Article

# Rome Establishes the Vision - Number Six

Roma Menegakkan Penglihatan — Bilangan Enam

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

Likhohlano tsa Boporofeta Historing ea Maadventiste: Ho Utloisisa Khohlano pakeng tsa Uriah Smith le James White mabapi le Daniele 11:36

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

August 14, 2024

Formats

PDF Unavailable
Word Unavailable
Song MP3

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

Re bua ka mela e le marataro ya kganetsano ya seporofeto e hlahileng historing ya Bo-Adventist ho tloha ka 1798 ho fihlela mehleng ya jwale.

> “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.

> “Dalam sejarah dan nubuatan, Firman Allah menggambarkan pertentangan yang telah berlangsung lama antara kebenaran dan kesesatan. Pertentangan itu masih terus berlangsung. Perkara-perkara yang telah terjadi akan terulang kembali. Perselisihan-perselisihan lama akan dihidupkan kembali, dan teori-teori baru akan terus-menerus bermunculan. Tetapi umat Allah, yang dalam kepercayaan mereka dan dalam penggenapan nubuatan telah mengambil bagian dalam pemakluman pekabaran malaikat pertama, kedua, dan ketiga, mengetahui di mana mereka berdiri. Mereka memiliki suatu pengalaman yang lebih berharga daripada emas murni. Mereka harus berdiri teguh seperti batu karang, sambil berpegang pada permulaan keyakinan mereka dengan teguh sampai kepada akhirnya.” 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.

篇先的文章論著羅馬權勢先後兩場爭議，今將續論發生於烏利亞·史密斯與雅各·懷特之間的爭議。烏利亞·史密斯將他自己的「私意解經」置入第三十六節。

> “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. Maka raja itu akan berbuat menurut kehendaknya sendiri; dan ia akan meninggikan dirinya, dan membesarkan dirinya melebihi setiap ilah, dan akan mengucapkan perkara-perkara yang ajaib menentang Allah segala allah, dan akan beroleh kejayaan sampai kemurkaan itu digenapi; sebab apa yang telah ditetapkan itu akan terlaksana.

> “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.

> “Kgosi e e tlhagisitsweng fa ga e ka se nne maatla a a tshwanang le a a sa tswang go umakiwa bofelo; e leng, maatla a bopapa; gonne ditlhaloso tsotlhe ga di kitla di dumalana fa di dirisiwa mo maatleng ao.” 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 o lumela hore matla a temaneng e fetileng e ne e le “Roma ea bopapa,” empa o bolela hore litšobotsi tsa temana ea mashome a mararo a metso e tšeletseng ha se litšobotsi tsa boporofeta tse supang Roma ea bopapa. Polelo eo ke leshano. Ho tshwanetse ho hopoloa hore bofetoheling ba 1863, linako tse supileng tsa Levitike khaolo ea mashome a mabeli a metso e tšeletseng li ile tsa behelloa ka thōko, ka hona setšoantšo sa linako tse supileng sa litafole ka bobeli tsa Habakuke sa hanoa. Chate ea 1843 le ea 1850 ka bobeli li bontša linako tse supileng bohareng ba lichate, ’me litšoantšo tseo ka bobeli li beha sefapano bohareng ba mola oa linako tse supileng. Ha leseli le lecha la linako tse supileng le fihla ka 1856 ’me hamorao la hanoa, hoo ho ile ha tšoaea ho hanoa ha litafole tse peli tsa Habakuke, hammoho le bolaoli ba Moea oa Boporofeta, o hlakisang ka ho totobala hore lichate tseo ka bobeli li ne li tataisoa ke Molimo.

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.

Menurut Sister White, penipuan terakhir Setan ialah menjadikan kesaksian Roh Tuhan tidak berkesan; dan di sini penipuan yang pertama ialah menjadikan kesaksian Roh Tuhan tidak berkesan, dan hal itu juga melambangkan penolakan serentak terhadap kebenaran-kebenaran dasar pada kedua-dua carta itu, dan secara lebih khusus lagi terhadap tujuh masa.

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.

