Article

# The Book of Daniel - Number Forty-Seven

Книгата на Даниел - Четириесет и седум број

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

Menyingkap Doktrin-Doktrin yang Menyesatkan: Suatu Analisis Kritis atas Daniel 8 dan Tantangan-Tantangan terhadap Teologi Adventist

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

January 11, 2024

Formats

PDF Unavailable
Word Unavailable
Song MP3

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.

Maba horn iŋeti yela Roma, mewakliiwe mu mapande ga tisa ku fika kumi na yabili ga Danieli sura ja nane, i nyasiyo maba ikolekiwe, ni kwaawi i nyasiyo ya kuvala nguo sya mukao au mgosi, mwevalaji wa msalaba wa nguo akujungujuka pangati pa ugosi ni ukike. Yipatana ni uelewa wa Wamillerite wa kuti Roma yakolekiwe kwa mafungu gabiili, fungu lya kwanza likiwa siasa ya dola ya Kirumi na fungu lya pili likiwa siasa ya kanisa la Kirumi; lakini mu kujungujuka kwa jinsi mu mapande ago, maba horn iŋeti i nje ya mfuatano wa kihistoria na wa kinabii (ikolekiwe vibaya). Hata ivo, kila lya mapande gani ga nne likwakilisha historia ihusikane moja kwa moja ama ni siasa ya dola ya Kirumi ama ni siasa ya kanisa la Kirumi. Roma ya kipagani yawatesile mateso wote waliokataa mamlaka yakwe ya kifalme, lakini mateso ga Roma ya kipapa (ya kike) mu fungu lya kumi, gakwelekezwa mahsusi dhidi ya mbingu.

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.

Dalam pemahaman Millerit bahawa Rom ialah kerajaan yang keempat dan yang terakhir, peralihan yang berayun daripada negara kepada gereja lalu kepada negara dan kepada gereja lagi tidak akan menjadi suatu persoalan. Mereka telah melihat percampuran besi dan tanah liat pada kaki dalam Daniel pasal dua, dan sekadar memahaminya sebagai dua fasa Rom, tanpa keprihatinan untuk mentakrifkan suatu urutan sejarah yang khusus bagi kerajaan keempat dan kelima. Mereka memahami hal yang sama tentang pasal tujuh, di mana tanduk yang mengucapkan perkara-perkara besar menentang Yang Mahatinggi telah mencabut tiga tanduk daripada sepuluh tanduk asal binatang Rom itu. Sekalipun Miller memang mengenali ayunan jantina dalam ayat sembilan hingga dua belas, hal itu tidak penting bagi pemahamannya bahawa kerajaan keempat ialah Rom. Dalam pemahaman Millerit, kerajaan keempat berakhir pada tahun 1798, dan peristiwa nubuatan yang berikutnya ialah Kedatangan Kedua Kristus.

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

Lenaka la bosadi le supa mosadi yo o dirang boaka jwa semowa le lenaka la bonna, e bile o emetswe mo ditemaneng tsa lesome le tse lesome le bobedi.

> 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.

> Nayo ikakua, hata kufikia jeshi la mbinguni; nayo ikawaangusha baadhi ya jeshi hilo na baadhi ya nyota chini, ikaikanyaga. Danieli 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.

Phihlelo ya maatla a bopapa e be e lebisitšwe kgahlanong le Bokriste (madira a legodimo), gomme temaneng ya lesomepedi Roma ya bopapa (ya botshehadi), e amogela maatla a go phetha mošomo wa yona wa polao ka baka la tlolo ya molao ya go otswa le dikgoši tša Yuropa.

> 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.

> Mme go ne a newa yena kgatlhanong le setlhabelo sa ka metlha ka ntlha ya tlolo, mme ya latlhela boammaaruri fa fatshe; mme ya dira, ya ba ya atlega. Daniele 8:12.

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.”

“Host” dalam ayat itu melambangkan kuasa ketenteraan yang diberikan kepada kepausan “terhadap yang sehari-hari.” Perkataan “terhadap” bererti “daripada”. Daripada raja-raja kafir Eropah (Rom kafir), yang dilambangkan oleh “yang sehari-hari,” sokongan ketenteraan (suatu bala tentera) telah diberikan kepada kepausan “oleh sebab pelanggaran.” Gabungan gereja dan negara, dengan gereja menguasai hubungan itu, ialah “pelanggaran” tersebut. Anggur pelanggaran itu ialah darah orang Kristian. Setelah kepausan menguasai bala tentera Rom kafir, Rom kepausan (“ia”) “melemparkan kebenaran ke tanah; dan ia bertindak, serta berjaya.”

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

Dalam Daniel pasal sebelas, ayat tiga puluh satu, penyerahan bala tentera kepada Rom kepausan juga digambarkan:

> 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.

> Le mabotho a tla ema ka lehlakoreng la hae, ’me a tla silafatsa sehalalelo sa matla, ’me a tla tlosa sehlabelo sa kamehla, ’me a tla beha manyala a etsang lesupi. Daniele 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.

