Article

# The Book of Daniel - Number Forty-Seven

Ìwé Dáníẹ́lì - Nọ́mbà Méjelelógójì

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

Ṣíṣí Ìbojú Kúrò Lórí Àwọn Ẹ̀kọ́ Èké: Ìtúpalẹ̀ Alárìnlẹ̀wò nípa Dáníẹ́lì 8 àti Àwọn Ìpenija sí Ẹ̀kọ́-ìgbàgbọ́ Adventist

Author

Jeff Pippenger

Published

January 11, 2024

Formats

PDF
Word
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.

Nígbà tí a ṣàfihàn ìwo kékeré ti Róòmù nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹsàn-án títí dé kejìlá ti orí kẹjọ Dáníẹ́lì, ó jẹ́ ààmì tí a ti bàjẹ́, nítorí pé ó jẹ́ ààmì ìfarahàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí ẹni tí ń wọ aṣọ ìbálòpọ̀ kejì rẹ̀, ẹni tí ń yí padà láàárín akọ àti abo. Ó bá òye àwọn Míléráìtì mu pé a ṣàfihàn Róòmù nípasẹ̀ ìpele méjì, ìpele àkọ́kọ́ sì ni ìṣàkóso ìjọba Róòmù, ìpele kejì sì ni ìṣàkóso ìjọ Róòmù; ṣùgbọ́n nínú yíyípadà láàárín akọ àti abo nínú àwọn ẹsẹ̀ wọ̀nyí, ìwo kékeré náà ti jáde kúrò nínú ìtòlẹ́sẹẹsẹ ìtàn àti àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ (ó bàjẹ́). Síbẹ̀, ọkọọkan àwọn ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́rin náà ń ṣojú ìtàn tí ó ní ìbáṣepọ̀ tààrà pẹ̀lú ìṣàkóso ìjọba Róòmù tàbí ìṣàkóso ìjọ Róòmù. Róòmù aláìgbọ́ràn sí Kristi ti kèfì gbogbo àwọn tí wọ́n tako àṣẹ ìjọba ọba rẹ̀, ṣùgbọ́n inúnibíni Róòmù póòpù (abo) nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹwàá jẹ́ ohun tí a dojú kọ ní pàtó sí ọ̀run.

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.

Nínú ìmọ̀ Millerite pé Róòmù ni ìjọba kẹrin àti ti ìkẹyìn, yíyípadà láti ìpínlẹ̀ sí ìjọ, àti láti ìjọ padà sí ìpínlẹ̀, kì bá ti jẹ́ ohun ìbànújẹ fún wọn. Wọ́n ti rí àdàpọ̀ irin àti amọ̀ nínú ẹsẹ̀ àwòrán náà nínú Danieli orí kejì, wọ́n sì kan lóye rẹ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìpele méjì ti Róòmù, láìní ìfẹ́kúfẹ̀ẹ́ láti ṣe àlàyé ìtẹ̀lé ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ ìtàn kan pàtó ti ìjọba kẹrin àti ìkarùn-ún. Bákan náà ni wọ́n lóye orí keje, níbi tí ìwo tí ó ń sọ ọ̀rọ̀ ńlá-ńlá sí Ọ̀gá-ogo Jùlọ, ti fà ìwo mẹ́ta jáde kúrò lára àwọn ìwo mẹ́wàá àkọ́kọ́ ti ẹranko Róòmù. Bí ó tilẹ̀ jẹ́ pé Miller lè ti mọ yíyípadà akọ-abo tí ẹsẹ̀ kẹsàn-án títí dé kejìlá fihàn, kò ní ṣe pàtàkì sí ìmọ̀ rẹ̀ pé Róòmù ni ìjọba kẹrin. Nínú ìmọ̀ Millerite, ìjọba kẹrin parí ní ọdún 1798, ìṣẹ̀lẹ̀ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ tí ó sì tẹ̀ lé e ni Ìpadàbọ̀ Kejì ti Kristi.

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

Ìwo abo náà ń ṣe ìdánimọ̀ obìnrin tí ó ń ṣe àgbèrè ní ti ẹ̀mí pẹ̀lú ìwo akọ náà, a sì ṣàpẹẹrẹ rẹ̀ nínú ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́wàá àti ẹsẹ̀ kejìlá.

> 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.

> Ó sì di ńlá, àní títí dé ogun ọ̀run; ó sì sọ díẹ̀ nínú ogun náà àti nínú àwọn ìràwọ̀ kalẹ̀ sí ilẹ̀, ó sì tẹ̀ wọ́n mọ́lẹ̀. Daniel 8:10.

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

Ìnúnibíni agbára póòpù náà ni a tọ́ka sí lòdì sí Ìsìn Kristẹni (ogun ọ̀run), àti nínú ẹsẹ̀ kejìlá, Róòmù póòpù (abo), gba agbára láti mú iṣẹ́ apànìyàn rẹ̀ ṣẹ nípasẹ̀ ẹ̀ṣẹ̀ ìṣekúṣe pẹ̀lú àwọn ọba ilẹ̀ Yúróòpù.

> 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.

> A sì fi ogun fún un sí ìrúbọ àìnípẹ̀kun náà nítorí ìrékọjá; ó sì sọ òtítọ́ lulẹ̀ sí ilẹ̀; ó sì ṣe bẹ́ẹ̀, ó sì ṣe àṣeyọrí. Dáníẹ́lì 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.”

“Ogun-ogun” tí a mẹ́nuba nínú ẹsẹ̀ náà dúró fún agbára ológun tí a fi fún ipò pàápà “sí ọ̀dọ̀ ojoojúmọ́.” Ọ̀rọ̀ náà “sí ọ̀dọ̀” túmọ̀ sí “láti ọ̀dọ̀”. Láti ọ̀dọ̀ àwọn ọba keferi ti Yúróòpù (Róòmù keferi), tí “ojoojúmọ́” ń ṣojú fún, ni a ti fi ìrànlọ́wọ́ ológun (“ogun-ogun”) fún ipò pàápà “nítorí ẹ̀ṣẹ̀ ìrékọjá.” Ìpapọ̀ ìjọ àti ìpínlẹ̀, pẹ̀lú pé ìjọ ni ó ń darí ìbáṣepọ̀ náà, ni “ẹ̀ṣẹ̀ ìrékọjá” náà. Wáìnì ẹ̀ṣẹ̀ ìrékọjá náà ni ẹ̀jẹ̀ àwọn Kristẹni. Nígbà tí ipò pàápà ti ní àkóso lórí àwọn ọmọ-ogun Róòmù keferi, Róòmù ti pàápà (“ó”) “sòótọ́ lulẹ̀ sí ilẹ̀; ó sì ṣe, ó sì ṣàṣeyọrí.”

