Article

# Rome Establishes the Vision - Number Six

Roma Netepaké Wahyu – Nomer Enem

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

Polemik-Polemik Kenabian ing Sajarah Adventis: Mangertos Pasulayan antawisipun Uriah Smith lan James White ngenani Daniel 11:36

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

August 14, 2024

Formats

PDF
Word

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

Kita lagi ngrembug enem garis kontroversi profètis kang wis dumadi sajroning sajarah Adventisme wiwit taun 1798 nganti tekan jaman saiki.

> “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.

> “Ing sajarah lan ramalan, Sabda Allah nggambarake pasulayan dawa sing terus lumaku antarane kayekten lan kaluputan. Pasulayan iku isih terus lumaku. Prekara-prekara kang wis tau kelakon bakal kaulang maneh. Padudon-padudon lawas bakal diuripake maneh, lan teori-teori anyar bakal tansah muncul tanpa kendhat. Nanging umaté Allah, kang ing kapitadosané lan ing panggenepané ramalan wis nindakaké pérangan ing pawartané malaékat kapisan, kapindho, lan katelu, ngerti ana ing ngendi jumenenge. Wong-wong mau nduwèni pengalaman kang luwih adi tinimbang emas murni. Wong-wong mau kudu ngadeg jejeg kaya watu karang, nyekel teguh wiwitaning kapercayané kanthi mantep nganti tekan wekasan.” Selected Messages, buku 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.

Artikel sadurungé wis mbahas pasulayan kang kapisan lan kang pungkasan ngenani kakuwasan Roma, lan saiki kita bakal ngrembug pasulayan kang dumadi antarané Uriah Smith lan James White. Uriah Smith nyelakaké “tafsir pribadi”-né dhéwé menyang ayat telung puluh enem.

> “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.

> “AYAT 36. Lan sang ratu bakal tumindak miturut karsané dhéwé; lan bakal ngluhuraké awaké dhéwé, lan nggedhèkaké awaké dhéwé ngungkuli saben allah, lan bakal ngucapaké prakara-prakara kang nggumunaké marang Allahing para allah, lan bakal kasil nganti bebendu iku kalakon rampung; awit apa kang wus katemtokaké mesthi bakal kalakon.

> “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.

> “Raja sing dipunwedharaken ing ngriki boten saged dipunmangertosi minangka kakuwasan ingkang sami kaliyan kakuwasan ingkang pungkasan kapratelakaken; inggih punika, kakuwasan kapausan; awit rinincianipun boten saged trep menawi dipuntrapaken dhateng kakuwasan punika.” 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 ngakoni manawa kakuwatan ing ayat sadurunge iku “Roma kapapan,” nanging ngaku manawa ciri-ciri ing ayat telung puluh enem dudu ciri-ciri kenabian sing ngidentifikasi Roma kapapan. Panemu iku palsu. Kudu dieling-eling manawa ing pambrontakan taun 1863, pitung mangsa ing Imamat pasal rong puluh enem disisihaké, lan mulané gambaran babagan pitung mangsa ing loro lèmpèng Habakuk ditampik. Bagan taun 1843 lan 1850 padha nggambaraké pitung mangsa ana ing tengah banget saka bagan-bagan mau, lan loro-loroné uga mapanaké salib ing tengah garis pitung mangsa mau. Nalika pepadhang anyar babagan pitung mangsa rawuh ing taun 1856 lan sawisé iku banjur ditampik, prakara iku nandhani panampikan marang loro lèmpèngé Habakuk, uga marang wewenang Roh Ramalan, kang kanthi cetha banget netepaké manawa loro bagan mau dituntun déning Gusti Allah.

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.

Miturut Sister White, pangapusan pungkasan saka Iblis iku ndadèkaké paseksèné Rohé Allah dadi tanpa daya; lan ing kéné pangapusan kang kapisan uga ndadèkaké paseksèné Rohé Allah dadi tanpa daya, lan iku uga nggambaraké panampikan bebarengan marang kayektèn-kayektèn dhasar kang ana ing kaloro bagan mau, lan luwih mligi pitung mangsa.

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.