Ayat itu mengenal pasti peralihan sejarah daripada Rom kafir kepada Rom kepausan. Dalam ayat itu, “lengan-lengan” ialah raja-raja Eropah yang mula bangkit untuk menyokong kepausan bermula dengan Clovis, raja orang Frank (Perancis), pada tahun 496. “Lengan-lengan” itu juga telah mencemarkan “tempat kudus kekuatan” (kota Rom), melalui peperangan yang berterusan dari abad keempat dan seterusnya hingga tahun 538. “Lengan-lengan” itu juga telah menyingkirkan penentangan kafir terhadap kebangkitan kepausan, dan menjelang tahun 508, penentangan kafir itu telah berakhir.

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.

Kata yang diterjemahkan sebagai “mengambil,” ialah perkataan Ibrani “sur” dan bererti “menyingkirkan”. “Lengan-lengan” itu menempatkan “kekejian yang membinasakan” (kepausan) di atas takhta bumi pada tahun 538. Apabila Daniel fasal lapan, ayat dua belas menyatakan bahawa “suatu pasukan” telah diberikan kepada tanduk kecil yang bersifat feminin itu, hal itu sependapat dengan kesaksian ayat tiga puluh satu dalam fasal sebelas. Kitab Wahyu juga memberikan kesaksian tentang kebenaran yang sama dalam fasal tiga belas.

> 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.

> Dan haiwan yang kulihat itu seperti seekor harimau bintang, dan kakinya seperti kaki beruang, dan mulutnya seperti mulut singa; dan naga itu memberikan kepadanya kuasanya, takhtanya, dan wewenang yang besar. Wahyu 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.”

Kgaitsadi White o supa sebata sa temana ya bobedi ka go lebanya e le bopapa, gape o supa gore kgogela ya mo temaneng eo ke Roma ya boheitene. Roma ya boheitene e ne ya nea bopapa dilo tse tharo: “maatla a gagwe, le setulo sa gagwe, le taolo e kgolo.”

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.”

Ku nguzu ya kijeshi yo yahiwe n’i Roma y’abapagani itanguriye kuri Clovis mu mwaka wa 496. “Intebe” yo gutegekeraho yahawe ubupapa mu mwaka wa 330, igihe umwami w’abami Konstantini yimuriraga umurwa mukuru we i Constantinople, agasiga umujyi wari umurwa mukuru we wa mbere, ari wo Roma, utegekwa n’itorero rya papa. Mu mwaka wa 533, umwami w’abami Justiniani yategetse ko papa ari umutwe w’itorero kandi ko ari we ukosora abahakanyi, bityo ahindurira papa w’i Roma “ubutware bukomeye” bwe. Umurongo wa cumi na kabiri wo muri Daniyeli igice cya munani, werekana igihe “ingabo” zatangiwe, kandi uko kuri kwa gihanuzi guhamywa n’abahamya benshi. Uhereye kuri iyo ngingo y’igihe (guhera mu mwaka wa 496), ubupapa “bwungutse imbaraga.”

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.

E tla tsoela pele go “dira” le go “atlega” go fihlela bofelo bja pefelo kgahlanong le mmušo wa lebowa wa Isiraele bo fela ka 1798, gomme bopapa bo amogela ntho ya bjona ya go bolaya.

> 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.

> Rajalah akan bertindak menurut kehendaknya sendiri; ia akan meninggikan dirinya dan membesarkan dirinya di atas setiap allah, dan akan mengucapkan hal-hal yang ajaib menentang Allah segala allah, dan akan berhasil sampai kemurkaan itu digenapi; sebab apa yang telah ditetapkan akan terlaksana. 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.

Verse 9 dalam pasal 8 menggambarkan Roma maskulin (Roma kafir), dan melambangkan proses penaklukan tiga langkah yang telah dilaksanakan oleh Roma kafir, yang juga menipologikan tiga wilayah geografis yang harus ditaklukkan agar Roma kepausan ditegakkan di atas takhta bumi, sebagaimana dilambangkan oleh tiga tanduk yang dicabut dalam pasal 7. Kedua penaklukan tiga langkah oleh Roma kafir dan Roma kepausan itu melambangkan tiga rintangan geografis bagi Roma modern, dalam ayat 40 sampai 43 dari Daniel 11. Kemudian dalam pasal 8, ayat 11, tanduk kecil maskulin (Roma kafir) kembali digambarkan. Dalam ayat itu, logika yang disucikan begitu kokoh, sehingga orang-orang pencemooh yang memerintah Yerusalem terpaksa memperkenalkan beberapa dusta teologis untuk menegakkan dasar palsu mereka.

> 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.

> Ee, o ne a ikgodisa go fitlha go Kgosana ya lesomosomo, mme ka ene setlhabelo sa ka metlha sa tlosiwa, mme lefelo la boitshepo jwa gagwe la digwa. Daniele 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.