Ku 1863 ka vukandzuki, a ku nga ri un’wana handle ka Uriah Smith loyi a humeseke chati ya vuxisi ya 1863, leyi suseke layini ya minkarhi ya nkombo. Hi 1863 Uriah Smith a pfale mahlo ya yena eka ku vonakala ka minkarhi ya nkombo, kutani a nga ha koti ku vona leswaku ku ni “ku kariha” ku mbirhi loku Daniele a ku kombisa. Ku kariha loku ku mbirhi ku yimela minkarhi ya nkombo leyi nga eku lwisaneni ni mfumo wa le n’walungwini wa Israele, ni mfumo wa le dzongeni wa Yuda. Ko sungula loku lwisaneke ni tinyimba ta khume ta le n’walungwini ku sungule hi 723 BC kutani ku hela hi 1798, naswona ka vumbirhi ku sungule hi 677 BC kutani ku hela hi 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 datang kepada Daniel dalam pasal lapan untuk menjelaskan penglihatan marah itu, dan berkaitan dengan pekerjaannya, dia memberikan saksi kedua kepada tahun 1844. Dua ribu tiga ratus tahun dalam Daniel pasal lapan berakhir pada tahun 1844, dan demikian juga berakhir kemurkaan yang terakhir daripada dua kemurkaan terhadap kerajaan utara dan selatan.

> 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.

> ကော၊ အမျက်တော်၏ အဆုံးကာလ၌ ဖြစ်လတံ့သောအရာကို သင်သိစေမည်။ အကြောင်းမူကား၊ ချိန်းထားသောအချိန်၌ အဆုံးသည် ဖြစ်လတံ့မည်ဟု သူက ဆို၏။ ဒံယေလ ၈:၁၉။

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.

Боҳури охир пешопеш вуҷуди як анҷоми аввалро фарз мегирад. Охирини он ду ғазаб, ки танҳо баёни дигари «ҳафт замон» аст, дар соли 1844 ба поён расид, ва ғазаби аввал дар соли 1798 ба поён расид. Ояте, ки Смит даъво мекард ҳеҷ мушаххасоте дар бораи қудрати папавӣ надорад, ҳамон солеро муайян мекард, ки дар он папагӣ захми марговари худро қабул хоҳад кард.

> 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.

> Мөн тэр хаан өөрийн хүслийн дагуу үйлдэх бөгөөд өөрийгөө өргөмжилж, өөрийгөө бүх бурхдаас дээгүүр агуу болгон, бурхдын Бурханы эсрэг гайхамшигт үгсийг хэлэх болно; уур хилэн гүйцэлдэх хүртэл тэрээр цэцэглэн хөгжих болно; учир нь тогтоогдсон зүйл заавал биелнэ. Даниел 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” dalam ayat tiga puluh enam akan “berhasil sampai murka itu genap.” Perhatikan apa yang ditulis Smith tentang Daniel pasal delapan, ayat dua puluh tiga dan dua puluh empat dalam buku yang sama, tempat ia menyatakan bahwa kuasa kepausan tidak memiliki sifat-sifat yang tepat untuk menggenapi ayat tiga puluh enam.

> “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. Dan pada akhir masa kerajaan mereka, apabila para pelanggar telah genap, seorang raja yang berwajah garang dan memahami ucapan-ucapan gelap akan bangkit. 24. Dan kuasanya akan menjadi besar, tetapi bukan oleh kuasanya sendiri; dan ia akan membinasakan dengan dahsyat, dan akan berhasil, dan bertindak, dan akan membinasakan orang-orang perkasa dan umat yang kudus. 25. Dan melalui kebijaksanaannya juga ia akan menyebabkan tipu daya berhasil di tangannya; dan ia akan membesarkan dirinya di dalam hatinya, dan dengan damai ia akan membinasakan banyak orang; ia juga akan bangkit melawan Penghulu segala penghulu; tetapi ia akan diremukkan 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.

> “Kuasa ini muncul menggantikan empat bahagian kerajaan kambing itu pada zaman akhir kerajaan mereka, iaitu menjelang pengakhiran perjalanan mereka. Sudah tentu, kuasa ini adalah sama dengan tanduk kecil dalam ayat 9 dan seterusnya. Terapkanlah hal ini kepada Rom, sebagaimana dihuraikan dalam ulasan tentang ayat 9, maka semuanya menjadi selaras dan jelas.

> “‘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.

> “‘Një mbret me pamje të egër.’ Moisiu, duke parathënë ndëshkimin që do t’u vinte judenjve nga kjo po e njëjta fuqi, e quan atë ‘një komb me pamje të egër’. Ligji i Përtërirë 28:49, 50. Asnjë popull nuk paraqitej më i frikshëm në rreshtim luftarak se romakët. ‘Që kupton thënie të errëta.’ Moisiu, në shkrimin sapo të përmendur, thotë: ‘Gjuhën e të cilit nuk do ta kuptosh.’ Kjo nuk mund të thuhej për babilonasit, persët apo grekët, në lidhje me judenjtë; sepse gjuhët kaldease dhe greke përdoreshin, në një masë më të madhe a më të vogël, në Palestinë. Mirëpo, ky nuk ishte rasti me latinishten.”

> “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.

