Article

# The Book of Daniel - Number Forty-Seven

Buk pa Daniel - Namba 47

Unmasking Deceptive Doctrines: A Critical Analysis of Daniel 8 and the Challenges to Adventist Theology

Yweyo woko pwony ma goba: Neno ma pire tek i kom Daniel 8 ki peko ma tye i kom Tiolojia pa Adventist

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

January 11, 2024

Formats

PDF
Word

When the little horn of Rome is represented in verses nine through twelve of Daniel chapter eight, it is a corrupted symbol for it is a symbol of transvestitism, a cross-dresser oscillating between male and female. It agrees with the Millerite understanding that Rome was represented by two phases, the first phase being the Roman statecraft and the second phase being the Roman churchcraft, but in the oscillation of genders in the verses, the little horn is out of the historical and prophetic sequence (corrupted). Yet each of the four verses represents history directly associated with either Roman statecraft or Roman churchcraft. Pagan Rome persecuted all who resisted its imperial authority, but the persecution of papal Rome (feminine) in verse ten, is specifically directed against heaven.

I adyere aboro me Daniel, i lok abongwen ocito i apar aryo, ting matidi pa Rome ki nyutu; alama man orwenyo, pien obedo alama me ngat ma oyubu rwom, ma otwoyo piny i tung lacoo ki nyako. O rwate ki ngeyo pa Millerite ni Rome ki nyutu i kit me kare aryo: kare me acel obedo lwak pa Rome, kare me aryo obedo kanisa pa Rome; ento i twoyo piny i tung lacoo ki nyako i lok magi, ting matidi obedo woko ki rwom me kit ma otime con ki me lok pa lanen (ma orwenyo). Kadi pe, lok angwen magi acel acel ki nyutu kit ma otime con ma rwate pire kede lwak pa Rome onyo kanisa pa Rome. Rome me lakica oloro weng ma ogengo twero me wono piny pa en, ento loro pa Rome pa Papa (nyako) i lok apar, ki tero atir atir ikom polo.

In the Millerite understanding that Rome was the fourth and final kingdom, the oscillating from state to church to state to church again would not have been a concern. They had seen the mixture of iron and clay in the feet of Daniel chapter two, and simply understood it as two phases of Rome, with no concern to define a specific historical sequence of a fourth and fifth kingdom. They understood the same of chapter seven, where the horn that spake great things against the most High, had three horns plucked up from the original ten horns of the beast of Rome. Even if Miller did recognize the gender oscillation of verse nine through twelve, it would have been unimportant to his understanding of the fourth kingdom being Rome. In Millerite understanding the fourth kingdom ended in 1798, and the next prophetic event was the Second Coming of Christ.

I ngec pa jo Millerite ma geno ni Roma obedo pinyruoth me angwen ki me agiki, wot dok odok ki i dola dok i kanisa, dok cen i dola, dok cen i kanisa, pe onongo gitye ki coyo pi ne. Gi oneno yik me chuma ki lim i twii me cal ma i Daniel pot buk aryo, ki gineno ni obedo kare aryo me Roma, pe gubedo ki coyo me yaro rwom ma keken me lok me cawa macon pa pinyruoth me angwen ki me abic. Gi bene gineno kamito i pot buk abiro, ka tung ma owaco lok madit ki i kom Rwot Madit, obedo ki tung adek ma giguro woko ki i tung apar ma me acaki pa lewic pa Roma. Ka ce Miller obinongo bene dok-odok me kit pa latic ki pa nyako i rek otum dok i apar aryo, pe onongo pe obedo gin madit i ngec ne ni pinyruoth me angwen obedo Roma. I ngec pa jo Millerite, pinyruoth me angwen ogiko woko i 1798, ki gin me poro ma i anyim obedo Dwogo pa Kristo me aryo.

The feminine horn identifies the woman who commits spiritual fornication with the masculine horn, and is represented in verses ten and twelve.

Tung me-dako nyutu dako ma timo fornikec me cwinya ki tung me-laco, kede tye kinyutu i vasa apar ki apar aryo.

> And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. Daniel 8:10.

> Ki obedo madwong, nyaka i lwak pa polo; ki ocoyo i piny moko pa lwak ki moko pa laket, ki oteyo i wi gin. Daniel 8:10.

The persecution of the papal power was directed against Christianity (the host of heaven), and in verse twelve papal Rome (feminine), receives the power to accomplish her murderous work through the transgression of fornicating with the kings of Europe.

Lugoro pa rwom pa Papa onongo ogamo ikum Kricitiani (lwak me polo), kede i lok apar aryo, Roma pa Papa (dako) onongo okwo tek me tyeko tic ne me kweo kwo kieng bal me rur kwede rwodi pa Yurop.

> And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered. Daniel 8:12.

> Lwak omii en i kom cer me cawa ki cawa pi bal; kede oloro ada i piny; kede otimo, kede oromo maber.

The “host” in the verse represents the military power that was given the papacy “against the daily.” The word “against” means “from”. From the pagan kings of Europe (pagan Rome), represented by “the daily,” military support (an host) was given to the papacy “by reason of transgression.” The combination of church and state, with the church in control of the relationship is the “transgression.” The wine of that transgression is Christian blood. Once the papacy had control of the armies of pagan Rome, papal Rome (“it”) “cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered.”

I lok ne, “host” nyutu teko me lweny ma kicwalo bot teko pa Papa “against the daily.” Lok “against” nyutu “from”. Ki i bot ruodh Yuroop ma pe yaro Lubanga (Roma ma pe yaro Lubanga), ma “the daily” nyutu gi, kicwalo kony me lweny (host) bot teko pa Papa “pi kwer.” Kwedo pa kanisa ki gamente, ka kanisa omako teko i kwedo eno, en aye “kwer.” Waini pa kwer eno en remo pa jo Kristiani. Ka teko pa Papa dong omako teko i lweny pa Roma ma pe yaro Lubanga, Roma pa Papa (“en”) “ocoyo lok ma adier piny; otimo, ci obedo maber.”