Semasa kita mula membicarakan syiling dan permata palsu yang telah diperkenalkan ke dalam Adventisme sejak tahun 1863, perlulah diperhatikan bahawa terdapat dua bidang utama kepakaran teologi yang kononnya dimiliki oleh Adventisme, yang dijadikan dasar untuk mempertahankan doktrin-doktrin Protestantisme murtad dan Katolik. Dakwaan yang dibuat oleh para teolog moden Adventisme ialah bahawa mereka sama ada pakar dalam sejarah Alkitab, atau pakar dalam bahasa-bahasa Alkitab. Penerapan mereka terhadap ayat itu menyingkapkan bahawa firman nubuatan telah menjadi seperti sebuah kitab yang termeterai bagi mereka, dan juga menyingkapkan bahawa dakwaan mereka sebagai pakar dalam bahasa-bahasa Alkitab hanyalah manifestasi moden Fariseisme.

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.

ទីមួយ គឺការមិនអើពើចំពោះការប្រែប្រួលទៅវិញទៅមកនៃភេទវេយ្យាករណ៍ សម្រាប់ស្នែងតូចនៅក្នុងខទីប្រាំបួនដល់ខទីដប់ពីរ។ បើពួកគេពិតជាអ្នកជំនាញខាងភាសាហេប្រឺមែន នោះពួកគេមិនគួរបដិសេធ ឬបន្ថយទម្ងន់ នៃការពិតដែលថា ដានីយ៉ែលបានប្រើដោយចេតនានូវការប្រែប្រួលភេទវេយ្យាករណ៍នៅក្នុងខទាំងនោះឡើយ។ ស្នែងតូចត្រូវបានតំណាងទាំងក្នុងភេទទាំងពីរ ហើយភេទទាំងនោះប្រែប្រួលទៅមកតាមខទាំងនោះ។ ពួកទេវវិទូព្យាយាមបិទបាំងការពិតនេះដោយរឿងឥតន័យ និងកាក់ក្លែងក្លាយ ពីព្រោះវាបញ្ជាក់យ៉ាងច្បាស់ថា ខទីដប់មួយកំពុងកំណត់សម្គាល់ទៅលើរ៉ូមបាកាន មិនមែនរ៉ូមប៉ាបឡើយ។ ជាការពិត ពួកគេទទូចថា ស្នែងតូចនៅក្នុងខទីដប់មួយគឺជាសម្តេចប៉ាប ខណៈដែលតាមពិតវាគឺជារ៉ូមបាកាន។

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).

Apabila diakui bahawa dua daripada empat ayat tentang tanduk kecil itu bersifat maskulin dan dua lagi bersifat feminin, maka mudah untuk memasukkan kebenaran alkitabiah bahawa seorang perempuan dalam nubuatan Alkitab melambangkan sebuah gereja, dan seorang lelaki melambangkan sebuah negara. Mengetahui hal ini memungkinkan semua orang yang mahu melihat, bahawa tanduk kecil dalam ayat sebelas ialah Rom yang maskulin (Rom pagan), bukan Rom yang feminin (Rom kepausan).

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.”

Ayat itu, dengan demikian, dipahami sebagai mengajarkan bahwa Roma kafir (ia) membesarkan dirinya terhadap Panglima bala tentara, sebagaimana Roma kafir telah lakukan ketika ia menempatkan Panglima bala tentara di atas salib Kalvari. Bukan sahaja Roma kafir membesarkan dirinya menentang Kristus di salib, ayat itu seterusnya mengatakan bahawa olehnya (Roma kafir) “korban harian telah dihapuskan.”

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.

Dalam kitab Daniel terdapat dua perkataan Ibrani yang kedua-duanya diterjemahkan sebagai “mengambil away.” Perkataan-perkataan itu ialah “sur” dan “rum”. Kedua-dua perkataan ini digunakan dalam pelayanan tempat kudus. “Sur” bererti mengambil away atau menyingkirkan, dan apabila abu dari mezbah di tempat kudus disingkirkan, perkataan yang digunakan untuk menggambarkan penyingkiran abu itu ialah “sur”. Perkataan “rum” bererti mengangkat dan meninggikan, dan apabila imam di tempat kudus harus mengangkat persembahan unjukan, dia harus “rum” (mengangkat) persembahan itu. Dalam ayat sebelas, Rom kafir (“the daily”) akan “rum” (mengambil away) kekafiran dengan mengangkat dan meninggikan agama kekafiran.

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.

Rom Kafir akan meninggikan dan memuliakan agama kekafiran. Para ahli teologi Advent yang mengaku mahir dalam bahasa-bahasa Alkitab memilih untuk memperlakukan setiap kemunculan frasa “take away” dalam kitab Daniel sebagai “remove”. Mereka gagal mengakui penulisan Daniel yang khas dan tepat, dan dengan demikian menempatkan diri mereka di atas nabi 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.”

