ndị ọgọ mmụọ ma Rom nke popu. Mgbe ahụ, ọ na-ekwukwa na ọ dịghị otu n’ime àgwà Rom ndị dị n’amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii na-ezo aka n’ike nke popu.

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.

Anyi ekwupụtala Smith n’ịkwado njirimara Rom dị ka ndị ohi ndị na-eme ka ọhụ ahụ guzobe, ma otu n’ime àgwà amụma anọ dị n’amaokwu nke iri na anọ bụ na Rom na-ebuli onwe ha elu.

> 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.

> N’oge ndị ahụ kwa, ọtụtụ ga-ebili imegide eze nke ndịda: ndị na-apụnara ihe n’etiti ndị gị ga-ebulikwa onwe ha iji mee ka ọhụụ ahụ guzoro; ma ha ga-ada. Daniel 11:14.

Smith claims that the specifications of the king in verse thirty-six do not align with the papal power, though he earlier defended that it was Rome in verse fourteen that exalts itself. Yet the king in verse thirty-six “shall exalt himself.” That very same king in verse thirty-six would “speak marvelous things against the God of gods.” In Daniel the papal power “shall speak great words against the Most High,” and in the book of Revelation the papal power blasphemes against the Most High.

Smith na-ekwu na nkọwa nke eze ahụ dị na amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii adịghị adaba na ike papal, ọ bụ ezie na na mbụ ọ gbachitere na ọ bụ Rom dị na amaokwu nke iri na anọ nke na-ebuli onwe ya elu. Ma eze ahụ dị na amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii “ga-ebuli onwe ya elu.” Otu eze ahụ ahụ́ dị na amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii ga-“ekwu okwu dị ịtụnanya megide Chineke nke chi niile.” N’akwụkwọ Daniel ike papal “ga-ekwu nnukwu okwu megide Onye Kasị Elu,” ma n’akwụkwọ Mkpughe ike papal na-ekwulu Chineke megide Onye Kasị Elu.

> 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.

> E nyekwara ya ọnụ na-ekwu okwu ndị dị ukwuu na nkwulu; e nyekwara ya ike ka ọ nọgide ruo ọnwa iri anọ na abụọ. O meperekwa ọnụ ya n’nkwulu megide Chineke, ikwulu aha Ya, na ụlọikwuu Ya, na ndị bi n’eluigwe. Mkpughe 13:5, 6.

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

A kọwara nkọwa amụma ọ bụla gbasara ike ọchịchị popu n’amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii.

> 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.

> Eze ga-eme kwa dị ka ọchịchọ ya si dị; ọ ga-ebulikwa onwe ya elu, meekwa ka onwe ya bụrụ nnukwu karịa chi ọ bụla, ọ ga-ekwukwa okwu dị ịtụnanya megide Chineke nke chi niile, ọ ga-enwekwa ọganihu ruo mgbe iwe ahụ ga-emezu; n’ihi na ihe ahụ ekpebiri ga-emezu. 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 in Second Thessalonians, when he addressed the man of sin.

Ndị mmadụ na-akọwa Akwụkwọ Nsọ na-adịkarị ọtụtụ mgbe bụrụ ndị a na-apụghị ịdabere na ha, ma ọtụtụ ndị na-akọwa Akwụkwọ Nsọ n’ọgbakọ Adventist na-agba àmà banyere eziokwu doro anya ahụ na ọ bụ amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii ka onyeozi Pọl na-akọwa n’ụzọ ọzọ na 2 Ndị Tesalonaịka, mgbe ọ kpọrọ okwu banyere nwoke mmehie ahụ.

> 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.

> Ka onye ọbụla ghara iduhie unu n’ụzọ ọbụla: n’ihi na ụbọchị ahụ agaghị abịa, ma e wezụga na ọdịda n’ezi okwukwe buru ụzọ bịaruo, ma kpughee onye mmehie ahụ, nwa nke ila n’iyi; Onye ahụ na-emegide ma na-ebuli onwe ya elu karịa ihe niile a na-akpọ Chineke, ma ọ bụ nke a na-efe ofufe; nke mere na ọ dịka Chineke nọdụrụ ala n’ụlọ nsọ Chineke, na-egosi onwe ya na ọ bụ Chineke. 2 Ndị Tesalonaịka 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.

Amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii na-ekwu na, “ọ ga-ebuli onwe ya elu, meekwa ka onwe ya dị ukwuu karịa chi ọ bụla,” ma Pọl na-ekwu, “ka e kpughee nwoke ahụ nke mmehie, nwa nke ilala n’iyi; onye na-emegidekwa ma na-ebuli onwe ya elu karịa ihe niile a na-akpọ Chineke, ma ọ bụ nke a na-efe ofufe.” O doro anya na Smith enweghị ikike amụma ọ bụla iji kwuo na eze nke amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii dị iche na eze ahụ a na-atụle n’amaokwu ndị na-eduga n’amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii. N’usoro ụtọasụsụ, o nweghị ihe ziri ezi iji mee ngwa ya na-ezighị ezi, ma nkwupụta ya na o mere otú ahụ n’ihi na amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii enweghị njirimara ọ bụla nke ike papal ahụ bụ ịkpọgharịa Akwụkwọ Nsọ n’ịgbalị iwulite nkọwa nke onwe ya.

> 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.

> Anyị nwekwara okwu amụma nke kasị sie ike; nke unu na-eme nke ọma ma ọ bụrụ na unu ege ya ntị, dịka ìhè nke na-enwu n’ebe ọchịchịrị dị, ruo mgbe chi bọrọ, kpakpando ụtụtụ wee bilie n’obi unu: N’ịmara nke a mbụ, na amụma ọbụla nke Akwụkwọ Nsọ abụghị nke nkọwa onwe onye ọbụla. N’ihi na amụma esiteghị n’oge ochie bịa site n’uche mmadụ: kama ndị nsọ nke Chineke kwuru okwu dịka Mmụọ Nsọ kpaliri ha. 2 Pita 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.

N’afọ ndị gafeworonụ nke Adventizim Laodisia, e nweela ọtụtụ ndị ọkà mmụta okpukpe Adventist, ndị ụkọchukwu na ndị odeakwụkwọ tụlere ma ha chere na itinye ya Smith mere ziri ezi ma ọ bụ na ọ zighị ezi. Otu ụkọchukwu Australia, Louis Were, onye nwụrụ ogologo oge gara aga, tinyere ọtụtụ akụkụ nke ozi ya n’ịlụso usoro amụma ụgha Smith ọgụ. Ihe kpatara mgbochi ya abụghị naanị na Smith n’ikpeazụ kọwara eze ahụ nke na-abịa na njedebe ya n’amaokwu nke iri anọ na ise dị ka Turkey, kama ikpo okwu Smith mepụtara kwa itinye Armageddon n’ọrụ n’ụzọ na-ezighị ezi. N’ihe dị ka afọ ndị 1980, otu onye odeakwụkwọ Adventist dere akwụkwọ a kpọrọ, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Aha onye odeakwụkwọ ahụ bụ Donald Mansell, akwụkwọ ahụ ka dịkwa.

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 na-esochi akụkọ ihe mere eme nke dugara n’Agha Ụwa Mbụ na Agha Ụwa nke Abụọ, na-egosi na mgbe a hụrụ na agha abụọ ahụ na-abịa, ndị nkwusa ozioma Adventist bidoro iji ngwa nke ụgha Smith, nke na-ekwu na Turkey ga-agagharị gaa Jerusalem n’eziokwu anụ ahụ dị ka ihe ịrịba ama nke Armageddon na njedebe nke ụwa. Ọ na-egosi site na ndekọ ndị otu ụka na ka nke ọ bụla n’ime agha ndị ahụ na-eru nso, e webatara ọtụtụ mkpụrụobi n’ime òtù ụka Adventist, dabere n’isi ike amụma nke onye nkwusa ozioma, nke sitere n’echiche ezughị oke Smith banyere 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.

Mgbe nke ọ bụla n’ime agha ndị ahụ kwụsịrị, ma amụma ndị ahụ nwere ntụpọ emezuo, ụka ahụ tufuru ọtụtụ ndị otu karịa ndị ha ritere uru site n’usoro amụma nke Smith wuru.

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.

Site n’ịjụ Smith jụrụ ozi ntọala nke ndị Millerite, na ịdị njikere ya ịkwalite nkọwa nke onwe ya banyere amaokwu iri atọ na isii ruo iri anọ na ise nke Daniel, uche-omimi Smith mepụtara usoro amụma nke e wuru n’elu ihe omume ndị na-eme ugbu a.