> “Bila para pelanggar telah genap.” Sepanjang waktu, hubungan antara umat Allah dan para penindas mereka tetap diperhatikan. Oleh karena pelanggaran-pelanggaran umat-Nya, mereka dijual ke dalam pembuangan. Dan keberlangsungan mereka dalam dosa mendatangkan hukuman yang lebih berat. Pada masa apa pun orang-orang Yahudi tidak pernah lebih rusak secara moral, sebagai suatu bangsa, daripada pada waktu mereka berada di bawah yurisdiksi orang-orang Romawi.

> “‘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.

> “‘Чадалтай боловч өөрийн хүчээр бус.’ Ромчуудын амжилт нь ихээхэн хэмжээгээр тэдний холбоотнуудын тусламж, мөн тэд үргэлж овжин ашиглахад бэлэн байсан дайснуудынхаа дундах хуваагдлын ачаар байсан юм. Папын Ром ч мөн адил, өөрийн сүнслэг хяналтаа хэрэгжүүлж байсан иргэний засгийн эрхүүдийн тусламжаар хүчирхэг байсан.”

> “‘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.

> “Ia ana naʼe atu ai mo e fakaofo.” Naʼe tala ʻe te ʻAliki ki te kau Siu ʻi he palōfita ko ʻIsikeli te ne tukuange kinautolu ki he nima ʻo e kakai naʻa nau “poto ʻi he fakaʻauha;” pea ko e tāmateʻi ʻo e Siu ʻe taha miliona mo e toko teau afe ʻi he fakaʻauha ʻo Selusalema ʻe he kau tau Loma, ko ha fakamoʻoni fakailifia ia ʻo e ngaahi lea ʻa e palōfita. Pea ko Loma ʻi hono tuʻunga hono ua, pe ko hono konga fakapope, naʻe ne ʻa e fatongia ki he mate ʻa e martyrs ʻe toko nimangofulu miliona.

> “‘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.

> “‘Maning ka na hinana ka polisiya, papahingon niya na magmalampuson an limbong didto ha iya kamot.’ An Roma in bantugan labaw ha ngatanan nga iba nga mga gahum tungod hin usa nga polisiya han limbong, pinaagi hini iya napailarom an mga nasud ha iya pagkontrolar. Tinuod ini mahitungod han pagano ngan han papal nga Roma. Ngan salit pinaagi han kamurayawan iya ginlaglag an kadam-an.

> “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.

> “အဆုံး၌ ရောမအင်ပါယာသည်လည်း ၎င်း၏ အုပ်ချုပ်ရေးမှူးတစ်ဦး၏ ကိုယ်စားဖြင့် မင်းတို့၏ မင်းတော်ကို ဆန့်ကျင်၍ ရပ်တည်ခဲ့ပြီး၊ ယေရှုခရစ်တော်အပေါ် သေဒဏ်ချမှတ်သော အမိန့်ကို ပေးခဲ့သည်။ ‘သို့ရာတွင် သူသည် လက်မပါဘဲ ချိုးဖျက်ခြင်းကို ခံရမည်’ ဟူသော စကားရပ်သည် ဤအာဏာ၏ ဖျက်ဆီးခြင်းကို အခန်း ၂ တွင် ဖော်ပြထားသော ရုပ်တုကို ထုရိုက်ဖျက်ဆီးခြင်းနှင့် တစ်ထပ်တည်း သတ်မှတ်ပေးသည်။” 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, duas vezes na passagem, identifica que as características proféticas da Roma pagã e da Roma papal são intercambiáveis, pois são simplesmente a manifestação de Roma em suas duas fases, tal como a mistura de ferro e barro em Daniel capítulo dois, que a Irmã White identifica como símbolos de eclesiasticismo e arte de governar do Estado. Quando Daniel identifica, nos versos aos quais Smith está se dirigindo, que Roma “prosperará, e praticará”, e que Roma “fará prosperar o engano na sua mão”, Smith afirma que, no versículo trinta e seis, o “rei” que “prosperará até que a indignação se cumpra” identifica uma característica profética tanto da Roma pagã como da Roma papal. Então ele afirma que nenhuma das características de Roma no versículo trinta e seis se refere ao poder papal.

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.

Re tlhalositše Smith ge re thekga go hlaolwa ga Roma e le bahlakodi bao ba tiišago pono, gomme e nngwe ya diponagalo tše nne tša boporofeta temaneng ya lesomenne ke gore Roma e ikgodiša.

> 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.