In Daniel chapter eleven, verse thirty-one, the giving of the armies to papal Rome is also represented:

I Daniel 11:31, bene nyutu miyo lwak bot Roma pa Paapa:

> And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate. Daniel 11:31.

> Jolweny bicungo i tung pa en, ki bipogo ot maleng me teko, ki bikwanyo woko misango me cawa ki cawa, ki biketo gin ma pe rwate ma kelo opoto. Daniel 11:31.

The verse is identifying the historical transition from pagan Rome to papal Rome. In the verse the “arms” are the European kings that began to stand up for the papacy beginning with Clovis, king of the Franks (France), in the year 496. The “arms” also polluted “the sanctuary of strength” (the city of Rome), through the continuous warfare from the fourth century onward to the year 538. The “arms” also removed the pagan resistance to the rise of the papacy, and by the year 508, the pagan resistance was finished.

Lok man tye ka nyutu loke me kine ki Roma pa jo ma pe yie dok bot Roma pa Papa. I lok man, "lwak" en rwodi pa Yuroop ma ocako cung i bot papasi, acaki ki Clovis, Rwot pa jo Frank (Faransa), i higa 496. "Lwak" bene oyubo "kac pa twero" (buru pa Roma) ki lweny ma odongo pudongo, ki i higa 300 anyim nyaka i higa 538. "Lwak" bene ogolo geng pa jo ma pe yie bot donyo i twero pa papasi, ci i higa 508 geng pa jo ma pe yie otyeko woko.

The word translated as “take away,” is the Hebrew word “sur” and means “to remove”. The “arms” placed the “abomination that maketh desolate” (the papacy), on the throne of the earth in the year 538. When Daniel chapter eight, verse twelve identifies that “an host” was given to the feminine little horn, it is agreeing with the witness of verse thirty-one of chapter eleven. The book of Revelation also gives witness to the same truth in chapter thirteen.

Lok ma kityeko loko calo “take away”, en lok me Hebru “sur”, ma piro ne “kwanyo”. “Jo me lweny” giketo “tim marac ma timo opoto” (Papasi) i kom pa lobo i mwaka 538. Ka Daniel chapta 8, vasi 12 nyutu ni lwak kimiyo i bot lak matino me nyako, eno rwate ki lamo me vasi 31 me chapta 11. Kitap me Revelation bende kimiyo lamo pi adier acel-ken i chapta 13.

> And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. Revelation 13:2.

> Ki nyama ma aneno ne calo chui, tiendene ne calo tiende dubu, dhone ne calo dho simba; ki joka nomiyone tekone, komne, ki twero madwong’. Revelation 13:2.

Sister White directly identifies the beast of verse two as the papacy, and that the dragon in the verse is pagan Rome. Pagan Rome gave three things to the papacy; “his power, and his seat, and great authority.”

Sista White nyuto piny piny ni lam ma i rek aryo en aye twero pa Papa, kacel ki ni lacama madwong ma i rek en aye Roma me jo ma pe yero Lubanga. Roma ma pe yero Lubanga omiyo bot twero pa Papa gin adek: teko pa en, kom pa en, ki twero madwong.

The military power was given by pagan Rome beginning with Clovis in the year 496. The “seat” to rule from, was given to the papacy in the year 330, when the emperor Constantine moved his capitol to Constantinople, leaving his former capitol city of Rome to the control of the papal church. In the year 533, the emperor Justinian decreed that the pope was the head of the church and the corrector of heretics, turning his “great authority” over to the pope of Rome. Verse twelve of Daniel chapter eight, identifies the time when a “host” was given, and that prophetic truth is testified to on many witnesses. From that point in time (beginning in the year 496), the papacy “prospered.”

Twero me lweny kimiyo bot twero paapa ki Ruma ma pe gitye ki yie, kacako ki Clovis i mwaka 496. “Kom” me lalingo kimiyo bot twero paapa i mwaka 330, ka Ladit me lobo Constantine otyeko kwanyo dul me lalingo pire wot iye Constantinople, ci oweko dul me lalingo me con pa Ruma i cing pa kanisa pa paapa. I mwaka 533, Ladit me lobo Justinian onyuto cik ni Paapa obedo wi pa kanisa, kede ngat ma cobo jo me yie marac, ci oweko “twero maduong” mere bot Paapa pa Ruma. Rek apar aryo me Pot Buk aboro me Daniel nyuto kare ma “lwak me lweny” kimiyo, ci adwogi me porofet eni gityeko moko ne ki jo ma opol ma oneno ne. Cawa aa ki kany (kacako i mwaka 496), twero paapa oromo maber.

It would continue to “practice” and “prosper” until the end of the indignation against the northern kingdom of Israel ended in 1798, and the papacy received its deadly wound.

En obed ka medo 'timo' ki 'bedo maber' nyo otum pa cwiny marac pa Rwot i kom piny pa Israel ma bor anyim, ma otyeko i 1798, ki kit pa Papa me Roma onwako bal mar tho.

> And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Daniel 11:36.

> Rwot bi timo kaka omito; kede en bigero iye, kede en bi miyo iye madit maloyo jogi weng, kede en bi waco lok ma lamal i kom Lubanga pa jogi, kede en bi bedo maber nyaka kec ma kimoko otyeko: pien gin ma kimoko bitimo. Daniel 11:36.

Verse nine of chapter eight, describes masculine Rome (pagan Rome), and represents the three-step conquering process that pagan Rome accomplished, and which typified the three geographical areas that would be conquered in order for papal Rome to be established upon the throne of the earth, as represented by the three horns that were plucked up in chapter seven. Those two three-step conquering’s of pagan and papal Rome, represented the three geographical obstacles of modern Rome, in verses forty through forty-three of Daniel eleven. Then in chapter eight, verse eleven, the masculine little horn (pagan Rome) is again represented. In the verse, the sanctified logic is so sound, that the scornful men that rule Jerusalem were forced to introduce several theological lies in order to erect their counterfeit foundation.