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.”

N’esemokwu dị n’etiti Smith na James White banyere eze ahụ nke na-abịa na njedebe ya n’amaokwu ikpeazụ nke Daniel iri na otu, James White gosipụtara otu uche ziri ezi nke nkenke nke nọchiri anya ntọala amụma Smith nke a wuru n’elu ájá. White kuziri na “amụma na-amịpụta akụkọ ihe mere eme, ma akụkọ ihe mere eme anaghị amịpụta amụma.”

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.

Ndị nkwusa ozioma nke Adventism bụ ndị rụrụ ọrụ tupu agha abụọ ahụ jiri akụkọ ihe mere eme nke na-etolite eto gosipụta ụdị amụma Armagedọn nke Smith, nke nwere ntụpọ; ọrụ ha kwa, nke yiri ka e gọziri ya nke ukwuu n’oge na-eduga n’agha ndị ahụ, mepụtara mfu zuru ezu mgbe e gosipụtara na ụdị amụma ahụ dabeere n’elu nkọwa onwe onye.

> 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.

> Kpacharanụ ndị amụma ụgha anya, ndị na-abịakwute unu n’uwe atụrụ, ma n’ime ha, ha bụ agụ ọhịa na-adọgbu ihe. Unu ga-eji mkpụrụ ha mara ha. Ọ̀ bụ n’ogwu ka mmadụ na-achịkọta mkpụrụ vaịn, ma ọ bụ n’ukpa ka a na-achịkọta mkpụrụ fiig? Otu a kwa, osisi ọma ọ bụla na-amị mkpụrụ ọma; ma osisi rere ure na-amị mkpụrụ ọjọọ. Osisi ọma apụghị ịmị mkpụrụ ọjọọ, osisi rere ure apụghịkwa ịmị mkpụrụ ọma. Osisi ọ bụla nke na-adịghị amị mkpụrụ ọma, a na-egbutu ya, tụba ya n’ọkụ. Ya mere, ọ bụ site na mkpụrụ ha ka unu ga-eji mara ha. Matiu 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.

Nkwenye Smith ịkwalite usoro amụma nzuzo banyere eze ahụ dị n’amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii mịpụtara mkpụrụ nke imekwa ka e nwee itinye Arịa nke Isii na Amagedọn n’ọrụ n’ụzọ na-ezighị ezi.

> 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.

> Mmụọ-ozi nke isii we wụsa nnukwu efere ya n’elu nnukwu osimiri Yufretis; mmiri ya wee kpọọ nkụ, ka e wee kwadebe ụzọ ndị eze nke ọwụwa anyanwụ. M wee hụ mmụọ atọ ndị na-adịghị ọcha, dị ka ngwo, ka ha si n’ọnụ dragọn ahụ, na n’ọnụ anụ ọhịa ahụ, na n’ọnụ onye amụma ụgha ahụ pụta. N’ihi na ha bụ mmụọ ndị mmụọ ọjọọ, na-arụ ọrụ ebube, ndị na-aga n’ihu ndị eze nke ụwa na nke ụwa dum, iji kpọkọta ha n’agha nke nnukwu ụbọchị ahụ nke Chineke Pụrụ Ime Ihe Niile. Lee, ana m abịa dị ka onye ohi. Ngọzi dịrị onye ahụ nke na-amụ anya, na-echekwakwa uwe ya, ka ọ ghara ịga ije n’ịgba ọtọ, ka ha wee hụ ihere ya. O wee kpọkọta ha ọnụ n’ebe a na-akpọ n’asụsụ Hibru Amagedọn. Mkpughe 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.”