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

Nínú Dáníẹ́lì orí kọkànlá, ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlélọ́gbọ̀n, fífi àwọn ọmọ-ogun lé Róòmù Pápá lọ́wọ́ ni a tún ṣàfihàn:

> 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.

> Àwọn apá-ogun yóò sì dìde ní ipò rẹ̀, wọn yóò sì bà ibi-mímọ́ agbára náà jẹ́, wọn yóò sì mú ẹbọ àìnídákẹ́jẹ́ kúrò, wọn yóò sì gbé ohun ìríra tí ń mú ìdahoro dé kalẹ̀. Danieli 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.

Ẹsẹ náà ń tọ́ka sí ìyípadà ìtàn láti Romu aláìsìn-òrìṣà sí Romu Pápà. Nínú ẹsẹ náà, “àwọn apá” náà ni àwọn ọba Yúróòpù tí wọ́n bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í dìde láti ṣètìlẹ́yìn fún ipò Pápà, bẹ̀rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú Kílófísì, ọba àwọn Franks (France), ní ọdún 496. “Àwọn apá” náà pẹ̀lú ba “ibi mímọ́ agbára” jẹ́ (ìlú Romu), nípasẹ̀ ogun tí kò dáwọ́ dúró láti ọ̀rúndún kẹrin lọ títí dé ọdún 538. “Àwọn apá” náà sì tún yọ ìfaradà aláìsìn-òrìṣà kúrò sí ìdàgbàsókè ipò Pápà, àti pé ní ọdún 508, ìfaradà aláìsìn-òrìṣà náà ti dópin.

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.

Ọ̀rọ̀ tí a túmọ̀ sí “gbé kúrò,” ni ọ̀rọ̀ Hébérù náà “sur,” ó sì túmọ̀ sí “yọ kúrò.” “Àwọn apá ogun” gbé “ìríra tí ń mú ìparun wá” (pápásì) kalẹ̀ lórí ìtẹ́ ayé ní ọdún 538. Nígbà tí Dáníẹ́lì orí kẹjọ, ẹsẹ̀ kejìlá, sọ pé “ogun kan” ni a fi fún ìwo kékeré abo náà, ó ń bá ẹ̀rí ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlélọ́gbọ̀n ti orí kọkànlá mu. Ìwé Ìfihàn náà pẹ̀lú jẹ́rìí sí òtítọ́ kan náà ní orí kẹtàlá.

> 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.

> Ẹranko náà tí mo sì rí dàbí amotekun; ẹsẹ̀ rẹ̀ sì dàbí ẹsẹ̀ béárì, ẹnu rẹ̀ sì dàbí ẹnu kìnnìún: dragoni náà sì fi agbára rẹ̀, àti ìtẹ́ rẹ̀, àti àṣẹ ńlá fún un. Ìfihàn 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.”

Arábìnrin White sọ ní tààrà pé ẹranko inú ẹsẹ̀ kejì náà ni ẹ̀ṣẹ́ ìpapacy, àti pé dragoni inú ẹsẹ̀ náà ni Romu aláìjẹ́-kristẹni. Romu aláìjẹ́-kristẹni fi ohun mẹ́ta fún ẹ̀ṣẹ́ ìpapacy; “agbára rẹ̀, àti ìtẹ́ rẹ̀, àti àṣẹ ńlá.”

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.”

A fi agbára ológun náà fún Romu keferi, bẹ̀rẹ̀ pẹ̀lú Clovis ní ọdún 496. “Ìtẹ́” láti inú rẹ̀ láti ṣàkóso ni a fi fún ipò pāápù ní ọdún 330, nígbà tí ọba-ọba Constantine kó olú-ìlú rẹ̀ lọ sí Constantinople, ó sì fi Romu, ìlú olú-ìlú rẹ̀ àtẹ̀yìnwá, sílẹ̀ lábẹ́ ìṣàkóso ìjọ pāápù. Ní ọdún 533, ọba-ọba Justinian pàṣẹ pé pāápù ni olórí ìjọ àti olùtúnṣe àwọn aláṣìṣe ẹ̀kọ́, ó sì yí “agbára ńlá” rẹ̀ padà fún pāápù Romu. Ẹsẹ̀ kejìlá nínú Daniẹli orí kẹjọ ṣe àfihàn àkókò tí a fi “ogun” kan fún un, a sì jẹ́rìí òtítọ́ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ náà lórí ọ̀pọ̀ ẹlẹ́rìí. Láti àkókò náà lọ (bẹ̀rẹ̀ ní ọdún 496), ipò pāápù náà “ṣe àṣeyọrí.”

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.

Yóò máa bá a lọ láti “ṣe” àti láti “ṣàṣeyọrí” títí di ìgbà tí ìbínú sí ìjọba àríwá Ísírẹ́lì yóò fi dópin ní ọdún 1798, tí ipá póòpù sì gba ọgbẹ́ ikú rẹ̀.

> 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.

> Ọba náà yóò sì ṣe gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìfẹ́ ara rẹ̀; yóò sì gbé ara rẹ̀ ga, yóò sì fi ara rẹ̀ ṣe ńlá ju gbogbo ọlọ́run lọ, yóò sì sọ àwọn ohun àgbàyanu sí Ọlọ́run àwọn ọlọ́run; yóò sì ṣàṣeyọrí títí ìbínú náà yóò fi pé: nítorí ohun tí a ti pinu yóò ṣẹ. 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.

Ẹsẹ kẹsàn-án ti orí kẹjọ ṣe àpèjúwe Romu akọ (Romu keferi), ó sì ṣojú ìlànà ìṣẹ́gun ìpele mẹ́ta tí Romu keferi ṣẹ́, èyí tí ó sì jẹ́ àpẹẹrẹ àwọn agbègbè ilẹ̀ mẹ́ta tí a ó ṣẹ́gun kí a tó fi Romu papalì kalẹ̀ lórí ìtẹ́ ayé, gẹ́gẹ́ bí a ti ṣojú rẹ̀ nípasẹ̀ ìwo mẹ́ta tí a fà jáde ní orí keje. Àwọn ìṣẹ́gun ìpele mẹ́ta méjèèjì wọ̀nyí ti Romu keferi àti Romu papalì ṣojú àwọn ìdènà agbègbè ilẹ̀ mẹ́ta ti Romu òde-òní, nínú ẹsẹ̀ ogójì títí dé ogójì-mẹ́ta ti Daniẹli mọ́kànlá. Nígbà náà, nínú orí kẹjọ, ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá, ìwo kékeré akọ (Romu keferi) tún jẹ́ aṣojú lẹ́ẹ̀kansi. Nínú ẹsẹ̀ náà, ọgbọ́n mímọ́ jẹ́ pípa tó bẹ́ẹ̀ gẹ́gẹ́, tí a fi mú àwọn ẹlẹ́yà ènìyàn tí ń ṣe àkóso Jerusalẹmu láti fi ọ̀pọ̀ irọ̀ ẹ̀kọ́-ìsìn wọlé kí wọ́n lè gbé ìpìlẹ̀ àrò wọn ró.