I But 8:9, lok eni coko ‘Rome ma dichwo’ (Rome pa joma pe yie), kede tito yore adek me lwenyo ma Rome pa joma pe yie otyeko; kit eni bene otito calo kabedo adek me piny ma bin lwenyo, pi Roma pa Papa kiketo i kom pa rwot pa piny, calo tung adek ma kikwanyo woko i But 7. Yore adek aryo man me lwenyo pa Rome pa joma pe yie kede pa Roma pa Papa, ne gitito geng adek me piny pa Roma ma kombedi, i Daniel 11:40–43. Dok bene, i But 8:11, ‘tung matino ma dichwo’ (Rome pa joma pe yie) otito doki. I loc eni, tam maleng obedo ma tek tutwal, to dichwo ma gicweo ma gitere Jerusalem gikweyo gi me keto iye boc mapol me ngec pa Lubanga, pi yubu yore me acaki ma pe adier pa gi.

> Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. Daniel 8:11.

> En aye omedo en madwong paka i ladit pa lwak, ki en ogolo woko sadaka me kare ki kare, ki kabedo pa ot me lamo pa en gikelo piny. Daniel 8:11.

As we begin to address the counterfeit coins and jewels that have been introduced to Adventism since 1863, it should be noted that there are two primary fields of supposed theological expertise which Adventism boasts of, as their basis for upholding the doctrines of apostate Protestantism and Catholicism. The claim that the modern theologians of Adventism make is that they are either experts in biblical history, or experts in biblical languages. Their application of the verse, reveals the prophetic word has become as a sealed book unto them, and also reveals that their claim of being experts of the biblical languages is simply the modern manifestation of Pharisaism.

Ka wa cako cwalo lok ikom cente me bwoc ki kidi me ber me bwoc ma ki kelo i Adventism ki cawa 1863 ocako, myero wanyutu ni tye gi dwe aryo mapire tek me twero me ngec me lok pa Lubanga ma gikwanyo ni gitye kwede, ma Adventism gonyo piny kwede calo orwara ma giweyo kwede me gwoko tek twer pa Protestantism ma otyeko golo adwogi, ki pa Catholicism. Waci ma latic me lok pa Lubanga me kare man i Adventism gikwanyo ni gitye ka latic maber i histori pa Bibul, onyo gitye ka latic maber i leb pa Bibul. Kit ma gitiyo kwede i dul acel me Bibul onyutu ni lok me poro ocweyo botgi calo buk ma kigedo; bende onyutu ni waci ma gikwanyo me bedo latic maber i leb pa Bibul obedo kende nyutu pa kare man me kit pa Pharisaayo.

First is the disregard of the oscillation of the genders for the little horn in verse nine through twelve. If they were actually experts in the Hebrew language, they would not deny, or water down, the fact that Daniel purposely employed gender oscillation in the verses. The little horn is represented in both genders, and those genders go back and forth through the verses. The theologians try to cover this fact with rubbish and counterfeit coins, for it clearly identifies that verse eleven is identifying pagan, not papal Rome. They of course insist that the little horn of verse eleven is the pope, when it is actually pagan Rome.

Makwongo, obedo golo ki woko loko-loko me dic ki me dako ma tye bot tung matidi i lanyut 9 dok i 12. Ka gitye calo latic ngec matut i leb Ebru, pe gideny, nyo pe gijal woko, angec ni Danyel ki mito ma pire tek otyeko tic kwede loko-loko me dic ki me dako i lanyut magi. Tung matidi oyaro i me dic ki i me dako, ki me dic ki me dako tye ka dwogo-dwogo i lanyut. Latic ngec pa teologi gitemo gubbe gin man ki kwanya ki cente mape atir, pien man tito maber ni lanyut 11 tye ka nyutu Roma me pagani, pe Roma me Paapa. Gin, ka atir, gicobo ni tung matidi me lanyut 11 obedo Paapa, ento en atir Roma me pagani.

Once it is acknowledged that two of the four little horn verses are male and two are female, then it is simple to incorporate the biblical truth that a woman in Bible prophecy represents a church, and a man represents a state. Knowing this allows all who wish to see, that the little horn of verse eleven, is masculine Rome (pagan Rome), not feminine Rome (papal Rome).

Ka kityeko yeo ni, i bot coc angwen ikom ‘little horn’, aryo gin me laco, ki aryo gin me dako, dong yot me medo iye cik pa Biblia ni dako i yubu pa Biblia nyutu kanisa, ento laco nyutu twero pa lobo. Ngene man miyo dano weng ma mito neno, ni ‘little horn’ ma i coc apar acel, obedo Loma me laco (Loma me pagani), pe Loma me dako (Loma pa Papa).

The verse then is understood as teaching that pagan Rome (he) magnified himself to the prince of the host, as did pagan Rome when it placed the prince of the host upon the cross of Calvary. Not only did pagan Rome magnify itself against Christ at the cross, the verse goes on to say that by him (pagan Rome) “the daily sacrifice was taken away.”

Coc man kigeno ni tito ni Roma ma pe geno Lubanga (en) ogoyo dwong kene okato ki Ladit pa jolweny, calo ma Roma ma pe geno Lubanga otimo ka oketo Ladit pa jolweny i lanyut me Kalivari. Pe keken Roma ma pe geno Lubanga ogoyo dwong kene i kom Kirisito i lanyut, ento coc en mede nyuto ni ki iye (Roma ma pe geno Lubanga) "lamo me kare ki kare kikwalo woko."

In the book of Daniel there are two Hebrew words that are both translated as “take away.” The words are “sur” and “rum”. Both words are used in the sanctuary service. Sur means to take away or remove, and when the ashes from the altar in the sanctuary were removed, the word used to describe the removal of the ashes is “sur”. The word “rum” means to lift up and exalt, and when the priest in the sanctuary was to lift up a wave offering, he was to “rum” (lift up) the offering. In verse eleven, pagan Rome (“the daily”) would “rum” (take away) paganism by lifting up and exalting the religion of paganism.