Dịka anyị kpọtụrụla na mbụ, ọrịa-otiti nke isii na-abịa mgbe oge nnwale mmadụ mechiri emechi; ya mere, ịdọ aka ná ntị ahụ nke dị n’ime ya, bụ́ ka unu debe uwe unu, aghaghị ịkọwa okwu nnwale nke na-eme tupu Maịkel ebili, tupu oge nnwale mmadụ emechie, na tupu ọrịa-otiti mbụ amalite. Ọrịa-otiti nke isii na-egosi ọrụ dragọn ahụ, anụ ọhịa ahụ, na onye amụma ụgha ahụ, bụ́ ndị mejupụtara njikọ ugboro atọ ahụ nke na-abịakọta ọnụ n’iwu Sọnde nke na-abịa n’oge na-adịghị anya. Njikọ ugboro atọ ahụ bụ Rome Ọhụrụ, ma akara nke na-amata ma na-eguzobe njikọ ugboro atọ ahụ nke Rome Ọhụrụ bụ “ndị na-apụnara ndị gị ihe,” ndị “na-ebuli onwe ha elu iji mee ka ọhụụ ahụ guzosie ike” ma “daa.”

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.

Ịdọ aka ná ntị nke ihe otiti nke isii, mgbe a ghọtara ya, na-enye mkpụrụobi ohere idobe uwe ya; ma ọ bụrụ na a jụ ya, ọ na-ahapụ mkpụrụobi ka ọ gba ọtọ, nke bụ otu n’ime àgwà ise nke onye Laodicea. Ihe nnọchianya nke na-eme ka ịdọ aka ná ntị ahụ guzosie ike bụ ndị ohi nke ndị gị, ndị na-ebuli onwe ha elu ma mesịa daa. Solomọn kwuru na ọ bụrụ na ndị nke Chineke enweghị ọhụụ ahụ, ha na-ala n’iyi.

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

> Ebe ọhụụ na-adịghị, ndị mmadụ na-ala n’iyi: ma onye na-edebe iwu, ngọziri agọzi ka ọ dị. Ilu 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.

Okwu Hibru a sụgharịrị “ila n’iyi” pụtara “ime ka mmadụ gba ọtọ,” ma Jọn dere, “Ngọzi nādiri onye ahu nke nāmụrụ anya, nke nādebekwa uwe-ya nile, ka ọ ghara ije ije n’ọtọ, ka ha we hu ihere-ya.” Smith mehieworo banyere Eze nke Ugwu, ma ntọala amụma ụgha ahụ nyere ya ohere ịzụlite nkọwa amụma nke, ọ bụrụ na a nabata ya, na-emepụta ịgba ọtọ, nke bụ ihe nnọchianya nke ndị Laodisia, ndị a na-awụpụ n’ọnụ Onye-nwe.

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 enweghị nsogbu ọ bụla n’ịgbachitere njirimara ụgha ọhụrụ ya banyere Eze Ugwu megide James White, di onye amụma nwanyị ahụ. Ndị ọkà mmụta akụkọ ihe mere eme nke Adventist, nakwa Nwanyị White, na-ekwu maka esemokwu ha a ma ama. Ellen White dọọrọ ma di ya ma Smith aka ná ntị n’ihi ikwe ka ọdịiche echiche ha banyere onye e ji eze ugwu nọchite anya ya n’ime Daniel isi nke iri na otu, banye n’ọha. N’akwụkwọ mbipụta Adventist mbụ kpọmkwem mgbe Nnukwu Nkụda Mmụọ nke 1844 gasịrị, James White dere:

> “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.

> “Na Jisọs biliri, mechie ụzọ, bịakwutekwa Onye Ochie nke ụbọchị, ka ọ nata alaeze ya, n’ọnwa nke 7, 1844, ekwere m nke a nke ọma. Lee Luk 13:25; Matiu 25:10; Daniel 7:13,14. Ma iguzo nke Maịkel, Daniel 12:1, dị ka ọ bụ ihe omume ọzọ, maka nzube ọzọ. Ibilite ya n’afọ 1844, bụ imechi ụzọ, na ịbịakwute Nna ya, ka ọ nata alaeze ya, na ike ịchị; ma iguzo nke Maịkel bụ igosipụta ike eze ya, nke o nwere ugbua, n’ịla ndị ajọ omume n’iyi, na n’ịzọpụta ndị nke ya. Maịkel ga-eguzo n’oge ahụ ike ikpeazụ dị n’isi nke 11 ga-abịa na njedebe ya, ma ọ dịghị onye ga-enyere ya aka. Ike a bụ nke ikpeazụ nke na-azọda ezi nzukọ Chineke n’okpuru ụkwụ: ma ebe a ka a ka na-azọda ezi nzukọ ahụ ma na-achụpụ ya site n’aka Ndị Kraịst niile, ọ na-esite na nke a pụta na ike mmegbu ikpeazụ ahụ abịabeghị ‘na njedebe ya;’ Maịkel eguzobebeghịkwa. A na-eme ka a hụ ike ikpeazụ a nke na-azọda ndị nsọ na Mkpughe 13:11-18. Ọnụ ọgụgụ ya bụ 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.