Nalika pambrontakan taun 1863, ora liya kajaba Uriah Smith piyambak sing ngasilaké bagan palsu taun 1863, kang mbusak garis pitung mangsa. Ing taun 1863 Uriah Smith wus nutup mripaté marang pepadhang bab pitung mangsa, lan ora bisa ndeleng yèn ana loro “indignations” kang dipratélakaké déning Daniel. Loro indignations iku nglambangaké pitung mangsa tumrap karajan lor, yaiku Israèl, lan karajan kidul, yaiku Yéhuda. Sing kapisan tumrap sepuluh taler lor diwiwiti ing 723 SM lan rampung ing 1798, lan sing kapindho diwiwiti ing 677 SM lan rampung ing 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.

Jibril rawuh marang Daniel ing pasal wolu kanggo nerangaké wahyu marah, lan gegayutan karo pakaryané, piyambakipun maringi paseksen kapindho tumrap taun 1844. Rong ewu telung atus taun ing Daniel pasal wolu mau rampung ing taun 1844, nanging uga ing taun iku pungkasaning kalih indignasi tumrap karajan lor lan karajan kidul.

> 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.

> Panjenengané banjur ngandika, Lah, aku bakal ndadèkaké kowé mangerti apa kang bakal kelakon ing wekasaning bebendu iku; awit ing wektu kang wus katetepaké, wekasan iku mesthi bakal tumeka. 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.

Pungkasan kang pungkasan ngramalaké anané pungkasan kang wiwitan. Pungkasan sing kapindho saka kaloro bebendu mau, kang mung minangka tembung liya tumrap pitung mangsa, rampung ing taun 1844, lan bebendu kang wiwitan rampung ing taun 1798. Ayat sing, miturut pangandikané Smith, ora ngemot rincian apa-apa bab panguwasa kapausan, nyatakake taun nalika kapausan bakal nampani tatu pati.

> 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.

> Lan Sang Prabu bakal tumindak miturut karepé dhéwé; lan dhèwèké bakal ngluhuraké awaké dhéwé, lan nggedhèkaké awaké dhéwé ngungkuli saben allah, sarta bakal ngucapaké prakara-prakara kang nggumunaké marang Allahing para allah, lan bakal kasil nganti bebendu iku kalakon rampung; awit apa kang wis katetepaké mesthi bakal katindakaké. 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.

“Raja” ing ayat telung puluh enem bakal “kaluberan kasil nganti bebenduning Allah kalampahan.” Gatekna apa kang ditulis déning Smith bab Daniel pasal wolu, ayat rong puluh telu lan rong puluh papat ing buku sing padha, ing kono dhèwèké nyatakaké yèn kakuwasan kapausan ora nduwèni sipat-sipat kang trep kanggo netepi ayat telung puluh enem.

> “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.

> “AYAT 23. Lan ing wekasaning mangsa karajané wong-wong mau, nalika para panerak wus tekan pepaké, bakal jumeneng sawijining ratu kang rai-pratandhané angker lan paham ukara-ukara kang peteng. 24. Lan kakuwatané bakal rosa, nanging ora marga saka kakuwatané dhéwé; lan dhèwèké bakal ngrusak kanthi nggegirisi, lan bakal kasil, lan nindakaké apa sing dadi karepé, lan bakal ngrusak para wong rosa lan umat suci. 25. Lan marga saka kawicaksanané uga dhèwèké bakal ndadèkaké pangapusan lestari ana ing tangané; lan dhèwèké bakal ngluhuraké awaké dhéwé ana ing atiné, lan marga saka katentreman bakal numpes akèh wong; dhèwèké uga bakal nglawan Sang Pangéranipun para pangéran; nanging dhèwèké bakal diremuk tanpa tangan.

> “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.

> “Panguwasa iki nggantèni papat péranganing karajan wedhus lanang mau ing wekasaning karajané, yaiku nalika tumuju marang pungkasaning lakuné. Mesthiné, iki padha waé karo sungu cilik ing ayat 9 lan salajengipun. Trapna iki marang Rum, kaya kang katetepaké ing katrangan bab ayat 9, lan kabèh dadi selaras lan cetha.

> “‘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.

> “‘Sawijining raja kang pasuryane garang.’ Musa, nalika medharake paukuman kang bakal teka marang wong-wong Yahudi saka kakuwasan iki, nyebut iku ‘sawijining bangsa kang pasuryane garang.’ Deut. 28:49, 50. Ora ana bangsa kang nampilake pemandangan luwih nggegirisi ana ing barisan perang tinimbang bangsa Rum. ‘Ngerti ukara-ukara peteng.’ Musa, ing Kitab Suci kang lagi kasebut iku, ngandika, ‘Kang basane ora bakal kokmangerteni.’ Iki ora bisa diucapake bab wong Babil, Persia, utawa Yunani, gegayutan karo wong-wong Yahudi; amarga basa Kasdim lan basa Yunani dienggo, luwih akèh utawa luwih sithik, ana ing Palestina. Nanging bab Latin, ora mangkono.”