> “Mehleng eo ba bangata ba tla tsohela morena wa borwa matla; hape le mashodu a setjhaba sa heno a tla iphahamisetsa ho tiisa pono; empa ba tla wa.” Daniele 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 nyelɛꞌ ka ji min yeli mu ni ayelɛ ni kpanıŋ la a ni kɔɔŋ nyiɛka ni daan la a bɔ verse thirty-six la, ka mɔɔr ma ka a pu taanɔ papaal ŋmaris la yi, hali n yi ka o da nyaa bɔ ni a la Rome verse fourteen la, ka a yeri o baŋ la. Ka daan la verse thirty-six la “a yeri o meng la.” Daan la kɔɔŋ nyiɛka ni verse thirty-six la “a yela nyɛmaris yeli la Against the God of gods.” Daniel pɔɔr la, papaal ŋmaris la “a yela yel-kpɛɛm la against the Most High,” ka Revelation gbauŋ la pɔɔr la, papaal ŋmaris la blaspheme la against the Most High.

> 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.

> Lalu diberikan kepadanya suatu mulut yang mengucapkan perkara-perkara besar dan hujat; dan diberikan kepadanya kuasa untuk bertindak selama empat puluh dua bulan. Maka ia membuka mulutnya untuk menghujat Allah, untuk menghujat nama-Nya, dan kemah suci-Nya, serta mereka yang diam di sorga. Wahyu 13:5, 6.

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

Setlhopho sengwe le sengwe sa porofeti se se tlhalosang thata ya bopapa se supiwa mo temaneng ya masome a mararo le borataro.

> 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.

> “Raja itu akan bertindak menurut kehendaknya; ia akan meninggikan dirinya dan membesarkan dirinya melebihi setiap allah, dan akan mengucapkan perkara-perkara yang ajaib menentang Allah segala allah, dan ia akan berhasil sampai murka itu genap; sebab apa yang telah ditetapkan akan terlaksana.” Daniel 11:36.

Human commentators are many times unreliable, but many Adventist commentators give witness to the obvious truth that it was verse thirty-six which the apostle Paul was paraphrasing from 2 Thessalonians, when he addressed the man of sin.

Bahlalosi ba batho hangata ga ba ikanyege, eupša bahlalosi ba bantši ba Adventist ba hlatsela therešo ye e lego pepeneneng ya gore e be e le temana ya masome a mararo-tshela yeo moapostola Paulo a bego a e hlaloša ka mantšu a mangwe go tšwa go 2 Bathesalonika, ge a be a bolela ka motho wa sebe.

> 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.

> Mongwe umuntu a mi handukise hi ndlela yihi na yihi; hikuva siku rero a xi nge ti, loko ku nga si fika ku wa ekupfumeleni ku sungula, ni loko munhu wa xidyoho a nga si paluxiwa, n’wana wa ku lova; loyi a kanetanaka ni ku titlakusa ehenhla ka hinkwaswo leswi vitaniwaka Xikwembu, kumbe leswi gandzeriwaka; lerova yena, tanihi Xikwembu, u tshama etempeleni ra Xikwembu, a tinyiketa leswaku hi yena Xikwembu. 2 Vathesalonika 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 tiga puluh enam menyatakan bahwa “ia akan meninggikan diri dan membesarkan dirinya lebih daripada segala allah,” dan Paulus berkata “supaya dinyatakan manusia durhaka itu, anak kebinasaan; yang menentang dan meninggikan diri di atas segala yang disebut Allah, atau yang disembah.” Jelaslah bahwa Smith tidak memiliki otoritas kenabian untuk mengklaim bahwa raja dalam ayat tiga puluh enam berbeda dari raja yang sedang dibicarakan dalam ayat-ayat yang mengarah kepada ayat tiga puluh enam. Secara tata bahasa ia tidak memiliki dasar untuk membuat penerapannya yang keliru itu, dan klaimnya bahwa ia berbuat demikian karena ayat tiga puluh enam tidak memiliki ciri-ciri kuasa kepausan merupakan suatu pemelintiran Kitab Suci dalam upaya menegakkan suatu 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.

> Re na le lefoko la boporofeti le le tlhomameng bogolo; le lo dira sentle fa lo le tlhokomela, jaaka lebone le le phatsimang mo lefelong le le lefifi, go fitlha letsatsi le phatsima, le naledi ya masa e tlhage mo dipelong tsa lona: Lo itse selo seno pele ga tsotlhe, gore ga go na boporofeti bope jwa Lokwalo jo e leng jwa tlhaloso ya motho ka nosi. Gonne boporofeti ga boa ka jwa tla mo metlheng ya bogologolo ka thato ya motho; mme batho ba ba boitshepo ba Modimo ba ne ba bua jaaka ba ne ba tlhotlhelediwa ke Mowa o O Boitshepo. 2 Petere 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.

