Skip to main content

Full text of "Astounding errors; the prophetic message of the Seventh-day Adventists and the chronology of Pastor C. T. Russell in the light of history and Bible knowledge"

See other formats












*s ■— ~ 








N - 





BX6124 .N99" Unlversi, V Library 
AS, S^,.SffiK„te.„R^e«c message 


3 1924 029 459 439 

The original of this book is in 
the Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 









Copyright, 1914, by Aaron Nyman. 


I have been requested by the author of the present volume 
to write a few introductory words, and I do it gladly because 
this book contains a great deal of truth, and because I have 
known the author for a number of years. 

This is chiefly a polemical book, directed as the title in- 
dicates against two religious heresies, the Seventh-day Advent- 
ism and the Russellism (Millennial Dawn), which for several 
years have made a considerable propaganda and won many 
converts in this and other lands. In common with other prot- 
estant denominations they believe in the inspiration of the Bible, 
salvation from sin and the necessity of living a pure and holy 
life. But they differ from other Christian bodies in believing 
as the Adventists do that the world is coming to an end in this 
generation, that only they have a correct understanding of the 
prophecies in the Bible, that all other churches are backslidden 
and totally depraved, referring to them as Babylon, etc., and 
that they themselves are the one hundred and forty-four thou- 
sand who shall be glorified when Christ returns and go with him 
to heaven for one thousand years. Pastor Russell teaches that 
Christ returned in 1874 and that the time of the gentiles will 
come to an end and restitution of all things commence in 1914 
or 1915. Since these denominations carry on a constant war- 
fare against other churches and exist principally on the recruits 
they can make from them, thereby using means, which are 
neither Christian nor honorable, then we think it is time that 
someone stands up and shows not only how insidious their 
attacks are but also how utterly false the foundation is for 
their claims. 

There are chiefly two doctrinal views held by the Advent- 
ists which deserve special attention, viz., that Mrs. White, 
the present leader of the movement, is an inspired prophetess, 


that her visions and revelations have the same divine authority 
as those of the Old Testament prophets, and that Jesus shall 
return to the earth in this generation, in spite of his own de- 
claration that no man knows the hour of his coming. Against 
these suppositions the author has directed a tremendous attack. 
He shows with irrefutable arguments from the Bible, history 
and science that their prophetic message is false and that the 
doctrines built upon such a foundation is without any value 
whatever. Mr. Nyman points out that the Adventists have 
misunderstood the prophecy of the 2,300 days and seventy 
weeks in Daniel's eighth and ninth chapters as well as the 
interpretation of "the little horn," and that they therefore 
have jumped at false conclusions. In his treatment of "the 
little horn," showing that it cannot be Rome, politically or 
ecclesiastically, he has many learned scholars on his side ; and 
the views that the seventy weeks begin B. C. 457 and end with 
the crucifixion he rejects, because it is laboring under serious 
difficulties. Although no entirely satisfactory interpretation 
of this passage (Dan. 9 : 24-27) appears yet to have been found, 
the author offers a solution that seems very probable. Whether 
the reader is willing to accept the conclusions Mr. Nyman has 
set forth or not,- the author has given us the benefit of much 
painstaking study that any Bible student may derive profit from. 
Therefore this book has a special exegetical value, apart from 
its nature of being a polemical work. 

The supposition that Mrs. White is an inspired prophetess 
who has brought us a new light from the very throne of God 
is in itself so ridiculous that to state it is to refute it; but the 
author has put the prophetess and her visions under the mi- 
croscope, and shown in the minutest details how arrogant these 
claims are. 

It is surprising that a business man who must work daily 
for the support of himself and his family has had the time and 


ability to investigate so difficult problems as these. He cer- 
tainly cannot have done it for material gain, but in interest of 
those who have been brought under the harsh legalism of the 
Adventists. As he has, for some time, been a member of this 
denomination, he is familiar with their way of reasoning and 
working; and therefore he is able to speak with the authority 
that he has done. 