> “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.

> “Nalika para wong duraka wus tekan ing pepakipun.” Sakawit, gegayutan antaraning umaté Gusti Allah lan para panindhesé tansah katetepaké ana ing ngarsaning pamawas. Iku amarga saka panerak-panindakake umaté piyambak nganti padha kadol marang panangkaran. Lan anggone tetep lumaku ana ing dosa ndadèkaké paukuman kang luwih abot. Ora ana wektuné bangsa Yahudi, minangka sawijining bangsa, luwih rusak budi-moralé katimbang nalika padha lumebu ing sangisoré panguwasané wong Rum.

> “‘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.

> “‘Kuwasa, nanging ora marga saka kakuwatané dhéwé.’ Kasuksesan bangsa Romawi iku sapérangan gedhé disebabaké déning pitulungan saka para sekutuné, lan déning pamecahan ing antarané mungsuh-mungsuhé, kang tansah siyaga kanggo dijupuk kauntungane. Roma Kapapal uga kuwasa lumantar kakuwasan-kakuwasan sekuler kang ana ing sangisoré pangwasaning rohanié.

> “‘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.

> “‘Panjenengané bakal numpes kanthi nggumunaké.’ Pangéran ngandika marang wong-wong Yahudi lumantar nabi Ezekiel yèn Panjenengané bakal masrahaké wong-wong mau marang wong-wong sing ‘trampil kanggo numpes;’ lan pembantaian sawelas atus èwu wong Yahudi nalika karusakan Yerusalem déning tentara Rum, dadi sawijining peneguhan kang nggegirisi tumrap tembungé nabi mau. Lan Rum ing tataran kapindhoné, utawa tataran kapapalané, tanggung jawab tumrap pati sèket yuta para 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.

> “‘Lan lumantar kawicaksanané uga dhèwèké bakal ndadèkaké kadurjanan lestari ana ing tangané.’ Roma wis kacathet ngungkuli kabèh kakuwasan liyané ing bab kawicaksanan kebak tipu daya, lumantar iku bangsa-bangsa digawa mlebu ing sangisoré panguwasané. Iki bener tumrap Roma kapir lan uga Roma kapausan. Mangkono déné lumantar katentreman dhèwèké numpes akèh wong.

> “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.

> “Lan Roma, pungkasane, lumantar pribadi salah sawijining gubernuré, nglawan Sang Pangéraning para pangéran, kanthi mènèhi putusan paukuman pati marang Gusti Yesus Kristus. ‘Nanging dhèwèké bakal diremuk tanpa tangan,’ sawijining ungkapan kang ngidentifikasi karusakané kakuwasan iki karo dipungebugé reca ing pasal 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, kaping pindho ing pethikan mau, nedahake manawa ciri-ciri kenabian Roma kapir lan Roma kapausan bisa silih-gentosi, amarga iku mung minangka pepanggihaning Roma ing rong tataranipun, kados campuran wesi lan lempung ing Daniel pasal kalih, ingkang dipunidentifikasi déning Sister White minangka pralambang churchcraft lan statecraft. Nalika Daniel nyebataken ing ayat-ayat ingkang dipuntanggapi déning Smith—bilih Roma “shall prosper, and practice,” lan bilih Roma “shall cause craft to prosper in his hand,”—Smith negesaken bilih ing ayat tigang dosa enem, “raja” ingkang “shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished,” nedahaken satunggaling ciri kenabian saking Roma kapir saha Roma kapausan. Salajengipun piyambakipun ngaken bilih boten satunggal kemawon saking ciri-ciri Roma ing ayat tigang dosa enem ingkang ngrujuk dhateng kakuwasan kapausan.

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.

Kita sampun nyebut Smith kanggé ndhukung pangenalan bilih Roma punika para begal ingkang netepaken wahyu punika, lan salah satunggaling saking sekawan ciri profetik ing ayat kaping patbelas punika inggih bilih Roma ngluhuraken dhirinipun piyambak.

> 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.