I Buk pa Daniel tye ki lok aryo me Leb Hebru ma kicobo calo "take away." Lok aryo man gin "sur" ki "rum." Loke aryo man tye katico i tic me kabedo maleng. "Sur" nyutu kwanyo onyo kwanyo woko; ka tutunu ma i bot kidi me lamo i kabedo maleng kikwanyo woko, lok ma kicoyo me nyutu kwanyo tutunu en "sur." Lok "rum" nyutu cwalo malo ki woro; ka lami i kabedo maleng myero ocwalo malo lamo me lolo, myero o "rum" (ocwalo malo) lamo ne. I rek apar acel, Rome me nyigworo ("the daily") bino "rum" (kwanyo woko) nyigworo, kwede cwalo malo ki woro lamo me nyigworo.

Pagan Rome would lift up and exalt the religion of paganism. The Adventist theologians that profess an expertise of biblical languages choose to treat every occurrence of “take away” in the book of Daniel as “remove”. They fail to acknowledge the distinct and precise writing of Daniel, and thus place themselves above the prophet Daniel.

Rome me jo ma pe yie bina yilo malo ki yaro dini pa jo ma pe yie. Jo me ngec me yie pa Adventist ma gi pako ni gi tye ki twero i leb me Baibul gi yer ni kabedo weng ma "take away" neno kwede i buk pa Daniel obed calo "remove". Pe gi yee kit me coc pa Daniel ma pe rwate ki mukene, ma matir; ci gi keto gi keken malo loyo Janabi Daniel.

The theologians that profess to understand the biblical languages provide arguments to justify why Daniel intended to mean the same thing, when he employed two different words. They provide long and tedious word studies to uphold their false claims. The theologians that profess to understand biblical history, argue that the false application is based upon recognizing that in different periods of history the same word might mean something different, and therefore when Daniel employed two different words, only a historical expert can identify what Daniel actually meant. It is important to identify these two false methods for they are employed often by the theologians who seek to hide from the methodology of “line upon line.”

Jo me lamo ma waco ni gi ngeyo leb me Bibul, gi miyo tam me yiko pingo Daniel ne omito bedo ni lok ma owaco obedo acel keken, kace ento ne otiyo ki leb aryo ma pe rwate. Gi miyo nyutu me leb ma mabor ki pire tek, me cwalo anyim lokgi ma pe adwogi. Jo me lamo ma waco ni gi ngeyo lok pa con me Bibul, gi woto ki tam ni keto pa pe adwogi man ocok i neno ni i kare pa con mapatpat leb acel romo bedo ki ngwec mapat; ento ka Daniel otiyo ki leb aryo ma pe rwate, lapwon pa con keken aye twero nyutu atata ngo ma Daniel onongo mito waco. Ber madwong me nyutu kit aryo ma pe adwogi magi, pien kitgi magi gitiyo kwede mapol jo me lamo ma tye ka yeki me bolo pire kene ki yore me "line upon line".

> Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. Daniel 8:11.

> En aye omedo en madwong paka i ladit pa lwak, ki en ogolo woko sadaka me kare ki kare, ki kabedo pa ot me lamo pa en gikelo piny. Daniel 8:11.

The word translated as “taken away” in the verse means to “lift up and exalt”. It does not mean to remove. This fact creates confusion and contradiction for the Adventist theologians, for their premises do not hold up under a simple evaluation of the verse, when the actual definition of the word Daniel used is applied to the verse. They argue the little horn of the verse is papal Rome, and therefore the verse would read that “by him” (papal Rome) “the daily was taken away.”

Leb ma kiyiko calo "taken away" i lok me coc man, kit bedo ne tye ni "yito malo ki medo madwong". Pe kit bedo ne en "kwanyo woko". Gin man kelo poto me cwiny ki rumb bot lapwony pa diro me Adventist, pien kubo ma gi tye kwede pe gituro i temo ma yot pa lok me coc man, ka kit bedo ma pire tek pa leb ma Daniel otyeko tic kwede kityeko keto iye. Gikayo ni "Little Horn" ma i lok me coc en Rome me Papa; eka lok me coc bi waco ni "ki iye" (Rome me Papa), "the daily" kikwanyo woko.

They of course have no problem including the added word that Sister White states directly was added by human wisdom and does not apply to the text.

Adwogi pe, gin pe gitye ki peko me cato iye lok ma kimedo, ma Sister White owaco maber kacel ni kimedo ki ngolo pa dano, ci pe rwate ki coc.

> “Then I saw in relation to the ‘daily’ (Daniel 8:12) that the word ‘sacrifice’ was supplied by man’s wisdom, and does not belong to the text, and that the Lord gave the correct view of it to those who gave the judgment hour cry.” Early Writings, 74.

> Eka ne aneno i kom 'daily' (Daniel 8:12) ni nyig 'sacrifice' kimedo kwede ki poyo pa dano, pe tye i coc, ki ni Rwot omiyo kicano ma tye kakare i kom en bot jo ma ogolo kwac me cawa me yik. Early Writings, 74.

They identify “the daily” as Christ’s sanctuary ministry, so the “daily sacrifice” upholds the concept that “the daily” is Christ sacrificial work in the heavenly sanctuary. But inspiration identifies that the word “sacrifice” “does not belong to the text”.

Gin tero ngec ni “the daily” obedo tic pa Kristo i pango maleng; ka mano, “daily sacrifice” rwate ki tam ni “the daily” obedo tic me sadaka pa Kristo i pango maleng i polo. Ento Pwony ma Lamo nyutu ni lok “sacrifice” “pe rwate i coc.”

When the drunkards of Ephraim identify “the daily” as Christ’s sanctuary work, the verse would then read, “by him” (papal Rome) “the daily was taken away,” or it would read, “by the papal power, Christ’s sanctuary ministry was taken away.” They actually teach this falsehood. They insist that through the darkness of the papal rule the true understanding of Christ’s sanctuary ministry was removed from the minds of men.