> 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.

> Bẹ́ẹ̀ ni, ó gbé ara rẹ̀ ga títí dé ọ̀dọ̀ olórí ogun náà, àti nípasẹ̀ rẹ̀ ni a mú ẹbọ ìràpadà ojoojúmọ́ kúrò, a sì wó ibi mímọ́ rẹ̀ lulẹ̀. Danieli 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.

Bí a ti ń bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í tọ́ka sí àwọn owó àti àwọn iyebíye àròsọ tí a ti mú wọ Adventism láti ọdún 1863 wá, ó yẹ kí a ṣàkíyèsí pé pápá méjì pàtàkì wà ti ẹ̀rí-imọ̀ ẹ̀kọ́-òrun tí a ń pe ní tiwọ́n, èyí tí Adventism ń fi yangàn, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìpìlẹ̀ wọn fún dídìmọ́ mú àwọn ẹ̀kọ́ ti Protestantism apasẹ̀ àti ti Kátólíìkì. Ìdíje tí àwọn onímọ̀ ẹ̀kọ́-òrun òde-òní ti Adventism ń ṣe ni pé wọ́n jẹ́ amòye nínú ìtàn Bibeli, tàbí amòye nínú àwọn èdè Bibeli. Bí wọ́n ṣe ń lò ẹsẹ̀ náà fi hàn pé ọ̀rọ̀ àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ ti di bí ìwé tí a fi èdìdì dì fún wọn, ó sì tún fi hàn pé ìdíje wọn pé àwọn jẹ́ amòye nínú àwọn èdè Bibeli jẹ́ ìfarahàn Farisaismu ní ìgbà òde-òní lásán.

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.

Àkọ́kọ́ ni àìka ìyípadà láàárín akọ àti abo fún ìwo kékeré náà nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹsàn-án títí dé kejìlá. Bí wọ́n bá jẹ́ amòye gidi nínú èdè Hébérù, wọn kì yóò sẹ́, tàbí dín kù, òtítọ́ náà pé Dáníẹ́lì fi ìmọ̀ọ́mọ̀ lo ìyípadà akọ àti abo nínú àwọn ẹsẹ̀ náà. A ṣàfihàn ìwo kékeré náà ní akọ àti ní abo pẹ̀lú, àwọn akọ àti abo náà sì ń lọ sẹ́yìn-siwájú láàárín àwọn ẹsẹ̀ náà. Àwọn onímọ̀ ẹ̀kọ́ ẹ̀sìn ń gbìyànjú láti bo òtítọ́ yìí pẹ̀lú ìdọ̀tí àti owó àdàkọ, nítorí ó fi hàn gbangba pé ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá ń tọ́ka sí Róòmù aláìgbàgbọ́, kì í ṣe Róòmù Pápà. Dájúdájú ni wọ́n ń tẹnu mọ́ ọn pé ìwo kékeré ti ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá ni póòpù, nígbà tí ó jẹ́ Róòmù aláìgbàgbọ́ ní tòótọ́.

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).

Nígbà tí a bá ti jẹ́wọ́ pé méjì nínú àwọn ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́rin nípa ìwo kékeré náà jẹ́ akọ, tí méjì sì jẹ́ abo, nígbà náà ó rọrùn láti fi òtítọ́ Bíbélì náà kún un pé obìnrin nínú àsọtẹ́lẹ̀ Bíbélì dúró fún ìjọ, ọkùnrin sì dúró fún ìpínlẹ̀. Ìmọ̀ yìí jẹ́ kí gbogbo àwọn tí ó fẹ́ rí i mọ̀ pé ìwo kékeré tí ó wà nínú ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá jẹ́ Róòmù akọ (Róòmù abọ̀rìṣà), kì í ṣe Róòmù abo (Róòmù póòpù).

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.”

Nítorí náà, a lóye ẹsẹ náà gẹ́gẹ́ bí ẹ̀kọ́ pé Róòmù abọ̀rìṣà (òun) gbé ara rẹ̀ ga sí ọba ogun náà, gẹ́gẹ́ bí Róòmù abọ̀rìṣà ti ṣe nígbà tí ó gbé ọba ogun náà lé orí àgbélébùú Kalfárì. Kì í ṣe pé Róòmù abọ̀rìṣà nìkan ló gbé ara rẹ̀ ga sí Kristi ní orí àgbélébùú, ẹsẹ náà tún ń tẹ̀síwájú láti sọ pé nípasẹ̀ rẹ̀ (Róòmù abọ̀rìṣà) “a mú ẹbọ ojoojúmọ́ kúrò.”

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.

Nínú ìwé Dáníẹ́lì, ọ̀rọ̀ Heberu méjì wà tí a túmọ̀ sí “gbà kúrò” tàbí “mú kúrò.” Àwọn ọ̀rọ̀ náà ni “sur” àti “rum”. A lo àwọn ọ̀rọ̀ méjèèjì nínú iṣẹ́ ilé mímọ́. “Sur” túmọ̀ sí gbà kúrò tàbí yọ kúrò, àti nígbà tí a yọ eérú kúrò lórí pẹpẹ nínú ilé mímọ́, ọ̀rọ̀ tí a lò láti ṣàpèjúwe yíyọ eérú náà ni “sur”. Ọ̀rọ̀ náà “rum” túmọ̀ sí gbé sókè àti gbéga, àti nígbà tí àlùfáà nínú ilé mímọ́ bá ní láti gbé ẹbọ ìfì sókè, ó ní láti “rum” (gbé sókè) ẹbọ náà. Nínú ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá, Róòmù keferi (“ìgbà gbogbo”) yóò “rum” (gbà kúrò) ẹ̀sìn keferi nípa gbígbé sókè àti gbígbéga ẹ̀sìn keferi.

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.