ꞌOo theologians dhálíi biblikal bizaad yee haneʼgo bee nitsáhákees tʼáá ajiłiiʼígíí, Daniel naaltsoos bee haneʼgo tʼáá íiyisí dóó bee haneʼgo aadóóshłį́į́ʼgo, tʼáá łikanígo nídahwiidoolʼaahígíí biniiyé haneʼ dooleełgo bee yáhootʼééł. Áádóó daʼdíílwoʼígíí bizaad biniiyé nitsáhákees doo nidaalnish da, áádóó tʼáá nihá átʼéego yáhootʼééłígíí bee daʼdeeshʼą́ą́łgo, tʼáá ałtsonígo łahgo daalnish dóó tʼáá dineʼégo haneʼ yáhootʼééł. Biblikal history yee haneʼgo bee nitsáhákees tʼáá ajiłiiʼígíí, haneʼgo daatsʼíísí bee haneʼ baa nitsáhákeesgo, history biyiʼ dóó bee hodíílnihígíí tʼáá łahgo átʼéego, tʼáá íiyisí bizaad shí éí tʼáá ałtso yáhootʼééł da dooleeł, áádóó Daniel aadóó tʼáá ałtsʼísí da bizaad náásgóógo, history yee átʼéego bee nitsáhákeesíí tʼáá éí hwiinítʼį́į́łgo Daniel tʼáá áníłtsoíígíí bee yáhootʼééł. Díí naaki łahda hózhǫ́ǫ́gi doo nisin da bee haneʼgo baa nitsáhákeesgo hwiinítʼį́į́ł níłchʼiʼígíí, tʼáá ákótʼéego theologians “line upon line” hodoolnih biyiʼgóó doo nidaalnish da nitsáhákeesgo, díí bee saad daatsʼíísí yee dah naashá.

> 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.

> Ia meninggikan dirinya bahkan sampai kepada Panglima bala tentera, dan oleh dia korban sehari-hari itu telah diambil, dan tempat tempat kudus-Nya telah dirobohkan. 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.”

Perkataan yang diterjemahkan sebagai “diambil” dalam ayat itu bererti “diangkat dan ditinggikan”. Perkataan itu tidak bererti disingkirkan. Fakta ini menimbulkan kekeliruan dan percanggahan bagi para teolog Adventis, kerana premis mereka tidak dapat bertahan di bawah penilaian yang sederhana terhadap ayat itu, apabila takrif sebenar bagi perkataan yang digunakan Daniel diterapkan pada ayat tersebut. Mereka berhujah bahawa tanduk kecil dalam ayat itu ialah Roma kepausan, dan oleh itu ayat itu akan berbunyi bahawa “olehnya” (Roma kepausan) “yang berterusan itu diangkat.”

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.

Mereka, tentu saja, tidak mempunyai masalah untuk memasukkan kata tambahan yang menurut Sister White secara langsung telah ditambahkan oleh hikmat manusia dan tidak berlaku bagi teks itu.

> “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.

> “ਦਾਨੀਏਲ 8:12 ਵਿੱਚ ‘ਰੋਜ਼ਾਨਾ’ ਦੇ ਸੰਬੰਧ ਵਿੱਚ ਮੈਨੂੰ ਫਿਰ ਇਹ ਵਿਖਾਇਆ ਗਿਆ ਕਿ ‘ਬਲੀਦਾਨ’ ਸ਼ਬਦ ਮਨੁੱਖੀ ਬੁੱਧੀ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਜੋੜਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ, ਅਤੇ ਇਹ ਮੂਲ ਪਾਠ ਦਾ ਹਿੱਸਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ; ਅਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਭੂ ਨੇ ਇਸ ਦੀ ਸਹੀ ਸਮਝ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੇ ਨਿਆਂ ਦੀ ਘੜੀ ਦੀ ਪੁਕਾਰ ਦਿੱਤੀ ਸੀ।” 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”.

Yane kaning “the daily” bilang ministerio ni Cristo sa santuario, kaya ang “araw-adlaw nga halad” nagapalig-on sa konsepto nga ang “the daily” amo ang haladnon nga buluhaton ni Cristo sa langitnon nga santuario. Apang ang inspirasyon nagapaila nga ang pulong nga “sacrifice” “indi kabahin sang teksto”.

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.

Apabila para pemabuk Efraim mengenal pasti “yang berterusan” sebagai pekerjaan tempat kudus Kristus, maka ayat itu akan berbunyi, “olehnya” (Roma kepausan) “yang berterusan itu telah diambil,” atau ia akan berbunyi, “oleh kuasa kepausan, pelayanan tempat kudus Kristus telah diambil.” Mereka benar-benar mengajarkan kepalsuan ini. Mereka menegaskan bahawa melalui kegelapan pemerintahan kepausan, pemahaman yang benar tentang pelayanan tempat kudus Kristus telah disingkirkan dari fikiran manusia.

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?

Amasu agahinduwe ngo “gukuraho,” ntashaka kuvanaho, ahubwo asobanura kuzamura no gushyira hejuru. Iyaba abiyita inzobere mu ndimi za Bibiliya bashyiraga neza ku murongo uwo busobanuro bw’ijambo ry’Igiheburayo “rum,” ihindurwamvugo ryabo ryagombaga kuvuga riti, “kubw’ububasha bwa papa, umurimo wa Kristo wo mu buturo bwera warazamuwe kandi ushyirwa hejuru.” Ni ryari ubupapa bwigeze buzamura kandi bugashyira Kristo hejuru?