Masikhathini eminyaka e-Adventism yaseLaodikea, kube khona izazi zenkolo zama-Adventist eziningi, abafundisi nababhali, abaye babhekana nombuzo wokuthi bacabanga yini ukuthi ukusetshenziswa kukaSmith kulungile noma akulungile. Umfundisi wase-Australia, uLouis Were, oselokhu washona kudala, wachitha iningi lenkonzo yakhe ephikisa imodeli yamanga kaSmith yesiprofetho. Isizathu sokumphikisa kwakungekhona nje ukuthi ekugcineni uSmith wakhomba inkosi efika ekupheleni kwayo evesini lamashumi amane nanhlanu njengeTurkey, kodwa inkundla kaSmith yaphinde yakhiqiza nokusetshenziswa okungesikho kwe-Armagedoni. Ngawo-1980 noma cishe ngaleso sikhathi umlobi ongum-Adventist wabhala incwadi enesihloko esithi, Adventists and Armageddon, Have we Misunderstood Prophecy? Igama lombhali nguDonald Mansell, futhi le ncwadi isatholakala.

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.

मैनसेल पहिलो विश्वयुद्ध र दोस्रो विश्वयुद्धसम्म पुर्‍याउने इतिहासलाई पछ्याउँदै देखाउँछन् कि जब ती दुवै युद्धहरू नजिकिँदै गरेको रूपमा देखिए, तब एडभेन्टिस्ट सुसमाचारकर्मीहरूले आर्मागेडोन र संसारको अन्तको चिन्हको रूपमा टर्की शाब्दिक यरूशलेमतर्फ मार्च गर्ने स्मिथको गलत अनुप्रयोग प्रयोग गर्न थाले। उनले मण्डलीको सदस्यता अभिलेखद्वारा देखाउँछन् कि प्रत्येक युद्ध नजिकिँदै जाँदा, स्मिथको आर्मागेडोनसम्बन्धी त्रुटिपूर्ण दृष्टिकोणबाट निकालिएको सुसमाचारकर्मीहरूको भविष्यवाणीमूलक जोडका आधारमा धेरै आत्माहरू एडभेन्टिस्ट मण्डलीको सदस्यतामा ल्याइए।

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.

Bila mana-mana perang itu berakhir, dan ramalan-ramalan yang cacat itu tidak tergenapi, gereja kehilangan lebih banyak anggota daripada yang telah diperolehnya melalui model kenabian yang dibina oleh 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.

Ka go gana ga Smith molaetsa wa motheo wa ba-Millerite, le boikemisetso jwa gagwe jwa go tsweletsa pele tlhaloso ya gagwe ya sephiri ya ditemana tsa masome a mararo le borataro go ya go masome a mane le botlhano tsa Daniele, mogopolo wa ga Smith o ne wa tlhagisa sekao sa boperofeti se se theilweng mo ditiragalong tsa jaanong.

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.”

Dalam perdebatan antara Smith dan James White mengenai raja yang sampai kepada ajalnya dalam ayat terakhir Daniel sebelas, James White mengemukakan suatu logika yang dengan ringkas menggambarkan dasar kenabian Smith yang rapuh. White mengajarkan bahwa “nubuatan menghasilkan sejarah, tetapi sejarah tidak menghasilkan nubuatan.”

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.

Екі соғыстың алдында қызмет еткен Адвентизмнің ізгі хабаршылары Смиттің Армагеддон туралы қате пайғамбарлық үлгісін ұсыну үшін өрбіп жатқан тарихты пайдаланды, ал соғыстарға дейін соншалықты жарылқанған болып көрінген олардың еңбегі, пайғамбарлық үлгінің жеке жорамалдауға негізделгені әшкереленген кезде, ақырында таза шығынға әкелді.

> 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.

> Sawaslahon ninyo ang mga bulaang propeta, na lumalapit sa inyo na may kasuutang tupa, datapuwa’t sa loob ay mga lobong maninila. Makikilala ninyo sila sa pamamagitan ng kanilang mga bunga. Nangagpupulot baga ang mga tao ng ubas sa mga tinik, o ng mga igos sa mga dawag? Gayon din naman ang bawat mabuting punongkahoy ay nagbubunga ng mabuti; datapuwa’t ang masamang punongkahoy ay nagbubunga ng masama. Hindi maaaring ang mabuting punongkahoy ay magbunga ng masama, ni ang masamang punongkahoy ay magbunga ng mabuti. Ang bawat punongkahoy na hindi nagbubunga ng mabuti ay pinuputol at inihahagis sa apoy. Kaya nga, sa kanilang mga bunga ay makikilala ninyo sila. Mateo 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.