Róòmù Keferi yóò gbé ẹ̀sìn kèfèrí ga, yóò sì gbé e sókè. Àwọn onímọ̀ ìsìn Adventist tí wọ́n ń jẹ́wọ́ pé àwọn jẹ́ amòye nínú àwọn èdè Bíbélì yan láti tú gbogbo ìfarahàn ọ̀rọ̀ náà “mú kúrò” nínú ìwé Dáníẹ́lì gẹ́gẹ́ bí “yọ kúrò”. Wọ́n kùnà láti jẹ́wọ́ ìkọ̀wé Dáníẹ́lì tó yàtọ̀ tí ó sì péye, nítorí náà wọ́n fi ara wọn sí ipò tí ó ga ju wòlíì Dáníẹ́lì lọ.

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.”

Àwọn onímọ̀ ẹ̀kọ́ ìsìn tí wọ́n ń jẹ́wọ́ pé àwọn lóye àwọn èdè Bíbélì ń gbé àwọn àríyànjiyàn kalẹ̀ láti dájọ́ ìdí tí Dáníẹ́lì fi ní ète láti túmọ̀ sí ohun kan náà nígbà tí ó lo ọ̀rọ̀ méjì tí ó yàtọ̀. Wọ́n ń ṣe àwọn ìwádìí gígùn tí ó sì ń rẹni nínú lórí ọ̀rọ̀ láti fi gbé àwọn ìbéèrè irọ́ wọn dúró. Àwọn onímọ̀ ẹ̀kọ́ ìsìn tí wọ́n ń jẹ́wọ́ pé àwọn lóye ìtàn Bíbélì ń jiyàn pé ìlò èké náà dá lórí ìmòye pé ní àwọn àkókò ìtàn tí ó yàtọ̀, ọ̀rọ̀ kan náà lè túmọ̀ sí ohun tí ó yàtọ̀, nítorí náà nígbà tí Dáníẹ́lì lo ọ̀rọ̀ méjì tí ó yàtọ̀, amòye ìtàn nìkan ni ó lè mọ ohun tí Dáníẹ́lì túmọ̀ sí ní tòótọ́. Ó ṣe pàtàkì láti dá àwọn ọ̀nà èké méjèèjì wọ̀nyí mọ̀, nítorí a máa ń lò wọ́n lọ́pọ̀ ìgbà láàrín àwọn onímọ̀ ẹ̀kọ́ ìsìn tí wọ́n ń wá ọ̀nà láti fi fara pamọ́ kúrò nínú ọ̀nà ìlànà “ìlà lórí ìlà.”

> 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.

> Bẹ́ẹ̀ ni, ó gbé ara rẹ̀ ga títí dé ọ̀dọ̀ olórí ogun náà, àti nípasẹ̀ rẹ̀ ni a ti mú ẹbọ ojoojúmọ́ kúrò, a sì sọ ibi mímọ́ rẹ̀ di ahoro. Danieli 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.”

Ọ̀rọ̀ tí a túmọ̀ sí “a mú kúrò” nínú ẹsẹ̀ náà túmọ̀ sí “gbé sókè kí a sì gbé ga.” Kò túmọ̀ sí yíyọ kúrò. Òtítọ́ yìí ń dá ìdàrúdàpọ̀ àti ìtakora sílẹ̀ fún àwọn onímọ̀-ìjìnlẹ̀ ẹ̀sìn Adventist, nítorí pé àwọn ìpìlẹ̀ èrò wọn kò lè dúró níwájú àyẹ̀wò rọrùn ti ẹsẹ̀ náà, nígbà tí a bá lo ìtumọ̀ gidi ti ọ̀rọ̀ tí Daniẹli lò sí ẹsẹ̀ náà. Wọ́n jiyàn pé ìwo kékeré inú ẹsẹ̀ náà ni Romu papal, nítorí náà ẹsẹ̀ náà yóò ka pé “nípasẹ̀ rẹ̀” (Romu papal) “ni a gbé ojoojúmọ́ náà sókè.”

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.

Dájúdájú wọn kò ní ìṣòro kankan láti fi ọ̀rọ̀ àfikún náà kún un, èyí tí Sister White sọ ní tààrà pé ọgbọ́n ènìyàn ló fi kún un, tí kò sì kan ẹsẹ̀ ọ̀rọ̀ náà.

> “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.

> “Nígbà náà ni mo rí ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú ‘ìgbà gbogbo’ (Danieli 8:12) pé ọ̀rọ̀ náà ‘ẹbọ’ ni ọgbọ́n ènìyàn fi kún un, àti pé kò jẹ́ ti ọ̀rọ̀ náà, àti pé Olúwa fi òye tí ó tọ́ nípa rẹ̀ hàn fún àwọn tí wọ́n ké igbe wákàtí ìdájọ́ náà.” 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”.

Wọ́n ń tọ́ka sí “ojoojúmọ́” gẹ́gẹ́ bí iṣẹ́ ìránṣẹ́ Kristi nínú ibi mímọ́ rẹ̀, nítorí náà “ẹbọ ojoojúmọ́” ń gbé èrò náà ró pé “ojoojúmọ́” ni iṣẹ́ ẹbọ Kristi nínú ibi mímọ́ ọ̀run. Ṣùgbọ́n ìmísí fi hàn pé ọ̀rọ̀ náà “ẹbọ” “kò sí nínú ẹsẹ̀ náà”.

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.

Nígbà tí àwọn ọ̀mùtípara Éféraimu bá ń sọ “ìṣe ojoojúmọ́” di iṣẹ́ mímọ́ ilé-mímọ́ Kristi, ẹsẹ̀ náà yóò sì ka pé, “nípasẹ̀ rẹ̀” (Romu ìjọpápá) “a kó ìṣe ojoojúmọ́ kúrò,” tàbí yóò ka pé, “nípasẹ̀ agbára ìjọpápá, a kó iṣẹ́ ìránṣẹ́ ilé-mímọ́ Kristi kúrò.” Wọ́n ń kọ́ irọ́ yìí ní tòótọ́. Wọ́n ń tẹnu mọ́ ọn pé nípasẹ̀ òkùnkùn ìṣàkóso ìjọpápá, a mú òye tòótọ́ nípa iṣẹ́ ìránṣẹ́ ilé-mímọ́ Kristi kúrò nínú ọkàn àwọn ènìyàn.

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?

Síbẹ̀, ọ̀rọ̀ tí a túmọ̀ sí “gbà kúrò,” kò túmọ̀ sí yí kúrò; ó túmọ̀ sí gbé sókè àti gbé ga. Bí àwọn tí wọ́n ń pe ara wọn ní amòye nínú àwọn èdè Bíbélì bá fi ìtumọ̀ ọ̀rọ̀ Hébérù “rum” sí apá ọ̀rọ̀ náà ní ọ̀nà tó tọ́, ìtumọ̀ wọn yóò ní láti sọ pé, “nípasẹ̀ agbára póòpù, iṣẹ́ ìránṣẹ́ mímọ́ Kristi nínú ibi mímọ́ ni a gbé sókè tí a sì gbé ga.” Nígbà wo ni ipá póòpù ti gbé Kristi sókè tí ó sì ti gbé e ga rí?