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.

Bɔ wɔyɛ mmerɛ sɛ wɔde nkyerɛase a ɛwɔ Hebri asɛmfua “sur” no bɛhyɛ Hebri asɛmfua “rum” no so. Daniel de asɛmfua “sur,” a ne nkyerɛase ne yi fi hɔ, dii dwuma wɔ “daa daa no” ho wɔ nkyekyɛm foforo abien mu, nanso wɔ nkyekyɛm dubaako mu no, Daniel paw asɛmfua “rum” a ɛkyerɛ ma so ne kamfo. Ɛnyɛ sɛ anansesɛm a wɔaka afa nkyekyɛm yi ho no yɛ nkwaseasɛm esiane asɛmfua a wɔakyerɛ ase sɛ “yi fi hɔ” no nkyerɛase a wɔatwa no akyea nti nkutoo, na mmom bere biara nni hɔ a wɔyii Kristo kronkronbea mu ne som adwuma fii nnipa nsam wɔ ɔkwan biara so.

> 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.

> Tetapi orang ini, oleh sebab Ia tetap selama-lamanya, mempunyai imamat yang tidak berubah. Karena itu Ia juga sanggup menyelamatkan dengan sempurna mereka yang datang kepada Allah melalui Dia, sebab Ia hidup senantiasa untuk menjadi pengantara bagi mereka. Ibrani 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!

Go tsea, jaaka boratheoloji ba Adventist ba dira, mo maitekong a go tshegetsa tiriso ya bone e e phoso ya temana eno, gore go kile ga nna le lobaka lo ka lone bopapa bo neng jwa dirisa mofuta mongwe wa maatla go tlosa botsereganyi jwa ga Keresete jwa mo sehalalelong, ke boeleele!

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.

Tetapi para ahli teologi tidak mengajarkan bahawa ayat itu mengenal pasti bahawa kepausan telah mengangkat dan meninggikan pelayanan tempat kudus Kristus. Mereka mengelakkan makna kata-kata Daniel, dan nasihat yang diilhamkan daripada Ellen White, untuk mengajarkan apa yang mereka pilih untuk ajarkan meskipun bertentangan dengan kesaksian kata-kata 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.

> Ya, ia membesarkan dirinya bahkan sampai kepada Panglima bala tentara, dan oleh dia korban sehari-hari dihapuskan, dan tempat tempat kudus-Nya dirobohkan. 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.

Para ahli teologi mengajarkan bahwa ayat itu berarti “melalui kuasa kepausan, pelayanan Kristus di tempat kudus disingkirkan,” dan penyingkiran pelayanan Kristus di tempat kudus dari pikiran manusia didukung oleh kenyataan bahwa sehubungan dengan penyingkiran itu, tempat “tempat kudus”-Nya Kristus “dirobohkan.” Tidak ada satu ayat pun dalam Firman Allah yang menyatakan bahwa tempat kudus sorgawi, yaitu tempat Kristus melaksanakan pengantaraan-Nya, pernah dirobohkan. Demikian pula, tidak ada satu pun bagian Alkitab yang menyatakan bahwa sorga itu sendiri, yang adalah “tempat tempat kudus-Nya”, pernah dirobohkan. Sekali lagi, para teolog menempatkan diri mereka di atas nabi Daniel, sebab mereka bersikeras bahwa “tempat tempat kudus-Nya” dalam ayat itu mengacu kepada tempat kudus Allah, meskipun Daniel mengajarkan kebalikan langsung dari gagasan tersebut.

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.

Bao ba nuat na mingtian te ei tawng mi Hebrew tawng thiam in a tih dan chu, he changah Hebrew tawngkam “rum” hi Hebrew tawngkam “sur” awmzia nen hriat tur a ni an ti. Anni chuan Hebrew tawngkam “miqdash” pawh Hebrew tawngkam “qodesh” angin hriat tur a ni an ti bawk. Daniel bu-ah “miqdash” leh “qodesh” pahnihte hi a tlangpuiin “biak bûk” tia lehlin an ni a, mahse an awmzia chu a dang. “Miqdash” chuan biak bûk eng pawh a entîr thei a, chu chu Pathian biak bûk emaw, milem be mite biak bûk emaw pawh a ni thei. Chu chu biak bûk sawina tawngkam tlangpui a ni a; mahse “qodesh” erawh Bible-ah chuan Pathian biak bûk chauh entîrna atan hman a ni.

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 amatse phapano magareng ga lefelo le lekgethwa la boheitene le lefelo le lekgethwa la Modimo. Ge e ba Daniele a be a tlo šupa lefelo le lekgethwa la boheitene, o be a tla diriša lentšu “miqdash.” Go a makatša go nna gore bao go bolelwago ka bona e le ditsebi tša polelo ya Seheberu ga ba ka ba kgoma le ge e le taba ya gore ditemaneng tše nne tše di latelanago, Daniele o diriša mantšu ka bobedi gararo. Tirišo ya Daniele ya mantšu a mabedi a Seheberu, ka bobedi ao a fetolelwago e le “lefelo le lekgethwa,” e hlaloša tlhalošo yeo Daniele a bego a ikemišeditše gore e kwešišwe.