Ka lanywero pa Efraim giyaro ‘tim me kare-kare’ calo tic pa Kristo i Ka Maleng, lok me coc en dong obi kwano ni, ‘ki iye’ (Romi pa Papa) ‘tim me kare-kare okweyo woko,’ onyo obi kwano ni, ‘ki twero pa Papa, tic pa Kristo i Ka Maleng okweyo woko.’ Gikwano adada mape atir man. Gicok coki matek ni, ki bot oturo me cing pa Papa, ngec atir me tic pa Kristo i Ka Maleng okweyo woko ii cwiny pa dano.

Yet the word translated as “take away,” does not mean to remove, it means to lift up and exalt. If the professed experts of biblical languages would correctly apply the meaning of the Hebrew word “rum,” to the passage, their rendition would need to say, “by the papal power, Christ’s sanctuary ministry was lifted up and exalted.” When did the papacy ever lift up and exalt Christ?

Ento lok ma kiyiko calo "take away" pe nyuto "kwanyo woko"; nyuto "yweyo i malo kede woro." Ka jo ma lalingo i leb pa Bibul, ma gikwero ni gin loyo, giketo kakare piro me lok pa Ebru "rum" i nyig coc man, yiko gi onego oyero ni, "ki teko pa Papa, tic pa Kricito i ot maler kiyweyo i malo kede ki woro maloyo." Kare mane ma lwak pa Papa oyweyo i malo kede oworo Kricito?

They seek to impose the definition of the Hebrew word “sur” upon the Hebrew word “rum.” Daniel uses the word “sur,” which means to remove, in connection with “the daily” in two other verses, but in verse eleven, Daniel chose the word “rum” meaning to lift up and exalt. Not only is the dish of fables concerning this verse foolishness because of the wresting of the meaning of the word translated as “take away,” but there was never a time when Christ’s sanctuary ministry was in any way removed from men.

Gitemo gamo miyo nyutu pa lok me Leb Ebru “sur” obed i kom lok me Leb Ebru “rum”. Daniel tiyo ki lok “sur”, ma nyutu ne “kwanyo woko”, i rwom ki “the daily” i kabedo aryo mukene; ento i coc apar acel, Daniel oyer lok “rum”, ma nyutu ne “yiko malo kede medo malo”. Pe keken ni pala me loka me bayo ikom coc man obedo apoyi, pien gi yangonyo nyutu pa lok ma gityeko loko calo “take away”; ento pe obedo kare mo keken ma tic pa Kristo i Gang Maleng otyeko kwanye woko ki i dano i kit mo keken.

> But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. Hebrews 7:24, 25.

> Ento dano man, pien obedo kare weng, tye ki tich pa jadolo ma pe loke. Ka mano, en twero bene ywayo tutwal jo ma bino bot Lubanga ki i kom en, pien obedo kare weng me lamo pi gi. Hebrews 7:24, 25.

To claim, as the Adventist theologians do, in an attempt to prop up their false application of the verse, that there was a period of time when the papacy exercised some type of power to remove Christ’s sanctuary intercession is absurd!

Mako wac ni, macalo ma lapwony me tyeoloji pa Adventist timo, kun tem me cwako konyo i keto marac me rek me Coc Maleng pa gi, ni obedo kare mo ma kit pa Papa otiyo ki twero mo keken me kwanyo woko tic me lamedo pa Kristo i Ka Maleng, obedo romo pe!

But the theologians do not teach that the verse identifies that the papacy lifted up and exalted Christ’s sanctuary ministry. They avoid the meaning of Daniel’s words, and the inspired counsel of Ellen White, to teach what they choose to teach in spite of the testimony of Daniel’s words.

Ento jo me adwogi pa Nyasaye pe gipwony ni rek meno nyutu ni kit me Papa oyik malo kede oyaro malo tic pa Kristo i kabedo maleng. Giweko woko tito pa lok me Daniel, kede miro me Ellen White ma ocweyo ki Roho Maleng, me pwonyo gin ma giyero me pwonyo, ka bene lamal pa lok me Daniel.

> Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. Daniel 8:11.

> En aye omedo en madwong paka i ladit pa lwak, ki en ogolo woko sadaka me kare ki kare, ki kabedo pa ot me lamo pa en gikelo piny. Daniel 8:11.

The theologians teach that the verse means “by the papal power, Christ’s sanctuary ministry was removed,” and the removal of Christ’s sanctuary ministry from the minds of men is supported by the fact that in association with the removal, the place of Christ’s “sanctuary was cast down.” There is not one verse in God’s Word that identifies the heavenly sanctuary, which is where Christ performs his intercession, has ever been cast down. Nor is there any biblical passage that identifies that heaven itself, which is the “place of his sanctuary”, is ever cast down. Once again, the theologians place themselves above the prophet Daniel, for they insist that “the place of his sanctuary” in the verse is referring to God’s sanctuary, in spite of the fact that Daniel teaches directly opposite of that idea.

Jo me teologia gijuko ni lok me coc eno tito ni, ‘ki twero pa Pope, kityeko kwanyo tici pa Kristo i Ka maleng,’ kede gi cwalo adwogi ni kwanyo tici pa Kristo ki i wii jo, pien kacel ki kwanyo eno, ‘kabedo pa Ka maleng pa Kristo kityeko poto piny.’ Pe tye lok mo keken i Lok pa Lubanga ma cwalo ni Ka maleng me polo—ma iye Kristo timo kwayo me cwalo wa i anyim Lubanga—dong otime ni opoto piny. Kadong pe tye lok mo keken i Baibul ma cwalo ni polo keken—ma obedo ‘kabedo pa Ka maleng pa en’—dong otime ni opoto piny. Dok, jo me teologia giyubu gi maloyo lanen Daniel, pien gimoko matek ni ‘kabedo pa Ka maleng pa en’ i lok me coc tito Ka maleng pa Lubanga, kata obedo ni Daniel ojuko maber tam ma obedo nyodgi ki tam eno.