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.

Wọ́n ń wá ọ̀nà láti fi ìtumọ̀ ọ̀rọ̀ Heberu náà “sur” kàn mọ́ ọ̀rọ̀ Heberu náà “rum.” Dáníẹ́lì lo ọ̀rọ̀ náà “sur,” tí ó túmọ̀ sí yíyọ kúrò, ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú “ojoojúmọ́” nínú ẹsẹ̀ míràn méjì; ṣùgbọ́n nínú ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá, Dáníẹ́lì yan ọ̀rọ̀ náà “rum” tí ó túmọ̀ sí gbígbé sókè àti gbíga. Kì í ṣe pé àwo ìtàn asán nípa ẹsẹ̀ yìí nìkan jẹ́ òmùgọ̀ nítorí yíyí ìtumọ̀ ọ̀rọ̀ tí a túmọ̀ sí “mú kúrò” pa dà, ṣùgbọ́n kò sí ìgbà kankan tí iṣẹ́ ìránṣẹ́ Kristi nínú ibi mímọ́ rẹ̀ ti jẹ́ yíyọ kúrò lọ́dọ̀ ènìyàn ní ọ̀nà kankan.

> 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.

> Ṣùgbọ́n ọkùnrin yìí, nítorí pé ó wà títí láé, ó ní àlùfáàní tí kò lè yí padà. Nítorí náà, ó sì lè gbà wọ́n là pátápátá, àwọn tí ń tọ̀ ọ́ wá sọ́dọ̀ Ọlọ́run, nípa tirẹ̀, nítorí pé ó wà láàyè títí láé láti bẹ̀bẹ̀ fún wọn. Heberu 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!

Láti sọ pé, gẹ́gẹ́ bí àwọn onímọ̀ ẹ̀sìn Adventist ṣe ń ṣe, nínú ìgbìyànjú láti fi gbé ìlò àṣìṣe wọn ti ẹsẹ̀ náà ró, pé àkókò kan wà nígbà tí ipápà lè lo irú agbára kan láti mú ìbẹ̀bẹ̀ Kristi nínú ibi mímọ́ Rẹ̀ kúrò, jẹ́ ohun asán!

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.

Ṣùgbọ́n àwọn onímọ̀ ẹ̀sìn kò kọ́ni pé ẹsẹ̀ náà fi hàn pé ipò pàápàá gbé iṣẹ́ ìránṣẹ́ ibi mímọ́ Kristi sókè, ó sì gbé e ga. Wọ́n yàgò fún ìtumọ̀ ọ̀rọ̀ Dáníẹ́lì, àti ìmọ̀ràn tí a mí sí Ellen White, láti kọ́ ohun tí wọ́n bá yàn láti kọ́, láìka ẹ̀rí ọ̀rọ̀ Dáníẹ́lì sí.

> 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.

> Bẹ́ẹ̀ ni, ó gbé ara rẹ̀ ga títí dé ọ̀dọ̀ olórí ogun náà, àti nípasẹ̀ rẹ̀ ni a mú ẹbọ ojoojúmọ́ kúrò, a sì wó ibi mímọ́ rẹ̀ lulẹ̀. Danieli 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.

Àwọn onímọ̀ ẹ̀kọ́ ìsìn ń kọ́ni pé ẹsẹ̀ náà túmọ̀ sí pé, “nípa agbára póòpù, a mú iṣẹ́ ìránṣẹ́ ibi-mímọ́ Kristi kúrò,” àti pé fífiyọ iṣẹ́ ìránṣẹ́ ibi-mímọ́ Kristi kúrò nínú ọkàn ènìyàn ni a fi ìdí rẹ̀ múlẹ̀ nípa òtítọ́ náà pé, ní ìbáṣepọ̀ pẹ̀lú fífiyọ náà, ibi “ibi-mímọ́” Kristi “ni a da lulẹ̀.” Kò sí ẹsẹ̀ kan ṣoṣo nínú Ọ̀rọ̀ Ọlọ́run tí ó sọ pé ibi-mímọ́ ọ̀run, níbi tí Kristi ti ń ṣe iṣẹ́ ìbẹ̀bẹ̀ rẹ̀, ti jẹ́ pé a ti da a lulẹ̀ rí. Bẹ́ẹ̀ ni kò sí ìpínrọ̀ kankan nínú Bíbélì tí ó fi hàn pé ọ̀run fúnra rẹ̀, èyí tí í ṣe “ibi ibi-mímọ́ rẹ̀,” ti jẹ́ pé a ti da a lulẹ̀ rí. Lẹ́ẹ̀kan sí i, àwọn onímọ̀ ẹ̀kọ́ ìsìn ń gbé ara wọn ga ju wòlíì Dáníẹ́lì lọ, nítorí wọn ń tẹnu mọ́ ọn pé “ibi ibi-mímọ́ rẹ̀” nínú ẹsẹ̀ náà ń tọ́ka sí ibi-mímọ́ Ọlọ́run, láìka òtítọ́ náà sí pé Dáníẹ́lì ń kọ́ni ní tààrà pé òdìkejì èrò náà ni òtítọ́.

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.

Àwọn tí wọ́n ń pe ara wọn ní amòye èdè Hébérù tẹnu mọ́ ọn pé nínú ẹsẹ̀ náà, a gbọ́dọ̀ lóye ọ̀rọ̀ Hébérù “rum” pẹ̀lú ìtumọ̀ ọ̀rọ̀ Hébérù “sur.” Wọ́n tún tẹnu mọ́ ọn pé a gbọ́dọ̀ lóye ọ̀rọ̀ Hébérù “miqdash” gẹ́gẹ́ bí ọ̀rọ̀ Hébérù “qodesh.” “Miqdash” àti “qodash” ni a túmọ̀ sí “ibi mímọ́” lásán nínú ìwé Dáníẹ́lì, síbẹ̀ wọ́n ní ìtumọ̀ ọ̀tọ̀ọ̀tọ̀. “Miqdash” dúró fún ibi mímọ́ èyíkéyìí, yálà ibi mímọ́ Ọlọ́run ni tàbí ibi mímọ́ àwọn aláìnígbàgbọ́. Òun ni ọ̀rọ̀ àkànṣe fún ibi mímọ́, ṣùgbọ́n “qodesh” ni a lò nínú Bíbélì nìkan láti ṣojú ibi mímọ́ Ọlọ́run.

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.