Mgbe Smith wetara ihe ọ kpọrọ “ìhè ọhụrụ” ya banyere isiokwu nke “ike ikpeazụ dị na Daniel isi nke iri na otu,” James White hụrụ nkọwa Smith, ọ bụghị dịka ìhè ọhụrụ, kama dịka mwakpo megide ntọala. Esemokwu ahụ banyere Rome dịka eze nke ugwu n’ime Daniel iri na otu, nke mere n’etiti Uriah Smith na James White, nwere àgwà pụrụ iche, nke anyị, dịka ụmụ akwụkwọ amụma, kwesịrị ijikọ ọnụ na esemokwu ndị ọzọ n’akụkọ ihe mere eme Adventist gbasara akara nke Rome.

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.

Otu n’ime àgwà ndị ahụ bụ iwebata nkọwa nke onwe. Àgwà ọzọ bụ na itinye nkọwa nke onwe ahụ n’ọrụ na-achọ ịgbanwegharị ụtọasụsụ dị mfe n’ike, n’ihi na Smith ọ bụghị naanị na o leghaara anya na àgwà amụma ọ bụla dị n’amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii na-agwa Rome okwu, kama o leghaara anya na nhazi ụtọasụsụ ahụ na-achọ ka eze nke amaokwu nke iri atọ na isii bụrụ otu eze ahụ a na-anọchi anya ya n’akụkụ Akwụkwọ Nsọ gara aga.

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.”

Ihe ọzọ bụ na nkọwa onwe onye ahụ bụ ịjụ eziokwu ndị bụ isi ntọala. Ihe ọzọ bụ na ọ na-anọchi anya ịjụ ikike nke Mmụọ nke Amụma. Njirimara ọzọ bụ na echiche mbụ ahụ nwere ntụpọ banyere Rome ga-eduga n’ụdị amụma nke na-adịghị ekwe ka mmadụ debe uwe ya ka ha na-eru nso n’ọgwụgwụ oge nnwale mmadụ. Ihe ọzọ bụ ịdị njikere ịkwalite nkọwa onwe onye ya n’ihu ọha. Ihe ọzọ bụ na a na-amata nkọwa onwe onye ahụ mgbe niile dị ka ìhè ọhụrụ. A na-anọchi anya àgwà ndị a niile n’ime mkparịta ụka dị ugbu a banyere “ndị ohi nke ndị gị.”

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.

Mgbe esemokwu ikpeazụ nke Rom, nke esemokwu mbụ nke Rom gosipụtara n’ụdị site n’ịmata “ndị na-apụnara mmadụ gị ihe,” ejikọtakwara ya na ahịrị amụma nke esemokwu Uriah Smith na James White, anyị ga-ahụ na otu òtù ga na-ewu ihe nlereanya amụma ha n’elu nkọwa nke onwe, nke na-ajụ eziokwu ntọala.

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.

Ịjụ eziokwu ndị ntọala ahụ n’onwe ya na-anọchi anya ịjụ ikike nke Mmụọ nke Amụma, nke na-agbachitere eziokwu ndị ntọala ahụ nke ọma nke ukwuu. Otu ìgwè ahụ ga-adịkwa njikere iweta echiche ha n’ihu ọha, n’agbanyeghị nchegbu ọbụla a pụrụ ibuli banyere mmetụta ozizi ahụ nwere ike inwe n’ahụ ndị Chineke n’ụwa nile.

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.

Ozugbo emechara 1844, n’ọgbọ mbụ nke Adventizim, e butere esemokwu ọzọ banyere Rom. A nọgidere na-akpalite esemokwu ahụ, ruo mgbe a nabatara echiche ụgha ahụ n’ọgbọ nke atọ nke Adventizim. Anyị ga-atụle esemokwu nke “daily” dị ka nke anọ n’ime ahịrị isii anyị na-atụle ugbu a n’ụkpụrụ nke ahịrị n’elu ahịrị.

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.”