The professed experts of the Hebrew language insist that in the verse the Hebrew word “rum,” needs to be understood with the meaning of the Hebrew word “sur.” They also insist that the Hebrew word “miqdash” needs to be understood as the Hebrew word “qodesh.” “Miqdash” and “qodash” are both translated simply as “sanctuary” in the book of Daniel, yet they have different meanings. “Miqdash” represents any sanctuary, whether it is God’s sanctuary or a pagan sanctuary. It is the general word for sanctuary, but “qodesh” is only used in the Bible to represent God’s sanctuary.

Jo ma tye ki ngec madwong ikom leb Hiperw gi pinyruo ni, i dul me lok, nyig me leb Hiperw “rum” myero kiparo calo lero pa nyig me leb Hiperw “sur”. Gin bene gi pinyruo ni nyig me leb Hiperw “miqdash” myero kiparo calo nyig me leb Hiperw “qodesh”. “Miqdash” ki “qodash” gidwoko gi peke calo “sanctuary” i Buk Daniel, ento lero pa gi pe romo acel. “Miqdash” nyutu “sanctuary” mo keken, bed ni en obedo “sanctuary” pa Lubanga onyo “sanctuary” pa jo pe pa Lubanga. En nyig me lumal pi “sanctuary”, ento “qodesh” keken ni kitiyo kwede i Bibul me nyutu “sanctuary” pa Lubanga keken.

Daniel knew the difference between a pagan sanctuary and God’s sanctuary. If Daniel was going to identify a pagan sanctuary, he would use the word “miqdash.” It is amazing to me that the supposed experts of the Hebrew language never address the fact that in four consecutive verses, Daniel uses both words three times. Daniel’s usage of the two Hebrew words, both translated as “sanctuary” defines the meaning Daniel intended to be understood.

Daniel ngene mukato i wic kabedo maleng pa jo ma pe geno Lubanga ki kabedo maleng pa Lubanga. Ka Daniel obedo ka nyutu kabedo maleng pa jo ma pe geno Lubanga, oneg tiyo ki lok “miqdash”. Obedo ma cwinya loyo ni jo ma gitye ki ngec maloyo i Leb Hebru pe giyubo gin ma tye ni: i lok angwen ma okato okato, Daniel otiyo ki lok aryo kany odong adek. Kit ma Daniel otiyo kwede lok aryo pa Leb Hebru—ma gilorone kede “sanctuary”—omiyo teto tung ma Daniel omito wa ngene.

> Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. Daniel 8:11–14.

> Ee, en oyiko pire tek nyutu bot Lajwero pa lwak, i kom en rwom me nino ki nino ogweyo woko, kede kabedo pa gang me maleng pa ne ocwalo piny woko. Ci lwak omii ne me lwenyo rwom me nino ki nino pi golo cik, ci ocwalo adwogi i piny; ci otimo, ci ocero. Eka an akwano winyo ngat maleng acel tye ka waco, ci ngat maleng mukene owaco bot ngat maleng acel ma ne tye ka waco, “Obedo nining neno pa rwom me nino ki nino, kede golo cik ma kelo ojwi, me miyo kabedo pa gang me maleng kede lwak kiketi i tung?” Ci en owaco bot an ni, “Obedo nyutu i nino alufu aryo ki mia adek; eka kabedo pa gang me maleng bipoo woko.” Daniel 8:11-14.

In the very passage that includes the foundation of Adventism, Daniel employs two different Hebrew words that are both translated as “sanctuary.” In verses thirteen and fourteen Daniel chose to use the Hebrew word for “sanctuary,” that is only used biblically to identify God’s sanctuary, but in verse eleven, Daniel used the general or generic Hebrew word that can be God’s sanctuary, or it can be a pagan sanctuary.

I lok acel keken ma tye kwede kit me acaki pa Adventism, Daniel otiyo ki nyig lok aryo me Leb Ibru mapatpat, ma dong gicoyo gi calo “sanctuary.” I 13 ki 14, Daniel oyero tic ki nyig lok me Leb Ibru pi “sanctuary” ma i Bibul keken kityeko tic kwede me nyutu kac maleng pa Lubanga keken; ento i 11, Daniel otiyo ki nyig lok me Leb Ibru ma me weng, ma romo bedo kac maleng pa Lubanga, onyo romo bedo kac maleng pa jo mape yero Lubanga.

If Daniel had wanted to identify the “sanctuary” in verse eleven, as God’s sanctuary, he would have used the same Hebrew word that he used twice within the next three verses. It is absolutely clear that Daniel was making a distinction between a pagan sanctuary in verse eleven, and God’s sanctuary in verses thirteen and fourteen! But the drunkards of Ephraim argue that the “place of his sanctuary” that was “cast down,” in verse eleven, was the place of God’s sanctuary, though they avoid the word “place.”

Ka Daniel onwongo mito nyutu ni “ka maleng” ma i veso apar acel obedo ka maleng pa Lubanga, dong onwongo otiyo ki nyig lok me Ibrani acel keken, ma otimo odoki aryo i veso apar adek ki apar angwen. Pek bene twere ni Daniel opoto maber “ka maleng pa jo me lobo” ma i veso apar acel, ki “ka maleng pa Lubanga” ma i veso apar adek ki apar angwen! Ento Jomacuu pa Efraim gi tero wac ni “kabedo pa ka maleng pa iye” ma kigolo i piny, ma i veso apar acel, en kabedo pa ka maleng pa Lubanga, kadi pe gi mito yaro nyig lok “kabedo.”

They teach that the papacy took away Christ’s ministry of intercession and cast down the truth of the heavenly sanctuary. But Daniel was clear that the “sanctuary” in verse eleven, was not God’s sanctuary, but a pagan sanctuary. Daniel was just as clear that it was not the “sanctuary” that was cast down, but “the place” of his sanctuary.