Dáníẹ́lì mọ ìyàtọ̀ tó wà láàárín ibi mímọ́ keferi kan àti ibi mímọ́ Ọlọ́run. Bí Dáníẹ́lì bá fẹ́ tọ́ka sí ibi mímọ́ keferi kan, òun yóò lo ọ̀rọ̀ náà “miqdash.” Ó yà mí lẹ́nu pé àwọn tí a ń pè ní amòye nínú èdè Hébérù kò ní í sọ̀rọ̀ rárá nípa òtítọ́ náà pé nínú ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́rin tí ó tẹ̀ lé ara wọn, Dáníẹ́lì lo àwọn ọ̀rọ̀ méjèèjì ní ìgbà mẹ́ta. Bí Dáníẹ́lì ṣe lo àwọn ọ̀rọ̀ Hébérù méjèèjì náà, tí a túmọ̀ sí “ibi mímọ́,” ló ń ṣàlàyé ìtumọ̀ tí Dáníẹ́lì pinnu kí a lóye.

> 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.

> Bẹ́ẹ̀ ni, ó gbé ara rẹ̀ ga títí dé ọ̀dọ̀ ọmọ-aládé ogun náà, a sì ti ọwọ́ rẹ̀ mú ẹbọ àtìmọ́lẹ̀wá kúrò, a sì wó ibi mímọ́ rẹ̀ lulẹ̀. A sì fi ogun kan lé e lọ́wọ́ sí i lòdì sí ẹbọ àtìmọ́lẹ̀wá nítorí ìrékọjá, ó sì ju òtítọ́ sílẹ̀; ó sì ṣe gẹ́gẹ́, ó sì ṣàṣeyọrí. Nígbà náà ni mo gbọ́ ẹnìkan mímọ́ kan sọ̀rọ̀, ẹnìkan mímọ́ mìíràn sì sọ fún ẹnìkan mímọ́ kan náà tí ń sọ̀rọ̀ pé, Yóò pẹ́ tó mélòó kan rí náà tí ìran náà yóò fi wà nípa ẹbọ àtìmọ́lẹ̀wá, àti ìrékọjá ìdahoro, láti fi ibi mímọ́ àti ogun náà jọ fún lílẹ̀ mọ́lẹ̀ lẹ́sẹ̀? Ó sì wí fún mi pé, Títí di ẹgbẹ̀rún méjì ó lé ọ̀ọ́dúnrún ọjọ́; lẹ́yìn náà ni a ó sọ ibi mímọ́ di mímọ́. Danieli 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.

Nínú gan-an ìpínrọ̀ náà tí ó ní ìpìlẹ̀ Ìjọ Adventist, Dáníẹ́lì lo ọ̀rọ̀ Hébérù méjì ọ̀tọ̀ọ̀tọ̀ tí a túmọ̀ gbogbo wọn sí “ibi mímọ́.” Nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹtàlá àti kẹrìnlá, Dáníẹ́lì yàn láti lo ọ̀rọ̀ Hébérù fún “ibi mímọ́” tí a ń lò nínú Bíbélì nìkan láti tọ́ka sí ibi mímọ́ Ọlọ́run, ṣùgbọ́n nínú ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá, Dáníẹ́lì lo ọ̀rọ̀ Hébérù àgbáyé tàbí àpapọ̀ tí ó lè jẹ́ ibi mímọ́ Ọlọ́run, tàbí kí ó jẹ́ ibi mímọ́ àwọn keferi.

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.”

Bí Dáníẹ́lì bá ti fẹ́ dá “ibi mímọ́” inú ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá mọ̀ gẹ́gẹ́ bí ibi mímọ́ Ọlọ́run, ì bá lò ọ̀rọ̀ Hébérù kan náà tí ó lò lẹ́ẹ̀mejì nínú àwọn ẹsẹ̀ mẹ́ta tí ó tẹ̀ lé e. Ó ṣe kedere pátápátá pé Dáníẹ́lì ń ṣe ìyàtọ̀ láàárín ibi mímọ́ àwọn abọ̀rìṣà nínú ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá, àti ibi mímọ́ Ọlọ́run nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹtàlá àti kẹrìnlá! Ṣùgbọ́n àwọn ọ̀mùtí Ẹ́fúrémù ń jiyàn pé “ibi ibi mímọ́ rẹ̀” tí a “wó lulẹ̀” nínú ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá, ni ibi ti ibi mímọ́ Ọlọ́run, bí ó tilẹ̀ jẹ́ pé wọ́n yẹra fún ọ̀rọ̀ náà “ibi.”

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.

Wọ́n kọ́ni pé ìjọba póòpù gba iṣẹ́ ìbẹ̀bẹ̀ Kristi lọ, ó sì sọ òtítọ́ nípa ibi mímọ́ ti ọ̀run kalẹ̀. Ṣùgbọ́n Dáníẹ́lì ṣe é kedere pé “ibi mímọ́” tí a mẹ́nu kàn nínú ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá kì í ṣe ibi mímọ́ Ọlọ́run, bí kò ṣe ibi mímọ́ kèfèrí. Dáníẹ́lì tún ṣe é kedere gẹ́gẹ́ bíi pé kì í ṣe “ibi mímọ́” náà ni a sọ kalẹ̀, bí kò ṣe “àyè” ibi mímọ́ rẹ̀.

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.

Ní kí wọ́n mọ ìyípadà akọ-abo tí a fi ète ṣe nínú ẹsẹ̀ kẹsàn-án títí dé kejìlá, àwọn onímọ̀-èrò òde-òní gba ìtumọ̀ “ẹbọ ojoojúmọ́” tí ó ti inú Pùròtẹ́sítáǹtì ìṣọ̀tẹ̀ jáde wá, wọ́n sì bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í kọ ìpìlẹ̀ lórí iyanrìn ìfojúsùn ènìyàn, àṣà-ọwọ́ àti ìṣe àṣà. Nígbà tí wọ́n bá dé ẹsẹ̀ kọkànlá, wọ́n tilẹ̀ kọ ìmọ̀ràn amísí ti Sister White sílẹ̀, èyí tí ó sọ pé òye Miller nípa “ẹbọ ojoojúmọ́” gẹ́gẹ́ bí ẹ̀sìn keferi jẹ́ òtítọ́, wọ́n sì bẹ̀rẹ̀ sí í lo ọgbọ́n ìtòkasí-ọ̀nà-kúrò àti ìfojúsùn láti dáàbò bo ìfẹ́ wọn sí ẹ̀kọ́ ẹ̀sìn Kátólíìkì àti Pùròtẹ́sítáǹtì.

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.