> Lan ing mangsa iku bakal ana akeh wong kang nglawan ratu ing sisih kidul; mangkono uga para perampog saka bangsamu bakal ngluhurake awake dhewe kanggo netepake wahyu iku; nanging wong-wong mau bakal tiba. 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 mratelakaké yèn katemtuan bab raja ing ayat telung puluh enem ora cocog karo kakuwasan kapausan, sanadyan sadurungé dhèwèké mbélani yèn Roma ing ayat patbelas iku kang ngluhuraké awaké dhéwé. Nanging raja ing ayat telung puluh enem “bakal ngluhuraké awaké dhéwé.” Raja sing padha kuwi ing ayat telung puluh enem uga bakal “ngucapaké prakara-prakara kang nggumunaké marang Allah ing ndhuwuré sakehing allah.” Ing Daniel, kakuwasan kapausan “bakal ngucapaké tembung-tembung gedhé marang Kang Mahaluhur,” lan ing kitab Wahyu, kakuwasan kapausan ngucap pitenah marang Kang Mahaluhur.

> 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.

> Lan kaparingaké marang dhèwèké cangkem kang ngucap prakara-prakara gedhé lan pitenah-pitenah; lan panguwasa kaparingaké marang dhèwèké supaya terus tumindak patang puluh loro sasi. Lan dhèwèké mbukak cangkeme ing pitenah marang Allah, kanggo mitenah asmane Panjenengané, lan kémah suci Panjenengané, lan wong-wong kang manggon ing swarga. Wahyu 13:5, 6.

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

Saben katrangan profetik ngenani kakuwasan kepausan kaidentifikasi ing ayat telung puluh enem.

> 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.

> Lan raja iku bakal tumindak miturut karsane dhéwé; lan dhèwèké bakal ngluhuraké awaké dhéwé, lan ngagung-agungaké awaké dhéwé ngungkuli saben allah, lan bakal ngucapaké prekara-prekara kang nggumunaké nglawan Gusti Allahing para allah, lan bakal kasil nganti bebendu iku katindakaké rampung; awit apa kang wis katetepaké mesthi bakal katindakaké. 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.

Para panjurung panemu manungsa asring kaping pirang-pirang ora kena dipracaya, nanging akeh panjurung panemu Adventis sing mènèhi paseksi tumrap kayektèn kang cetha menawa ayat kaping telung puluh enem iku kang diparafrasakaké déning rasul Paulus ing 2 Tesalonika, nalika panjenengané ngrembag bab manungsa dosa.

> 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.

> Aja nganti ana wong ngapusi kowé kanthi cara apa waé; awit dina iku ora bakal teka, kajaba manawa murtad wis kelakon luwih dhisik, lan manungsa duraka iku kasingkap, yaiku putraning karusakan; kang nentang lan ngluhuraké awaké dhéwé ngungkuli sakehing kang sinebut Allah, utawa kang disembah; nganti dhèwèké kaya Allah lenggah ana ing Padalemané Allah, mratélakaké awaké dhéwé yèn dhèwèké iku Allah. 2 Thessalonians 2:2, 3.

Verse thirty-six states that “he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god,” and Paul says “that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.” Clearly Smith had no prophetic authority to claim that the king of verse thirty-six was different from the king under discussion in the verses leading to verse thirty-six. Grammatically he had no justification for making his flawed application, and his claim that he did so because verse thirty-six possesses no characteristics of the papal power was a wresting of the Scripture in an attempt to establish a private interpretation.

Ayat telung puluh enem nyatakake manawa “dhèwèké bakal ngluhuraké awaké dhéwé, lan ngunggulaké awaké dhéwé ngluwihi saben allah,” lan Paulus ngandika, “wong duraka iku kawedhar, yaiku anaking karusakan; kang nglawan lan ngluhuraké awaké dhéwé ngluwihi samubarang kabèh kang kasebut Allah, utawa kang disembah.” Cetha manawa Smith ora nduwèni wewenang kenabian kanggo ngakoni yèn ratu ing ayat telung puluh enem iku béda karo ratu kang lagi dirembug ing ayat-ayat sadurungé nganti tekan ayat telung puluh enem. Miturut tata basa, dhèwèké ora nduwèni pambener babar pisan kanggo ngetrapaké panrapané kang kliru kuwi, lan pangakoné yèn panjenengané nindakaké mangkono merga ayat telung puluh enem ora ngandhut sipat-sipat kakuwasan kapausan, iku sawijining pambengkongan Kitab Suci kanthi upaya netepaké tafsiran pribadi.