Gin pwonyo ni rwom pa Papa ogolo woko tic pa Kristo me kwanyo i kom wa, ki ogoyo piny ada me ot maleng pa polo. Ento Daniel nyuto maber ni “ot maleng” ma i rek apar acel pe obedo ot maleng pa Lubanga, ento obedo ot maleng pa jo-pagani. Daniel bene nyuto maber ni pe obedo “ot maleng” ma kicoyo piny, ento “kabedo” pa ot maleng pa en.

Refusing to acknowledge the purposeful gender oscillation of verses nine through twelve, the modern theologians adopted the definition of “the daily” that originated within apostate Protestantism, and began to construct a foundation upon the sand of human conjecture, tradition and custom. When they arrive at verse eleven, they even reject the inspired counsel of Sister White that identified that Miller’s understanding of “the daily” as paganism was correct, and begin to employ the art of misdirection and conjecture to defend their love of Catholic and Protestant theology.

Kun gikwero me yaro loco-yore pa ruup pa lating ki dako ma kiketo ki meno i lok abongwen okato i lok apar aryo, jo me yec pa Lubanga ma kombedi gicwako ngec ma tito ikom “the daily” ma ocako iye i bot Protestantism ma ocako woko ki yore atir; ci gicako cato pala i wi cobo me paro me dano, yore me kit, ki tim pa kit pa dano. Ka gityeko nongo lok apar acel, gibalowo bene lok me cwiny ma Lamo Maleng ocako me Sister White, ma oweko piny atir ni ngec pa Miller ikom “the daily” macalo “paganism” obedo atir; ci gicako tic kwede yore me wiro i yo marac ki paro me golo-ngec, me gwoko hergi i yec pa Katoliki ki pa Protestanti.

They change pagan Rome into papal Rome in the verse, and they force the definition of “remove” upon the word that means “lift up and exalt”. They define the satanic symbol of “the daily”, as a godly symbol, and then insist that a pagan temple is God’s temple, while avoiding the direct reference to “the place” of the sanctuary. And the “unlearned” (as Isaiah identifies them), who will only understand if the “learned” tell them it is so, accept the dish of fables unto their own destruction.

Gin loko Rome me jogi mape yaro Lubanga obed Rome ma pa Papa i lok man, ci giyiko lagam me "kwanyo woko" i lok ma lagam ne "cwalo malo ki medo". Giketo alama me Setani pa "the daily" macalo alama pa Lubanga, ci gipire ni ot me jogi mape yaro Lubanga obedo ot pa Lubanga, kuno gi cayo nyutu macek "kabedo" pa ot maleng. Kede "jogi mape ngec" (macalo Aisaya nyuto gi), ma gubineno keken ka "jogi me ngec" owaco botgi ni obedo kamano, gikwano saani me lok me bwola pi obaro pa gi kene.

We will continue our consideration of the increase of the knowledge represented as the jewels in Miller’s dream in the next article.

Wabimedo paro wa pi medo pa ngec ma kiyaro calo kidi me welo i nino pa Miller i coc ma bino anyim.

> “The apostle Paul warns us that ‘some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.’ This is what we may expect. Our greatest trials will come because of that class who have once advocated the truth, but who turn from it to the world, and trample it under their feet in hate and derision. God has a work for his faithful servants to do. The attacks of the enemy must be met with the truth of his word. Falsehood must be unmasked, its true character must be revealed, and the light of the law of Jehovah must shine forth into the moral darkness of the world. We are to present the claims of his word. We shall not be held guiltless if we neglect this solemn duty. But while we stand in defense of the truth, let us not stand in defense of self, and make a great ado because we are called to bear reproach and misrepresentation. Let us not pity ourselves, but be very jealous for the law of the Most High.

> Aposto Paulo ciko wa ni, 'jo mo bi weko gen, winyo tipu ma golo, kacel ki pwonye pa masetani.' Man aye gin ma wa myero geno. Tem wa madit loyo bi bino pi dul jo ma con gikwanyo gin matye kakare, ento gityeko dwogo woko ki iye bot piny, ka gidiyo iye piny i cinggi i kwero ki bwola. Lubanga tye ki tic ma myero lutic pa Iye ma gen i Iye timo. Cobo pa lapyet myero odugu ki adiera pa lok pa Iye. Bwola myero ginyutu woko, kit pa iye matye kakare myero nyutu, ki ler pa cik pa Yehova myero lero woko i otela pa kit pa piny. Wa myero waco mit pa lok pa Iye. Pe gunyalo yero wa labed pe ki peko ka wa weko tic ma dit man. Ento ka wa tye ka gwoko gin matye kakare, pe wa gwoko keni wa keken, pe wa timo dwong pien kigoyo wa me cwako kwer ki bwola. Pe wa miyo keni wa kuc, ento wa bedo ki raa madit pi cik pa Lacoo ma Malo Loyo.

> “Says the apostle, ‘The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.’ On every side we see men easily led captive by the delusive imaginations of those who make void the word of God; but when the truth is brought before them, they are filled with impatience and anger. But the exhortation of the apostle to the servant of God is, ‘Watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.’ In his day some left the cause of the Lord. He writes, ‘Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world;’ and again, he says, ‘Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words.’

> Lapostol owaco ni, “Karacel bi bino ma pe ginywako tami ma rwate; ento malubo mito gi keken, gibimedo botgi lapwon mapol, ki twii ma poto; gubalo twii gi ki ada, ki gudwoko wotgi dok i lok ma pe ada.” I tung tung wan neno dano oyotoyoto kicwalo gi i twero pa paro me wii ma kibolo pa jo ma gikwanyo woko lok pa Lubanga; ento ka kelo ada i wanggi, gitye pe ki kuc, ki koyo matek. Ento waci me lapostol bot lacoo pa Lubanga en ni, “Bed icing i gin weng, gamo kec, tim tic pa laco me ngec maber, tim lwak mamegi obed opong.” I kare mamegi mukene guleko tic pa Rwot. Owaco ni, “Demas oleko an, pien omaro piny man ma kombedi;” ki dok, owaco ni, “Alexander latic me koppa otim an marac mapol: Rwot obed odwokone calo tic mamege: bot en, bedo i ye keken; pien otyeko ocungi matek ki lok wa.”