Wọ́n yí Romu abọ̀rìṣà padà sí Romu papal nínú ẹsẹ̀ náà, wọ́n sì fi ipa mú ìtumọ̀ “mú kúrò” lé ọ̀rọ̀ tí ó túmọ̀ sí “gbé sókè àti gbé ga”. Wọ́n túmọ̀ àpẹẹrẹ Satani ti “ti ojoojúmọ́” gẹ́gẹ́ bí àpẹẹrẹ ti Ọlọ́run, lẹ́yìn náà wọ́n sì tẹnu mọ́ ọn pé tẹ́ńpìlì abọ̀rìṣà jẹ́ tẹ́ńpìlì Ọlọ́run, nígbà tí wọ́n ń yẹra fún ìtọ́kasí tààrà sí “ibí náà” ti ibi mímọ́. Àti pé àwọn “aláìkọ́” (gẹ́gẹ́ bí Isaiah ṣe sọ wọ́n), tí wọn kì yóò lóye bí kò ṣe pé àwọn “amòye” bá sọ fún wọn pé ó rí bẹ́ẹ̀, gba àwo àwọn ìtàn asán náà sí ìparun tiwọn fúnra wọn.

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

A ó tẹ̀síwájú nínú àyẹ̀wò wa nípa ìlọsíwájú ìmọ̀ tí a ṣàfihàn gẹ́gẹ́ bí àwọn òkúta iyebíye nínú àlá Miller nínú àpilẹ̀kọ tí ń bọ̀.

> “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.

> “Apọsítélì Pọ́ọ̀lù kìlọ̀ fún wa pé, ‘àwọn kan yóò kúrò nínú ìgbàgbọ́, ní fífi etí sí àwọn ẹ̀mí tí ń tànni jẹ, àti àwọn ẹ̀kọ́ àwọn ẹ̀mí èṣù.’ Èyí ni ohun tí a lè retí. Àwọn ìdánwò wa tí ó tóbi jùlọ yóò wá nítorí irú ẹgbẹ́ àwọn ẹni tí wọ́n ti gbé òtítọ́ ga rí, ṣùgbọ́n tí wọ́n yí padà kúrò lọ́dọ̀ rẹ̀ sí ayé, tí wọ́n sì fi ìkórìíra àti ẹ̀gàn tẹ̀ ẹ́ mọ́lẹ̀ lábẹ́ ẹsẹ̀ wọn. Ọlọ́run ní iṣẹ́ kan fún àwọn ìránṣẹ́ rẹ̀ olóòtítọ́ láti ṣe. A gbọ́dọ̀ dojú kọ ìkọlù ọ̀tá pẹ̀lú òtítọ́ ọ̀rọ̀ rẹ̀. A gbọ́dọ̀ yọ ìrò jáde ní ìbojú rẹ̀, a gbọ́dọ̀ fi ìwà rẹ̀ tòótọ́ hàn, ìmọ́lẹ̀ òfin Jèhófà sì gbọ́dọ̀ tàn jáde sínú òkùnkùn ìwà ayé. A gbọ́dọ̀ fi ohun tí ọ̀rọ̀ rẹ̀ ń béèrè hàn. A kò ní jẹ́ aláìlẹ́bi bí a bá pa ojúṣe pàtàkì yìí tì. Ṣùgbọ́n nígbà tí a bá dúró láti dáàbò bo òtítọ́, ẹ má jẹ́ kí a dúró láti dáàbò bo ara wa, kí a sì da ariwo ńlá sí i nítorí pé a ń pè wá láti ru ẹ̀gàn àti àṣejù-ìtàn. Kí a má ṣe ṣàánú ara wa, ṣùgbọ́n kí a ní ìtara púpọ̀ fún òfin Ẹni Gíga Jùlọ.”

> “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.’

> “Nítorí náà ni àpọ́sítélì fi wí pé, ‘Àkókò kan yóò dé tí wọn kì yóò fara da ẹ̀kọ́ tòótọ́; ṣùgbọ́n gẹ́gẹ́ bí ìfẹ́kúfẹ̀ẹ́ ara wọn, wọn yóò kó àwọn olùkọ́ jọ fún ara wọn, nítorí etí wọn ń yún; wọn yóò sì yí etí wọn kúrò nínú òtítọ́, a ó sì yí wọn sí ìtàn asán.’ Ní gbogbo ẹ̀gbẹ́ ni a ti ń rí àwọn ènìyàn tí a fi rọrùn mú ní ẹrú nípasẹ̀ èrò ìtanjẹ àwọn tí ń sọ ọ̀rọ̀ Ọlọ́run di asán; ṣùgbọ́n nígbà tí a bá mú òtítọ́ wá síwájú wọn, àìfaradà àti ìbínú máa ń kún inú wọn. Ṣùgbọ́n ìkìlọ̀ àpọ́sítélì sí ìránṣẹ́ Ọlọ́run ni pé, ‘Máa ṣọ́ra nínú ohun gbogbo, fara da ìpọ́njú, ṣe iṣẹ́ ajíhìnrere, fi ẹ̀rí kíkún hàn nípa iṣẹ́ ìránṣẹ́ rẹ.’ Ní ọjọ́ rẹ̀, àwọn kan fi ọ̀ràn Oluwa sílẹ̀. Ó kọ pé, ‘Demas ti kọ mí sílẹ̀, ní fífẹ́ ayé ìsinsin yìí;’ ó sì tún wí pé, ‘Alexander alágbẹ̀dẹ idẹ ṣe mí ní ibi púpọ̀: kí Oluwa san án gẹ́gẹ́ bí iṣẹ́ rẹ̀: ìwọ náà sì máa ṣọ́ra fún un; nítorí ó ti tako ọ̀rọ̀ wa gidigidi.’”

> “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.

> “Àwọn wòlíì àti àwọn àpọ́sítélì ní ìrírí àwọn ìdánwò irúkan ti àtakò àti ẹ̀gàn, àní Ọ̀dọ́-Àgùntàn aláìlábàwọ́n ti Ọlọ́run náà ni a dán wò ní gbogbo ọ̀nà gẹ́gẹ́ bí a ti ń dán wa wò. Ó farada ìtakò àwọn ẹlẹ́ṣẹ̀ sí ara rẹ̀.

> “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.