> 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.

> Ya, ia membesarkan dirinya bahkan sampai kepada penghulu bala tentara itu, dan olehnya korban yang sehari-hari itu dihapuskan, dan tempat kudus-Nya dirobohkan. Dan suatu bala tentara diberikan kepadanya melawan korban yang sehari-hari itu oleh sebab pelanggaran, dan ia melemparkan kebenaran ke tanah; dan ia bertindak, dan berhasil. Lalu aku mendengar seorang kudus berbicara, dan seorang kudus yang lain berkata kepada kudus tertentu yang berbicara itu, Berapa lamakah penglihatan mengenai korban yang sehari-hari itu, dan pelanggaran yang mendatangkan kebinasaan, sehingga baik tempat kudus maupun bala tentara diserahkan untuk diinjak-injak? Dan ia berkata kepadaku, Sampai dua ribu tiga ratus hari; kemudian tempat kudus itu akan ditahirkan. 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.

Dalam bagian yang sama yang memuat dasar Adventisme, Daniel menggunakan dua kata Ibrani yang berbeda yang keduanya diterjemahkan sebagai “bait suci.” Dalam ayat tiga belas dan empat belas, Daniel memilih menggunakan kata Ibrani untuk “bait suci” yang secara biblis hanya digunakan untuk menunjuk kepada bait suci Allah, tetapi dalam ayat sebelas, Daniel menggunakan kata Ibrani yang umum atau generik, yang dapat merujuk kepada bait suci Allah, atau dapat pula merujuk kepada bait suci kafir.

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.”

Sekiranya Daniel mahu mengenal pasti “tempat kudus” dalam ayat sebelas sebagai tempat kudus Allah, dia tentu akan menggunakan perkataan Ibrani yang sama yang digunakannya dua kali dalam tiga ayat berikutnya. Jelas sekali bahawa Daniel sedang membuat suatu perbezaan antara tempat kudus kafir dalam ayat sebelas dengan tempat kudus Allah dalam ayat tiga belas dan empat belas! Namun para pemabuk Efraim berhujah bahawa “tempat tempat kudusnya” yang “dirobohkan” dalam ayat sebelas itu ialah tempat tempat kudus Allah, walaupun mereka mengelakkan perkataan “tempat.”

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.

Mereka mengajarkan bahawa kepausan telah meniadakan pelayanan pengantaraan Kristus dan menjatuhkan kebenaran tentang tempat kudus syurgawi. Tetapi Daniel dengan jelas menyatakan bahawa “tempat kudus” dalam ayat sebelas bukanlah tempat kudus Allah, melainkan suatu tempat kudus kafir. Daniel juga sama jelasnya bahawa yang dijatuhkan itu bukanlah “tempat kudus” itu, melainkan “tempat” tempat kudusnya itu.

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.

Dengan menolak untuk mengakui peralihan gender yang disengajakan dalam ayat sembilan hingga dua belas, para teolog modern mengadopsi definisi “yang sehari-hari” yang berasal dari Protestantisme murtad, lalu mulai membangun suatu dasar di atas pasir sangkaan manusia, tradisi, dan adat kebiasaan. Ketika mereka sampai pada ayat sebelas, mereka bahkan menolak nasihat ilham dari Sister White yang menyatakan bahwa pemahaman Miller tentang “yang sehari-hari” sebagai paganisme adalah benar, dan mulai mempergunakan seni pengelabuan serta sangkaan untuk mempertahankan kecintaan mereka kepada teologi Katolik dan Protestan.

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.

Mereka mengubah Roma pagan menjadi Roma kepausan dalam ayat itu, dan mereka memaksakan makna “menyingkirkan” ke atas kata yang bererti “mengangkat dan meninggikan”. Mereka mentakrifkan lambang Iblis, iaitu “yang berterusan”, sebagai lambang yang ilahi, lalu menegaskan bahawa sebuah kuil pagan ialah bait Allah, sambil mengelakkan rujukan langsung kepada “tempat” tempat kudus itu. Dan golongan “yang tidak terpelajar” (sebagaimana Yesaya mengenal pasti mereka), yang hanya akan memahami jika golongan “terpelajar” memberitahu mereka bahawa demikianlah halnya, menerima hidangan dongeng itu menuju kebinasaan mereka sendiri.

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

Akan re mpṳn la ngaihruaitute kha, Miller’a mang le a ummi suangman ṭha te hmanin a entîrmi hriatna a punna cu, a ra um dingmi article ah kan zawmchih lai.

> “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.