> 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.

> Kita uga nduwèni tembung ramalan kang luwih teteg; lan panjenengan padha nindakaké kanthi becik manawa panjenengan nggatekaké iku, kaya marang pepadhang sing madhangi ing panggonan kang peteng, nganti ésuking dina sumorot, lan lintang ésuk njedhul ana ing sajroning ati panjenengan; dhisik iki kudu kokmangertèni, yèn ora ana ramalaning Kitab Suci kang asalé saka panfsirané dhéwé. Awit ramalan iku biyèn ora teka marga saka karsané manungsa, nanging para wong suci kagungané Allah padha ngandika kaya déné padha kasurung déning Roh Suci. 2 Petrus 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.

Sajroning taun-taun Adventisme Laodikia wis ana akèh teolog, pandhita, lan panulis Advent sing ngrembug apa panrapané Smith iku bener utawa luput miturut pamikirane. Sawijining pandhita saka Australia, Louis Were, sing wis suwé séda, ngginakaké sapérangan gedhé saka palayanané kanggo nentang modhèl kenabian palsu duwèké Smith. Alesan panyerangé iku ora mung awit Smith ing pungkasané ngenali ratu sing tekan ing pungkasané ing ayat patang puluh lima minangka Turki, nanging landhesan Smith uga ngasilaké panrapan Armagedon sing luput. Ing taun 1980-an utawa ing watara mangkono, sawijining panulis Advent nulis sawijining buku kanthi irah-irahan, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Asma panulisé yaiku Donald Mansell, lan buku iku isih kasedhiya.

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 nglacak sajarah sing ndhisiki Perang Donya Kapisan lan Perang Donya Kapindho, kanthi nedahaké yèn nalika pratandha nyedhaké loro perang mau wiwit katon, para penginjil Advent miwiti migunakaké panerapan palsu Smith ngenani Turki lumaku menyang Yerusalem harfiah minangka pratandha Armagedon lan pungkasaning donya. Panjenengané mbuktèkaké lumantar cathetan kaanggotaan gréja yèn saben perang mau saya nyedhak, akèh jiwa kaboyong mlebu ing kaanggotaan gréja Advent, adhedhasar penekanan nubuatan saka para penginjil sing dijupuk saka pamawas Smith sing cacad ngenani Armagedon.

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.

Nalika salah siji perang mau wus rampung, lan ramalan-ramalan kang cacat iku ora kaleksanan, gréja mau kelangan anggota luwih akèh tinimbang kang wus dipikolehi saka modhèl kenabian kang disusun déning Smith.

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.

Lumantar panyingkiranipun Smith dhateng pesen dhasar kaum Millerit, lan kasagedanipun nglajengaken tafsir pribadinipun tumrap ayat telung puluh enem dumugi patang puluh gangsal saking kitab Daniel, logika Smith ngasilaken satunggaling model kenabian ingkang adhedhasar prastawa-prastawa ing wekdal punika.

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.”

Ing pasulayan antarané Smith lan James White ngenani raja sing tumeka ing wekasané ana ing ayat pungkasan Daniel sewelas, James White ngaturaké sawijining logika kang kanthi ringkes makili dhasar kenabiané Smith sing rapuh. White mulang yèn “wong wédharan ngasilaké sajarah, nanging sajarah ora ngasilaké wong wédharan.”

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.

Para penginjil Adventisme sing makarya sadurunge kaloroné perang iku nggunakaké sajarah sing lagi ngrembaka kanggo nampilaké modhel Armagedon profetisé Smith sing cacat, lan pagawéané, sing katon banget diberkahi nalika ngadhepi perang-perang mau, ngasilaké kapitunan neto nalika modhel profetis iku kabuktèkaké dhedhasar panafsir pribadi.

> 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.

> Padha waspadanen para nabi palsu, kang padha marani kowe nganggo sandhangan wedhus, nanging sajroningé wong-wong iku asu ajag kang galak lan rakus. Kowé bakal wanuh marang wong-wong iku saka woh-wohané. Apa ana wong methik anggur saka eri, utawa woh ara saka semak eri? Mangkono uga saben wit kang becik ngasilaké woh kang becik; nanging wit kang ala ngasilaké woh kang ala. Wit kang becik ora bisa ngasilaké woh kang ala, lan wit kang ala uga ora bisa ngasilaké woh kang becik. Saben wit kang ora ngasilaké woh kang becik, bakal ditegor lan dibuwang menyang geni. Mulané, kowé bakal wanuh marang wong-wong iku saka woh-wohané. Matius 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.