Kesanggupan Smith untuk mengemukakan suatu model nubuat peribadi tentang raja dalam ayat tiga puluh enam telah menghasilkan juga pembentukan suatu penerapan yang salah terhadap tulah yang keenam dan 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.

> Malaikat yang keenam menumpahkan cawannya ke atas sungai besar Efrat; lalu airnya menjadi kering, supaya jalan bagi raja-raja dari timur dapat dipersiapkan. Dan aku melihat tiga roh najis seperti katak keluar dari mulut naga itu, dan dari mulut binatang itu, dan dari mulut nabi palsu itu. Sebab mereka adalah roh-roh setan, yang mengadakan mujizat-mujizat, yang pergi kepada raja-raja di bumi dan di seluruh dunia, untuk mengumpulkan mereka kepada peperangan pada hari besar Allah Yang Mahakuasa itu. Lihatlah, Aku datang seperti pencuri. Berbahagialah dia yang berjaga-jaga dan yang memelihara pakaiannya, supaya ia jangan berjalan dengan telanjang dan orang melihat kemaluannya. Lalu ia mengumpulkan mereka bersama-sama ke suatu tempat yang dalam bahasa Ibrani disebut 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.”

Seperti yang telah kami tunjukkan sebelumnya, tulah yang keenam datang sesudah berakhirnya masa pencobaan manusia; maka peringatan yang terkandung dalam, “peliharalah pakaianmu,” pasti merujuk kepada suatu isu pengujian yang terjadi sebelum Mikhael berdiri, masa pencobaan manusia berakhir, dan tulah yang pertama mulai. Tulah yang keenam mengenali kegiatan naga, binatang itu, dan nabi palsu, yang merupakan persatuan rangkap tiga yang terbentuk pada hukum Hari Minggu yang segera akan datang. Persatuan rangkap tiga itu adalah Roma Modern, dan lambang yang mengenali serta menegakkan persatuan rangkap tiga Roma Modern itu ialah “perampok-perampok bangsamu,” yang “meninggikan diri untuk menegakkan penglihatan itu,” lalu “gugur.”

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.

Peringatan malapetaka yang keenam, apabila difahami, membolehkan seseorang memelihara pakaiannya; tetapi jika ditolak, hal itu membiarkan seseorang telanjang, yang merupakan salah satu daripada lima sifat seorang Laodikia. Lambang yang menegakkan peringatan itu ialah perompak-perompak bangsamu, yang meninggikan diri mereka sendiri dan akhirnya rebah. Salomo berkata bahawa jika umat Tuhan tidak memiliki penglihatan itu, mereka binasa.

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

> Etlhelo la go se na pono, setšhaba se a senyega; eupša yo a bolokago molao, o thabile. Diema 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.

Kata Ibrani “binasa” berarti “menelanjangi”, dan Yohanes mencatat, “Berbahagialah dia yang berjaga-jaga dan memelihara pakaiannya, supaya ia jangan berjalan telanjang dan orang melihat kemaluannya.” Smith keliru mengenai Raja di Utara, dan landasan nubuat yang palsu itu memungkinkannya mengembangkan suatu penerapan nubuat yang, jika diterima, menghasilkan ketelanjangan, yang merupakan lambang orang-orang Laodikia, yang dimuntahkan dari mulut Tuhan.

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 asongɔrɛ mpo mpo mpo mpo na ɔkɔmhyɛni no kunu James White ho, sɛnea ɔde ne foforo atoro nkyerɛase a ɔde maa Hene a ofi Atifi fam no dii akyinnye. Adventist abakɔsɛm akyerɛwfo, ne Onuabea White, ka wɔn akasakasa a agye din no ho asɛm. Ellen White kaa ne kunu ne Smith nyinaa anim sɛ wɔmaa wɔn adwene mu nsonsonoe wɔ onii a na wɔgyina hɔ ma no sɛ hene a ofi atifi fam wɔ Daniel ti dubaako mu no ho no baa baguam. Wɔ Adventist nhoma a edi kan a wotintimii wɔ Awerɛhow Kɛse a ɛbaa afe 1844 akyi mu no, James White kyerɛwee sɛ:

> “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.