> “Gbogbo ìkìlọ̀ fún àkókò yìí ni a gbọ́dọ̀ fi ìṣòtítọ́ pátápátá sọ; ṣùgbọ́n, ‘ìránṣẹ́ Olúwa kò gbọdọ̀ máa báni jà; bí kò ṣe pé kí ó jẹ́ onínú tútù sí gbogbo ènìyàn, ẹni tí ó yẹ fún ìkọ́ni, onísùúrù; ní inú ìrẹ̀lẹ̀ ní kíkọ́ni fún àwọn tí ń tako ara wọn.’ A gbọ́dọ̀ fara balẹ̀ pa àwọn ọ̀rọ̀ Ọlọ́run wa mọ́ pẹ̀lú ìṣọ́ra, kí a má bàa di aláìmọ́ nípasẹ̀ iṣẹ́ ìtanrànjẹ ti àwọn tí wọ́n ti fi ìgbàgbọ́ sílẹ̀. A gbọ́dọ̀ fi ohun ìjà kan náà tí Olúwa wa lò nígbà tí aládé òkùnkùn kọlu u tako ẹ̀mí àti agbára wọn,—‘A ti kọ ọ́ pé.’ A gbọ́dọ̀ kọ́ bí a ṣe lè máa lo ọ̀rọ̀ Ọlọ́run pẹ̀lú ọgbọ́n. Ìmọ̀ràn náà ni pé, ‘Múra kára láti fi ara rẹ hàn ní ẹni tí a fọwọ́sí níwájú Ọlọ́run, òṣìṣẹ́ tí kò ní nílò láti tijú, tí ń pín ọ̀rọ̀ òtítọ́ ní ọ̀nà títọ́.’ Ó gbọdọ̀ jẹ́ pé iṣẹ́ àkíyèsí púpọ̀, àdúrà tọkàntọkàn, àti ìgbàgbọ́ yóò wà láti dojú kọ àṣìṣe yíyípo ti àwọn olùkọ́ èké àti àwọn apanirun; nítorí pé, ‘ní àwọn ọjọ́ ìkẹyìn àkókò eléwu yóò dé. Nítorí ènìyàn yóò jẹ́ olùfẹ́ ara wọn, onífòyà, aláròsọ, agbéraga, asọ̀rọ̀-òdì, aláìgbọ́ràn sí òbí, aláìdupẹ́, aláìmọ́, aláìní ìfẹ́ àdánidá, aláìpa májẹ̀mú mọ́, olùfisùn èké, aláìní ìdarí ara ẹni, oníkà, ẹni tí ó kórìíra àwọn tí ó dára, ọlọ̀tẹ̀, afurasi, onímọ̀ràn-gíga, olùfẹ́ ayọ̀ ju olùfẹ́ Ọlọ́run lọ; tí wọ́n ní àwòrán ìwà-bí-Ọlọ́run, ṣùgbọ́n tí wọ́n sẹ́ agbára rẹ̀: yà ara rẹ kúrò lọ́dọ̀ irú àwọn bẹ́ẹ̀.’ Àwọn ọ̀rọ̀ wọ̀nyí ṣàpèjúwe ìwà àwọn ènìyàn tí àwọn ìránṣẹ́ Ọlọ́run yóò ní láti pàdé. ‘Olùfisùn èké,’ ‘àwọn tí ń kórìíra àwọn tí ó dára,’ yóò kọlu àwọn tí ó jẹ́ olóòtítọ́ sí Ọlọ́run wọn ní ìgbà ìbàjẹ́ yìí. Ṣùgbọ́n aṣojú Ọ̀run gbọdọ̀ fi ẹ̀mí tí a fi hàn nínú Olúwa hàn. Nínú ìrẹ̀lẹ̀ àti ìfẹ́ ni ó gbọdọ̀ máa ṣiṣẹ́ fún ìgbàlà ènìyàn.”

> “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.

> “Paulu ń bá a lọ nípa àwọn tí ń tako iṣẹ́ Ọlọ́run, ní fífi wọ́n wé àwọn ọkùnrin tí wọ́n jagun sí àwọn olóòótọ́ ní àkókò Ísírẹ́lì àtijọ́. Ó ní pé: ‘Gẹ́gẹ́ bí Jánésì àti Jámbrésì ti dojú kọ́ Mósè, bẹ́ẹ̀ ni àwọn wọ̀nyí pẹ̀lú ń kọ òtítọ́; ènìyàn oní ọkàn ìbàjẹ́, ẹni tí a ti kọ̀ sílẹ̀ ní ti ìgbàgbọ́. Ṣùgbọ́n wọn kì yóò tẹ̀síwájú mọ́: nítorí ìwèrè wọn yóò hàn gbangba fún gbogbo ènìyàn, gẹ́gẹ́ bí ti àwọn wọ̀nyí pẹ̀lú ṣe rí.’ A mọ̀ pé àkókò ń bọ̀ nígbà tí a óò ṣí ìwèrè ogun sí Ọlọ́run payá. A lè fara balẹ̀ dúró nínú sùúrù àti ìgbẹ́kẹ̀lé pẹ̀lú ìtùnú ọkàn, láìka bí a ti ń sọ̀rọ̀ búburú sí wa tó àti bí a ti ń kẹ́gàn wa tó; nítorí pé ‘kò sí ohun tí a fi pamọ́ tí a kì yóò fihàn gbangba,’ àwọn tí ń bọ̀wọ̀ fún Ọlọ́run ni yóò sì rí ọlá gbà lọ́dọ̀ rẹ̀ níwájú ènìyàn àti àwọn áńgẹ́lì. A gbọ́dọ̀ kópa nínú ìjìyà àwọn alátúnṣe. A ti kọ ọ́ pé, ‘Àwọn ẹ̀gàn àwọn tí ń gàn ọ́ ti bà lé mi.’ Kristi lóye ìbànújẹ wa. Kò sí ẹnìkan nínú wa tí a pè láti ru àgbélébùú nìkan. Ọkùnrin Ìrora ti Kalfárì ní ìfọ̀kànbalẹ̀ pẹ̀lú ìmọ̀lára ìpọ́njú wa, àti gẹ́gẹ́ bí òun ti jìyà nígbà tí a dán án wò, bẹ́ẹ̀ ni ó lè ràn àwọn tí ó wà nínú ìbànújẹ àti ìdánwò nítorí rẹ̀ lọ́wọ́ pẹ̀lú. ‘Bẹ́ẹ̀ ni, gbogbo àwọn tí yóò fẹ́ gbé ìgbésí ayé ìwà-bí-Ọlọ́run nínú Kristi Jesu ni a óò ṣe inúnibíni sí. Ṣùgbọ́n àwọn ènìyàn búburú àti àwọn alátàn yóò máa burú sí i, wọ́n ń tan àwọn ẹlòmíràn jẹ, àwọn tìkára wọn sì ń jẹ́ kí a tàn wọ́n jẹ. Ṣùgbọ́n ìwọ, máa bá a nìṣó nínú àwọn ohun tí ìwọ ti kọ́.’ Review and Herald, January 10, 1888.

Back to Articles