Kasudaning Smith kanggo ngusung sawijining modhèl profetik pribadi ngenani sang raja ing ayat telung puluh enem ngasilaké uga pambijining panrapan sing kliru tumrap Pageblug Kaping Nêm lan Armagedon.

> 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.

> Malaékat kaping nem banjur nyurahi bokoré ana ing kali gedhé Éfrat; lan banyuné dadi asat, supaya dalan tumrap para ratu saka wetan bisa disawisaké. Lan aku weruh telung roh najis kaya kodhok metu saka cangkeming naga, lan saka cangkeming kéwan galak, lan saka cangkeming nabi palsu. Awit roh-roh mau iku roh-rohé sétan, kang nindakaké mukjijat, kang padha metu marani para ratu ing bumi lan ing saindenging jagad, kanggo nglumpukaké wong-wong mau tumuju ing paprangan ing dina gedhé kagungané Allah Kang Mahakwasa. Lah, Aku rawuh kaya maling. Rahayu wong kang tansah waspada lan njaga sandhangané, supaya aja lumaku wuda lan wong-wong padha weruh kawirangané. Lan wong-wong mau padha diklumpukaké ana ing sawijining panggonan kang ing basa Ibrani sinebut Armagedon. Wahyu 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.”

Kados sampun kita terangaken sadèrèngipun, pageblug kaping enem rawuh sasampunipun wekdal kasempataning manungsa sampun katutup; mila pepènget ingkang ngemot dhawuh supados njagi sandhanganira punika mesthi ngrujuk dhateng satunggaling prakawis panggènan pangujian ingkang kadadosan sadèrèngipun Mikhaèl jumeneng, kasempataning manungsa katutup, lan pageblug kapisan diwiwiti. Pageblug kaping enem mratelakaken pakaryaning naga, kéwan, lan nabi palsu, ingkang dados pasamuan triprangkap ingkang nyawiji wonten ing angger-angger Minggu ingkang enggal badhé rawuh. Pasamuan triprangkap punika inggih punika Roma Modern, lan pralambang ingkang nandhani sarta netepaken pasamuan triprangkap saking Roma Modern punika, inggih punika “para garonging umatira,” ingkang “ngluhuraken dhirinipun supados netepaken wahyu” lan “tiba.”

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.

Pangandikan pepènget saka pageblug kaping nem, manawa dipahami, maringi kalodhangan marang sawijining jiwa supaya njaga sandhangané; nanging manawa ditampik, pepènget iku ninggalaké sawijining jiwa tanpa sandhangan, kang dadi salah siji saka lima sipat wong Laodikia. Lambang kang netepaké pepènget mau yaiku para perampok saka bangsamu, kang ngluhuraké awaké dhéwé lan ing wekasané ambruk. Suléman ngandika yèn manawa umaté Gusti Allah ora nduwèni sesanti iku, wong-wong mau bakal nemoni karusakan.

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

> Ing ngendi ora ana wahyu, ing kono bangsa dadi tanpa kendhali; nanging wong kang netepi angger-anggering Toret, begja wong iku. Wulang Bebasan 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.

Tembung Ibrani “perish” tegesé “nggawé wuda”, lan Yohanes nyatet, “Beja wong kang waspada, lan ngreksa sandhangané, supaya aja lumaku wuda, lan wong-wong padha ndeleng kanistane.” Smith salah ngenani Raja ing Lor, lan dhasar ramalan palsu iku ndadèkaké dhèwèké ngembangaké sawijining penerapan ramalan kang, manawa ditampa, ngasilaké kawudanan, kang dadi pralambang tumrap wong-wong Laodikia, kang dipuntutah metu saka tutuké Gusti.

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 boten gadhah alangan kanggé mbéla identifikasi palsu énggalipun bab Raja Lor nglawan James White, garwanipun sang nabi wadon. Para sejarawan Adventis, saha Sister White, ngrembag pasulayan misuwur antawisipun piyambakipun. Ellen White negesi kaluputan tumrap garwanipun saha Smith amargi nglilakaken bedanipun pamanggih bab sinten ingkang dipunlambangaken déning raja lor wonten ing Daniel sewelas, ngantos dipunbetahaken dhateng ranah umum. Ing publikasi Adventis ingkang sepisanan piyambak sasampunipun Kuciwa Ageng taun 1844, James White nyerat:

> “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.