> “Moapostola Paulo o re tlhagisa gore, ‘ba bangwe ba tla tlogela tumelo, ba reetsa meya e timetsang le dithuto tsa bademona.’ Ke se re ka se lebelelang. Diteko tsa rona tse dikgolo di tla tla ka ntlha ya setlhopha seo se kileng sa emela boammaaruri, mme se bo bo fapoga sa ya lefatsheng, sa bo gataka ka dinao ka letlhoo le tshotlo. Modimo o na le tiro eo a e abetseng batlhanka ba gagwe ba ba ikanyegang. Ditlhaselo tsa mmaba di tshwanetse go kgatlhanngwa ka boammaaruri jwa Lefoko la gagwe. Maaka a tshwanetse go senolwa, semelo sa one sa mmatota se tshwanetse go bonadiwa, mme lesedi la molao wa ga Jehofa le tshwanetse go phatsima la tsena mo lefifing la boitsholo la lefatshe. Re tshwanetse go baya fa pele ditshwanelo tsa Lefoko la gagwe. Ga re kitla re bo re se na molato fa re tlhokomologa tiro eno e e boitshegang. Mme le fa re eme re sireletsa boammaaruri, a re se keng ra ema re sireletsa bo rona, le go dira modumo o mogolo ka ntlha ya gore re bidiwa go rwala kgobo le go emelwa ka tsela e e sa siamang. A re se keng ra ikuela botlhoko, mme a re nne pelotlhomogi thata ka ntlha ya molao wa Mogodimodimo.”

> “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.’

> បាន​មាន​សេចក្ដី​ថា សាវក​មាន​ប្រសាសន៍​ថា «ដ្បិត នឹង​មាន​គ្រា​មក ដល់​ពេល​ដែល​គេ​មិន​អត់ទ្រាំ​នឹង​សេចក្ដី​បង្រៀន​ដ៏​ត្រឹមត្រូវ​ទេ ប៉ុន្តែ​តាម​សេចក្ដី​ប៉ងប្រាថ្នា​របស់​ខ្លួន គេ​នឹង​ប្រមូល​គ្រូ​ទុក​សម្រាប់​ខ្លួន​ជា​ច្រើន ដោយ​មាន​ត្រចៀក​រមាស់ ហើយ​គេ​នឹង​បង្វែរ​ត្រចៀក​ចេញ​ពី​សេចក្ដី​ពិត ហើយ​នឹង​បែរ​ទៅ​រឿង​ព្រេង​វិញ»។ នៅ​គ្រប់​ទិសទី យើង​ឃើញ​មនុស្ស​ត្រូវ​បាន​នាំ​ឲ្យ​ជាប់​ជា​ឈ្លើយ​ដោយ​ងាយ ដោយ​សារ​ការ​ស្រមើស្រមៃ​បោកបញ្ឆោត​របស់​អ្នក​ដែល​ធ្វើ​ឲ្យ​ព្រះបន្ទូល​របស់​ព្រះ​ជា​អសារ​បង់; ប៉ុន្តែ នៅ​ពេល​សេចក្ដី​ពិត​ត្រូវ​បាន​ដាក់​បង្ហាញ​នៅ​ចំពោះ​មុខ​ពួកគេ នោះ​ពួកគេ​ពោរពេញ​ដោយ​ការ​អត់ធ្មត់​មិន​បាន និង​កំហឹង។ ប៉ុន្តែ សេចក្ដី​ទូន្មាន​របស់​សាវក​ដល់​អ្នក​បម្រើ​របស់​ព្រះ​គឺ​ថា «ចូរ​ប្រុងប្រយ័ត្ន​ក្នុង​គ្រប់​ការ ចូរ​ស៊ូទ្រាំ​នឹង​ទុក្ខ​លំបាក ចូរ​ធ្វើ​ការ​របស់​អ្នក​ផ្សាយ​ដំណឹងល្អ ហើយ​ចូរ​បំពេញ​កិច្ច​បម្រើ​របស់​អ្នក​ឲ្យ​គ្រប់លេញ»។ នៅ​សម័យ​របស់​លោក មាន​អ្នក​ខ្លះ​បាន​បោះបង់​ចោល​បុព្វហេតុ​របស់​ព្រះអម្ចាស់។ លោក​សរសេរ​ថា «ដេម៉ាស​បាន​បោះបង់​ខ្ញុំ​ចោល​ទៅ​ហើយ ដោយ​ស្រឡាញ់​លោកិយ​បច្ចុប្បន្ន​នេះ»; ហើយ​ម្ដង​ទៀត លោក​មាន​ប្រសាសន៍​ថា «អាឡិចសាន់ឌ័រ ជាង​ដែក​ស្ពាន់ បាន​ធ្វើ​អាក្រក់​ដល់​ខ្ញុំ​ជា​ច្រើន: សូម​ព្រះអម្ចាស់​តបស្នង​ដល់​គាត់​តាម​ការ​ដែល​គាត់​បាន​ប្រព្រឹត្ត: ចូរ​ប្រុងប្រយ័ត្ន​ពី​គាត់​ដែរ ព្រោះ​គាត់​បាន​ប្រឆាំង​នឹង​ពាក្យ​របស់​យើង​យ៉ាង​ខ្លាំង»។

> “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.