> “ว่า พระเยซูได้ทรงลุกขึ้น ปิดประตู และเสด็จมาหาองค์ผู้ทรงพระชนม์อยู่แต่โบราณกาล เพื่อทรงรับราชอาณาจักรของพระองค์นั้น ในเดือนที่ 7 ค.ศ. 1844 ข้าพเจ้าเชื่ออย่างเต็มที่ ดู ลูกา 13:25; มัทธิว 25:10; ดาเนียล 7:13,14 แต่การที่มีคาเอลยืนขึ้น ดาเนียล 12:1 ดูจะเป็นอีกเหตุการณ์หนึ่ง เพื่ออีกวัตถุประสงค์หนึ่ง การที่พระองค์ทรงลุกขึ้นในปี 1844 นั้น ก็เพื่อจะปิดประตู และเสด็จมาหาพระบิดาของพระองค์ เพื่อทรงรับราชอาณาจักรของพระองค์ และอำนาจที่จะทรงครอบครอง แต่การที่มีคาเอลยืนขึ้นนั้น คือเพื่อสำแดงพระราชอำนาจของพระองค์ ซึ่งพระองค์ทรงมีอยู่แล้ว ในการทำลายคนอธรรม และในการช่วยกู้ชนชาติของพระองค์ มีคาเอลจะยืนขึ้นในเวลาที่อำนาจสุดท้ายในบทที่ 11 มาถึงจุดจบของมัน และไม่มีผู้ใดช่วยมัน อำนาจนี้คืออำนาจสุดท้ายที่เหยียบย่ำคริสตจักรแท้ของพระเจ้า และเนื่องด้วยว่าคริสตจักรแท้นั้นยังคงถูกเหยียบย่ำ และถูกขับไล่ออกโดยคริสต์ศาสนจักรทั้งปวง จึงเป็นผลตามมาว่าอำนาจกดขี่สุดท้ายนั้นยังมิได้ ‘มาถึงจุดจบของมัน’; และมีคาเอลยังมิได้ยืนขึ้น อำนาจสุดท้ายนี้ที่เหยียบย่ำธรรมิกชนได้ถูกนำเสนอไว้ในวิวรณ์ 13:11-18 เลขของมันคือ 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.

Apabila Smith mengemukakan apa yang disebutnya sebagai “terang baru” mengenai perkara “kuasa yang terakhir dalam Daniel pasal sebelas,” James White memandang penerapan Smith itu bukan sebagai terang baru, melainkan sebagai suatu serangan terhadap dasar-dasar. Pertikaian mengenai Roma sebagai raja dari utara dalam Daniel sebelas yang terjadi antara Uriah Smith dan James White memiliki ciri-ciri yang khusus, yang, sebagai para pelajar nubuatan, harus kita himpunkan bersama pertikaian-pertikaian lain dalam sejarah Advent mengenai lambang 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 satu daripada ciri-ciri itu ialah pengenalan suatu tafsiran peribadi. Satu lagi ciri ialah bahawa penerapan tafsiran peribadi itu menuntut pemutarbelitan tata bahasa yang sederhana, kerana Smith bukan sahaja mengabaikan bahawa setiap ciri nubuat dalam ayat tiga puluh enam ditujukan kepada Rom, tetapi dia juga mengabaikan bahawa struktur tatabahasa menuntut bahawa raja dalam ayat tiga puluh enam mestilah raja yang sama seperti yang digambarkan dalam petikan sebelumnya.

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.”

Lengo ke gore tlhalošo ya sephiring e be e le go gana ditherešo tša motheo. Le lengwe ke gore e emela go gana taolo ya Moya wa Boporofeta. Seka se sengwe ke gore kgopolo ya mathomo yeo e fošagetšego mabapi le Roma e tla iša go mohlala wa boporofeta wo o sa dumeleleng motho go boloka diaparo tša gagwe ge ba batamela bofelong bja nako ya teko ya batho. Le lengwe e be e le boikemišetšo bja go tšwetša pele tlhalošo ya gagwe ya sephiring phatlalatša. Le lengwe ke gore tlhalošo ya sephiring ka mehla e tsebišwa bjalo ka seetša se sefsa. Dika tše ka moka di emetšwe ka gare ga poledišano ya bjale ya “bahlakodi ba setšhaba sa gago.”

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.

Apabila pertikaian terakhir Roma, yang telah dilambangkan oleh pertikaian pertama Roma yang mengenal pasti “perompak-perompak dari bangsamu,” digabungkan dengan garis nubuatan pertikaian Uriah Smith dan James White, kita akan melihat bahawa satu golongan akan membina model nubuatan mereka di atas tafsiran persendirian, yang menolak kebenaran asas.

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.

การปฏิเสธความจริงพื้นฐานย่อมเป็นการปฏิเสธสิทธิอำนาจของพระวิญญาณแห่งคำพยากรณ์โดยอัตโนมัติ ซึ่งได้ปกป้องความจริงพื้นฐานเหล่านั้นไว้อย่างมั่นคงยิ่ง คนกลุ่มนั้นก็จะเต็มใจนำเสนอทัศนะของตนต่อสาธารณชนด้วย โดยไม่คำนึงถึงข้อกังวลใด ๆ ที่อาจถูกหยิบยกขึ้นมาเกี่ยวกับผลกระทบที่คำสอนนั้นอาจมีต่อประชากรของพระเจ้าทั่วโลก

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.