> “Yèn Gusti Yésus wus jumeneng, lan nutup lawang, lan sowan marang Kang Sampun Sepuhing Dinten, kanggo nampani Kratonipun, ing sasi kaping-7, taun 1844, iku dakpitadosi kanthi temenan. Delengen Lukas 13:25; Matius 25:10; Daniel 7:13,14. Nanging jumenengipun Mikhaèl, Daniel 12:1, katingal minangka prastawa sanès, tumrap ancas sanès. Jumenengipun ing taun 1844 iku kanggo nutup lawang, lan sowan marang Sang Rama, kanggo nampani Kratonipun, lan panguwaos kanggo mrentah; nanging jumenengipun Mikhaèl iku kanggo mratélakaké panguwaos krajanipun, kang sampun kagunganipun, ing karusakané para wong duraka, lan ing pangluwaran umatipun. Mikhaèl badhé jumeneng ing wektu nalika kakuwasan pungkasan ing pasal 11 tekan ing pungkasané, lan ora ana sing mitulungi dhèwèké. Kakuwasan iki yaiku kang pungkasan sing ngidak-idak pasamuwané Gusti Allah kang sajati: lan awit pasamuwan kang sajati isih katindhes, lan katundhung déning kabèh jagad Kristen, mula cetha yèn kakuwasan panindhes kang pungkasan durung ‘tekan ing pungkasané;’ lan Mikhaèl durung jumeneng. Kakuwasan pungkasan iki, kang ngidak-idak para suci, katampilaké ing Wahyu 13:11-18. Cacahé yaiku 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.

Nalika Smith ngenalaken apa kang diarani déningé “pepadhang anyar” ngenani prakara “kuwasa pungkasan ing Daniel pasal sewelas,” James White mirsani panrapané Smith iku, dudu minangka pepadhang anyar, nanging minangka sawijining serangan marang dhasar-dhasar. Padraban ngenani Roma minangka ratu sisih lor ing Daniel 11 kang dumadi ing antarané Uriah Smith lan James White nduwèni sipat-sipat tartamtu, kang minangka para siswa wangsit, kita kudu nglumpukaké lan nyarujukaké karo padraban-padraban liyané ing sajarah Adventis ngenani pralambang Roma.

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

Salah siji saka sipat-sipat iku yaiku ngenalaké sawijining tafsiran pribadi. Sipat liyané yaiku manawa penerapan tafsiran pribadi iku mbutuhaké pambengkokan tata basa sing prasaja, awit Smith ora mung nglirwakaké yèn saben sipat kenabian ing ayat telung puluh enem iku ngacu marang Roma, nanging dhèwèké uga nglirwakaké yèn susunan gramatikalé nuntut yèn ratu ing ayat telung puluh enem iku mesthi ratu sing padha kaya sing digambaraké ing pérangan sadurungé.

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.”

Liyane maneh yaiku manawa penafsiran pribadi iku minangka panampikan marang kayekten-kayekten dhasar. Liyane maneh yaiku manawa iku makili panampikan marang panguwasa Rohing Ramalan. Ciri liyane yaiku manawa gagasan kapisan kang cacat ngenani Roma bakal nuntun marang sawijining model kenabian kang ora ngidinaké wong njaga sandhangané nalika padha nyedhaki pungkasané mangsa kasempataning manungsa. Liyane maneh yaiku karep kanggo nyengkuyung penafsiran pribadiné ing ngarepé umum. Liyane maneh yaiku manawa penafsiran pribadi iku tanpa kajaba tansah diidentifikasi minangka pepadhang anyar. Kabeh sipat iki kawakili ing rembagan saiki ngenani “para begal saka bangsamu.”

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.

Nalika kontroversi pungkasané Roma, kang dipratandhani déning kontroversi kapisané Roma kanthi ngenali “para perampok saka bangsamumu,” dipasangaké bebarengan karo garis kenabian saka kontroversiné Uriah Smith lan James White, kita bakal weruh yèn ana siji golongan kang bakal mbangun modhèl kenabiané ing ndhuwur tafsiran pribadi, kang nampik kayektèn dhasar.

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.