> “Baporofeti le baapostola ba ile ba feta ditsietsing tse tshwanang tsa kganetso le kgobošo, gomme le Kwana ya Modimo ye e se nago bosodi e ile ya lekwa dilong tšohle go swana le rena. O kgotleletše kganetšo ya badiradibe kgahlanong le yena ka noši.

> “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.

> “Amaran pahiin hrang hrang chu hun hian rinawm takin a puan chhuah tur a ni; mahse, ‘Lalpa rawngbawlpa chuan intau lo tur a ni; mi zawng zawng hnenah thuhla takin, zirtir thei takin, tuar thei takin; anmahni mahni inkalh te chu nunnem takin zirtir tur a ni.’ Kan Pathian thu te hi fimkhur takin kan vawng tur a ni, ringlohna an kalsan tawh mite bumna hnathawh avanga kan tihbawlhsak loh nan. Kan Puipatepa chu thim lalpa’n a rawn bei khan a hman hmanrua ang bawkin an thlarau leh an h influence chu kan do tur a ni,—‘Ziaka a awm.’ Pathian Thu hmang thiam turin kan zir tur a ni. Fuihna chu hei hi a ni, ‘Nangmah Pathian hmaah pawm tlaka inlan turin zir rawh; zahawm loh tur awm lova thawktu, thutak thu dik taka then hrang thiam.’ Zirtirtu dik lo leh bumtu te chhiatna hripui ang zelin kalh theih nan, thawh rim tak, tawngtaihna tak tak, leh rinna a ngai; ‘ni hnuhnungah hun hlauhawm tak a lo thleng dawn’ tih avangin. ‘Mihringte chu anmahni ngei hmangaih, sum hmangaih, chhuangchhia, chapo, Pathian sawisel, nu leh pa thu awih lo, lawmthu sawi lo, thianghlim lo, hmangaihna pianpui nei lo, remna siam duh lo, mi hehchhiahtu, mahni inthunun thei lo, rual lo tak, tha tihte hmuhsit, bumna nei, rilru hruai lova thawk, inthupuisak, Pathian hmangaih aiin nawmsak hmangaih zawk an ni ang; Pathian biakna ang pu takin, a thiltihtheihna erawh an hnawl ang: chutiang mite lakah chuan kian ang che u.’ Hêng thu te hian Pathian rawngbawltute’n an tawh tur mihringte nungchang a sawi fiah a. ‘Mi hehchhiahtute,’ ‘tha tihte hmuhsitte’ chuan he hun sual tawrh takah hian an Pathian rinawm taka zuitu te chu an be dawn a ni. Mahse, Vana tirhkoh chuan Puipatepa’n a lantir thlarau kha a lantir ve tur a ni. Inhnialna nei lova inngaitlawmna leh hmangaihnain, mihringte chhandamna atan a thawh tur a ni.”

> “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 a tsoela pele mabapi le ba hanyetsang mosebetsi oa Molimo, a ba bapisa le banna ba ileng ba loantša ba tšepahalang mehleng ea Iseraele oa boholo-holo. O re: ‘Joale joalo ka ha Jannese le Jambrese ba ile ba hanyetsa Moshe, le bona bana ba hanyetsa ’nete; ke batho ba nang le likelello tse silafetseng, ba lahliloeng tabeng ea tumelo. Empa ba ke ke ba tsoela pele ho feta moo; hobane bohlanya ba bona bo tla bonahala ho batho bohle, joalo ka ha le ba bona bo ile ba bonahala.’ Rea tseba hore nako ea tla eo ka eona bohlanya ba ho loantša Molimo bo tla senoloa. Re ka khona ho leta ka mamello e khutsitseng le ka tšepo, ho sa tsotellehe hore na re nyefoloa le ho nyatsoa hakae; hobane ‘ha ho letho le patehileng le ke keng la senoloa,’ ’me ba hlomphang Molimo ba tla hlomphuoa ke eena pela batho le mangeloi. Re tshwanetse ho ba le kabelo mahlomoleng a bafetoheli. Ho ngoliloe hore: ‘Linyefolo tsa ba neng ba u nyefola li oetse holim’a ka.’ Kreste o utloisisa bohloko ba rōna. Ha ho le a mong ho rōna ea bitselitsoeng ho jara sefapano a le mong. Monna ea utloileng bohloko oa Kalvari o angoa ke kutloelo-bohloko bakeng sa mahlomola a rōna, ’me kaha eena ka boeena o utloile bohloko ha a ne a lekoa, o khona le ho thusa ba leng mahlomoleng le litekong ka lebaka la hae. ‘E, le bohle ba ratang ho phela ka bomolimo ho Kreste Jesu ba tla hlorisoa. Empa batho ba babe le bathetsi ba tla mpefala le ho feta, ba khelosa, ’me le bona ba khelosoe. Empa u tsoele pele linthong tseo u ithutileng tsona.’” Review and Herald, January 10, 1888.

Back to Articles