Selepas 1844, dalam generasi pertama Adventisme, satu lagi kontroversi mengenai Roma telah diperkenalkan. Kontroversi itu terus diperdebatkan sehingga pandangan yang palsu diterima dalam generasi ketiga Adventisme. Kita akan mempertimbangkan kontroversi tentang “daily” sebagai yang keempat daripada enam garis yang kini kita pertimbangkan dalam model line upon line.

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.”

Tetapi sebelum kita membincangkan garis keempat pertikaian Roma, perlu diingat bahawa dalam rencana sebelumnya, ketika kita membahas ayat sepuluh dari Daniel pasal sebelas, kita telah menyatakan, “Ayat sepuluh juga secara langsung menghubungkan ‘tujuh masa’ dalam Imamat dua puluh enam dengan sejarah yang tersembunyi, tetapi garis kebenaran itu berada di luar apa yang sedang kita kemukakan di sini.”

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 ialah pemimpin dalam penolakan terhadap tujuh masa pada tahun 1863. Beliau telah menolak pertambahan pengetahuan mengenai perkara itu yang telah dikemukakan dalam rencana-rencana tentang subjek tersebut, yang ditulis oleh Hiram Edson dan diterbitkan dalam Review pada tahun 1856. Implikasi bahawa Smith dikaitkan dengan suatu gerakan yang mengemukakan tujuh masa, tetapi yang sesudah itu menolak pertambahan pengetahuan mengenai subjek yang sama itu, juga berada di luar perbincangan tentang ciri-ciri pengenalan oleh Smith terhadap apa yang didakwanya sebagai terang baharu mengenai subjek raja negeri utara; namun apabila kita menyelesaikan tinjauan kita terhadap garis pertikaian Adventis tentang Roma, kita akan kembali kepada kedua-dua pentingnya ayat sepuluh dalam Daniel pasal sebelas, dan juga kepada apa yang dilambangkan oleh penolakan Smith terhadap pekabaran Laodikia yang tiba pada tahun 1856 bersama pertambahan pengetahuan mengenai tujuh masa.

> “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.

> “Imani yetu kuhusiana na ujumbe wa malaika wa kwanza, wa pili, na wa tatu ilikuwa sahihi. Alama kuu za njia tulizozipita haziwezi kutikisika. Ingawa majeshi ya kuzimu yaweza kujaribu kuziondoa kutoka msingi wake, na kushangilia kwa wazo kwamba yamefanikiwa, hata hivyo hayafanikiwi. Nguzo hizi za kweli zinasimama imara kama vilima vya milele, zisizotikiswa na juhudi zote za wanadamu zikiunganishwa na zile za Shetani na jeshi lake. Tunaweza kujifunza mengi, nasi yatupasa kuyachunguza Maandiko daima ili kuona kama mambo haya ni hivyo.” 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.

> “သမ္မာတရား၏ ကြီးမြတ်သော မှတ်တိုင်များသည်၊ ပရောဖက်ပြုရာသမိုင်း၌ ငါတို့၏ တည်နေရာနှင့် ဦးတည်ချက်ကို ဖော်ပြပေးသောအရာများဖြစ်၍၊ ၎င်းတို့ကို ဂရုတစိုက် ကာကွယ်ထိန်းသိမ်းရမည်။ သို့မဟုတ်ပါက ၎င်းတို့သည် ဖြိုဖျက်ပစ်ခြင်းခံရပြီး၊ စစ်မှန်သော အလင်းကို ပေးဆောင်မည့်အစား ရှုပ်ထွေးမှုကိုသာ ဖြစ်ပေါ်စေမည့် သီအိုရီများဖြင့် အစားထိုးခံရလိမ့်မည်။” Selected Messages, book 2, 101, 102.

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

> “Ka kikhathi lesi kuyakwentiwa imitamo leminyenti yekuphazamisa kukholwa kwetfu endzabeni yendzawo lengcwele; kodvwa akukafaneli sintengantenge. Akukho ngisho nepini lokufanele lisuswe etisekelweni tekukholwa kwetfu. Liciniso liseliciniso. Labo labacala kungaciniseki batawukhukhuleka bangene emibonweni lenemaphutsa, futsi ekugcineni batawutifumana sebangemakholwa longakholwa ngebufakazi bangaphambilini lesibe nabo mayelana naloko lokuliciniso. Tibonakaliso tendlela tendvulo kufanele tigcinwe, kuze singalahlekelwa tindlela tetfu.” Manuscript Releases, volume 1, 55

Back to Articles