Panolakan marang kayektèn-kayektèn dhasar kanthi otomatis nedahaké panolakan marang wewenangé Rohing Ramalan, kang kanthi banget kuwat mbélani kayektèn-kayektèn dhasar mau. Golongan iku uga bakal gelem ngaturaké pandhangané ana ing ngarepé umum, tanpa preduli marang samubarang kuwatir kang bisa diwedharaké bab pangaribawané piwulang iku tumrap umaté Allah ing saindhenging jagad.

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.

Sakcepete sawisé taun 1844, ing generasi kapisan Adventisme, ana pasulayan liyané ngenani Roma kang diwiwiti. Pasulayan iku terus diobah-obahaké, nganti panemu palsu mau ditampa ing generasi katelu Adventisme. Kita bakal nimbang pasulayan babagan “daily” minangka garis kaping papat saka enem garis kang saiki kita rembug ana ing modhèl garis ing sadhuwuring garis.

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.”

Nanging sadurunge kita mbahas garis kaping papat saka pasulayan-pasulayan Roma, perlu dielingi manawa ing artikel sadurunge, nalika kita ngrembag ayat sepuluh saka Daniel bab sewelas, kita wis nyatakake mangkene: “Ayat sepuluh uga kanthi langsung nyambungake ‘pitu kaping’ ing Imamat rong puluh enem karo sajarah kang kasamunyi, nanging garis kayekten iku ana ing sanjabaning apa kang kita aturake ing kene.”

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 dados pimpinan ing panolakan marang pitung wekdal ing taun 1863. Panjenenganipun sampun nampik tambahing kawruh ngenani prakawis punika ingkang dipunaturaken wonten ing artikel-artikel babagan prakawis kasebut, ingkang dipunserat déning Hiram Edson lan dipunwedalaken ing Review ing taun 1856. Implikasi bilih Smith kagandhèng kaliyan satunggaling gerakan ingkang naté nampilaken pitung wekdal, nanging sasampunipun malah nampik tambahing kawruh ngenani prakawis ingkang sami punika, ugi boten kalebet wonten ing prakawis ciri-ciri pambukanipun Smith tumrap punapa ingkang dipunklaim minangka pepadhang enggal ngenani prakawis raja ing sisih lor; nanging manawi kita mungkasi ringkesan kita babagan garis pasulayan-pasulayan Adventist ngenani Roma, kita badhé wangsul malih dhateng tegesipun ayat sepuluh saking pasal sewelas kitab Daniel, lan ugi dhateng punapa ingkang dipunlambangaken déning panolakan Smith tumrap pekabaran Laodikia ingkang dumugi ing taun 1856 bebarengan kaliyan tambahing kawruh babagan pitung wekdal.

> “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.

> “Iman kita gegayutan karo pekabaraning malaékat kapisan, kapindho, lan katelu iku bener. Tenger-tenger gedhé kang wis kita liwati iku ora bisa digeser. Sanadyan pasukaning naraka nyoba nyuwil saka dhasaré, lan padha bungah ing pangira yèn wong-wong mau wis kasil, nanging satemené ora kasil. Pilar-pilar kayektèn iki jejeg kukuh kaya bukit-bukit langgeng, ora kegoyang déning sakehé upayané manungsa kang kagandhèng karo upayané Sétan lan balané. Kita bisa sinau akèh, lan kita kuduné tanpa kendhat nliti Kitab Suci supaya weruh apa prakara-prakara iki pancèn mangkono.” 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.

> “Pratandha-pratandha agung saka kayekten, kang nedahaké marang kita pitedah ing sajarah kenabian, kudu dijaga kanthi temen lan ngati-ati, supaya aja nganti dirubuhaké, lan diganti nganggo téyori-téyori kang bakal nuwuhaké kebingungan tinimbang pepadhang kang sajati.” Selected Messages, buku 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

> “Ing wektu iki bakal ana akèh upaya kanggo nggoyang iman kita ing babagan pitakonan pratandha kasucèn; nanging kita ora kena goyah. Ora ana siji pin waé sing kena dipindhah saka dhasar-dhasar iman kita. Kayekten isih tetep kayekten. Wong-wong sing dadi ora mesthi bakal kesasar menyang téyori-téyori sing kliru, lan ing pungkasané bakal nemokaké yèn awaké dhéwé dadi ora pracaya marang bukti-bukti biyèn sing wis kita tampa bab apa kang dadi kayekten. Tenger-tenger dalan lawas kudu dilestarekaké, supaya kita ora kelangan pituduh.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55

Back to Articles