Ma tupu anyị ewere ahịrị nke anọ nke esemokwu ndị Rom, ọ dị mkpa icheta na n’isiokwu gara aga, mgbe anyị na-atụle amaokwu nke iri nke Daniel isi nke iri na otu, anyị kwuru, “Amaokwu nke iri na-ejikọkwa ozugbo ‘oge asaa’ nke Levitikọs iri abụọ na isii na akụkọ ihe mere eme zoro ezo, ma ahịrị eziokwu ahụ adịghị n’ime ihe anyị na-akọwapụta ebe a.”

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 bụ onye ndu n’ịjụ “oge asaa” ahụ n’afọ 1863. Ọ jụkwara mmụba nke ihe ọmụma gbasara isiokwu ahụ nke e gosipụtara n’akwụkwọ edemede banyere isiokwu ahụ, nke Hiram Edson dere ma bipụta na Review n’afọ 1856. Ihe nke a pụtara banyere njikọ Smith nwere na mmegharị nke kwupụtara “oge asaa” ahụ, ma mesịa jụ mmụba nke ihe ọmụma banyere otu isiokwu ahụ, dịkwa n’èzí isiokwu nke njirimara nke mmalite Smith tinyere n’ihe ọ kpọrọ ìhè ọhụrụ banyere isiokwu eze ugwu; ma mgbe anyị mechara nchịkọta anyị banyere ahịrị nke esemokwu ndị Adventist banyere Rome, anyị ga-alaghachi ma n’ihe dị mkpa nke amaokwu nke iri nke isi nke iri na otu nke Daniel, nakwa n’ihe a na-anọchi anya ya site n’ịjụ Smith jụrụ ozi Laodisia nke bịarutere n’afọ 1856 tinyere mmụba nke ihe ọmụma banyere “oge asaa” ahụ.

> “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.

> “Ọkwukwe anyị gbasara ozi ndị mmụọ ozi mbụ, nke abụọ, na nke atọ ziri ezi. Nnukwu akara ụzọ ndị anyị gafeworo apụghị ịkwagharị agagharị. Ọ bụ ezie na ìgwè ndị agha nke hel pụrụ ịgbalị isi na ntọala ha dọwaa ha, ma nwee mmeri n’echiche na ha enweela ihe ịga nke ọma, ma ha adịghị enweta ihe ịga nke ọma. Ogidi ndị a nke eziokwu guzosiri ike dịka ugwu ebighị ebi, na-enweghị mmegharị site n’ọrụ niile nke mmadụ jikọtara ya na nke Setan na ndị agha ya. Anyị pụrụ ịmụ ọtụtụ ihe, ma kwesịkwara ịdị na-enyocha Akwụkwọ Nsọ mgbe niile ịhụ ma ihe ndị a ò dị otu a.” 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.

> “A ga-echekwa nke ọma nnukwu ihe ịrịba ama nile nke eziokwu, ndị na-egosi anyị ọnọdụ anyị n’akụkọ amụma, ka a ghara ịkwatu ha ma dochie ha anya n’ozizi ndị ga-eweta mgbagwoju anya kama ìhè nke ezi-okwu.” Selected Messages, book 2, 101, 102.

> “At this time many efforts will be made to unsettle our faith in the sanctuary question; but we must not waver. Not a pin is to be moved from the foundations of our faith. Truth is still truth. Those who become uncertain will drift into erroneous theories, and will finally find themselves infidel in regard to the past evidence we have had of what is truth. The old waymarks must be preserved, that we lose not our bearings.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55

> “N’oge a, a ga-eme ọtụtụ mgbalị iji mebie okwukwe anyị n’okwu banyere ebe nsọ; ma anyị aghaghị ịdịgidesi ike, ghara ịma jijiji. A gaghị akwagharị ọbụna otu ntakịrị ntu si n’ala ntọala nke okwukwe anyị. Eziokwu ka bụ eziokwu. Ndị na-amalite inwe amaghị ama ga-adaba n’ozizi ndị na-ezighị ezi, ma n’ikpeazụ ha ga-achọpụta na ha aghọwo ndị ekweghị ekwe n’ihe metụtara ihe àmà ndị gara aga anyị nwere banyere ihe bụ eziokwu. A ghaghị ichekwa ihe ịrịba ama ochie ndị ahụ, ka anyị ghara ida ụzọ anyị.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55

Back to Articles