> “Prophets and apostles experienced similar trials of opposition and reproach, and even the spotless Lamb of God was tempted in all points like as we are. He bore the contradiction of sinners against himself.

> Janabi ki lapostol bene giyoto tem marom me kwanyo woko ki nying marac, ki bende Lacii pa Lubanga ma pe ki bal otem i gin weng calo wa. Obedo oyoto lok me genyo pa lapeca ma gicoyo i kom iye.

> “Every warning for this time must be faithfully delivered; but ‘the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves.’ We must cherish carefully the words of our God lest we be contaminated by the deceptive workings of those who have left the faith. We are to resist their spirit and influence with the same weapon our Master used when assailed by the prince of darkness,—‘It is written.’ We should learn to use the word of God skillfully. The exhortation is, ‘Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.’ There must be diligent work and earnest prayer and faith to meet the winding error of false teachers and seducers; for ‘in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.’ These words portray the character of the men the servants of God will have to meet. ‘False accusers,’ ‘despisers of those that are good,’ will attack those who are faithful to their God in this degenerate age. But the embassador of Heaven must manifest the spirit that was displayed in the Master. In humility and love he must labor for the salvation of men.

> Lagonyo weng me cawa man myero kimiyo gi ki adwogi matir; ento, “lacadwong pa Rwot pe myero oturo; ento obed ngwec bot dano weng, marwate me poko, kecan; i piny‑cwiny ka opoko jo ma gi kwanyo gi kene.” Myero wangwoko maber lok pa Lubanga wa pi pe wa pwoco ki tic me bwola pa jo ma gileko woko geno. Myero watuk cwinygi ki twero‑gi ki gin me lweny acel keken ma Ladit wa otiyo kwede ka ogoyo iye rwot pa duny,—“Kicoyo.” Myero wapwonye timo tic ki Lok pa Lubanga ki loyo maber. Lok me cwalo en ni, “Pwony matek wek imiyo in obed ma Lubanga oyere, lacoo ma pe mito kema, ma iyi yabo maber Lok pa adwogi.” Myero obedo ki tic matek, ki lamo me cwiny weng, ki geno, pi temo bal ma giyuko pa lapwony me bwola gi jo me yar; pien “i cawa agiki, cawa ma goro obino. Pien dano bi bedo jo ma gi hero gi kene, gi coro, jo me yubu, gi kudi, jo me kwero Lubanga, pe giwinyo lunyodgi, pe gitito, pe gi maleng, pe gi rwate me con, jo ma gibalo tam, jo me cwaco cal, jo ma pe giromo gwoko kwo‑gi, ma pir, jo ma gicayo jo maber, jo me meya, ma tyen gi piri, gi cwiny malo, jo ma gi hero yáo ma gi mero mapol loyo hero Lubanga; gitye ki cal me ber bedo pa Lubanga, ento gikwanyo twero ne: ki jomacalo gin, iwe gi.” Lok man ginyutu kit pa jo ma lacadwong pa Lubanga bi medo kwede. “Jo me cwaco cal,” “jo ma gicayo jo maber,” gibigoyo jo ma tye gi adwogi bot Lubanga‑gi i cawa man ma goko woko ber bedo. Ento ambasada pa polo myero onyutu kita‑cwiny ma onwongo onen i Ladit. I piny‑cwiny ki hera myero otiyo pi war pa dano.

> “Paul continues concerning those who oppose the work of God, comparing them to the men who made war against the faithful in the time of ancient Israel. He says: ‘Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth; men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.’ We know that the time is coming when the folly of warring against God will be revealed. We can afford to wait in calm patience and trust, no matter how much maligned and despised; for ‘nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest,’ and those who honor God shall be honored by him in the presence of men and angels. We are to share in the sufferings of the reformers. It is written, ‘The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.’ Christ understands our grief. Not one of us is called to bear the cross alone. The suffering Man of Calvary is touched with the feeling of our woes, and as he has suffered being tempted, he is able also to succor them that are in sorrow and trial for his sake. ‘Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned.’” Review and Herald, January 10, 1888.

> Paulo mede ikom jo ma gengo tic pa Lubanga, ka rwategi ki jo ma otimo lwenyo bot jo ma geno i kare pa Isirayel ma con. Owaco ni: “Kany, macalo Jannes ki Jambres ogengo Mose, gin eni bende gengo gin ma atir; gin jo ma cwinygi oboko, pe rwom i kom yie. Ento pe gibin wot anyim dok; pien balgi obin yaro bot jo weng, macalo pa gi too otyeko yaro.” Wan ngene ni cawa obino ka bal pa lwenyo bot Lubanga bin yaro. Wa twero kuro i kuc ki yie, lacen pe, kata obedo ni gi cayi wa ki geco wa pire tek; pien “pe tye gin mo i mung ma pe bin yaro,” ki jo ma miyo Lubanga ducu, en binen mi gi ducu i wang jo ki lalaro. Wan mito nyutu keken i yubu pa jo ma odongo yore. Kiketo i coc ni, “Cayi pa jo ma ocayini obito piny i an.” Kristo ngene yubu wa. Pe tye ngat acel keken ikom wa ma kikwayo me kawo lanyut keken. Ngat ma otyeko yubu i Kalivari rwate ki cwiny pa peko wa, ci, ka pien otyeko yubu i tem, en bene twero konyo jo ma tye i cwiny matek ki tem pa peko i kom nyingne. “Ee, jo weng ma bi bedo i kwo ma atir i Kristo Yesu gibibalo gi. Ento jo marac ki jo me bwanyo bimedo marac dok marac, gitemo bwanyo, ki bene gibwany. Ento imede i gin ma ikwano.” Review and Herald, January 10, 1888.

Back to Articles