The language in this book may not be the king's English, 
as there are many indications that the book is a translation 
from another language; but it is clear enough for any reader 
who is trying to find the truth. 

Nyman has been a soldier in his younger days, and he is 
a sharpshooter still who levels his gun with a deadly aim, and 
he generally hits the mark. His book has a certain mission to 
fulfill and we wish for it a large circle of readers. 

C. G. Wallenius. 

Rev. C. G. Wallenius, D. D., is principal of the Swedish 
Methodist Seminary in Evanston, III. 

A. N. 





Beginning of the Advent Movement 11 

Faith With or Without Foundation 13 

Can You Find Truth From These Terms? :... 14 

All True Science Is in Harmony With God 15 

How Much Truth Will You Accept? 15 

A Verse That Ought to be 'Practiced More 16 

How the Adventists Will be Treated in This Book 19 

The Founder of Their Mistake 20 


Mrs. Ellen G. White..... 24 

Mrs. White's Conversion 25 

Mrs. White's Prophecy of W. Miller 28 

Mrs. White Has Now Found the Right Time 32 

Another Errror by Mrs. White 33 

Error Is Slow in Dying 36 

The Marriage of Jesus. His Receiving a Great Kingdom. 

Prophecy of the Ten Virgins Fulfilled in 1844 37 

Mrs. White Does not Write Her Own but God's Thoughts 38 

Are the Adventists Willing to Defend Their Prophetess 39 

The Door of Grace was Shut, A. D. 1844 44 

Mrs. White Sees Satan Before the Throne of God 48 

The Great Error of Going to Jerusalem to Convert the Jews.. 53 

Pork Is a Nourishing Food 54 

False Prophecies Concerning Our Nation ; 56 

Satan Takes Part in the Atonement 62 

Mrs. White Is a False Guide 63 

Was the Plan of Salvation Laid After the Fall? 65 

Superstition in First Degree 67 

Mrs. White's Visions of the Deliverance of God's People.... 71 

Mrs. White's Visions of the Reform Dress 71 

Who Is According to the Adventists, the Spirit of Prophecy?.. 74 

The Writer Is Getting Tired of Mrs. White's Illusions 84 


What the Bible Teaches of the Testimony of Jesus the Spirit 

of Prophecy 87 

Fulfilled Prophecies 87 

Do Ali Go Out in Sin Who Leave the Adventists? 95 

"Mrs. White Has Not Pretended to Be Perfect" 96 

Letter From the Auther to Mrs. White 101 


Private Letters to the Adventist Papers and to the Swedish 
Congregation of Seventh-day Adventists in Chicago, 
and Also to Private Individuals 102 

Letters to the Swedish Seventh-day Adventist Church in Chi- 

go and to Two of the Denomination's Paper 108 

The Untenable Position pf the Adventists Is Held Up to 

the Public 112 

Letter From S. Mortenson Concerning a Debate 116 

The Real Foundation of the Prophetic Message of the Seventh- 
day Adventists 134 


The Eighth Chapter of Daniel's Book 140 

Is the Little Horn a Person or a Kingdom? 145 

How Should the Little Horn Grow? 147 

Antiochus' First Attack on Jerusalem 154 

An Unanswerable Argument 163 

Illustration to Dan. 8 : 23 165 

What Follows If the Numbers B. C. 457 and A. D. 1844 Are 

Found to Be Wrong? 178 

Closing Words to Daniel's Eighth Chapter 181 

The Adventists Untenable Exposition of Daniel's Ninth 

Chapter '. .'. 182 

Eleventh Chapter of the Book of Daniel 189 

Twelfth Chapter of the Book of Daniel 229 



The Seventy Weeks in Dan. 9: 24-27 _. ..251 

What Is Possible and What Impossible Concerning the 

Seventy Weeks, Four Hundred and Ninety Years?... 253 

An Illustration to Help Us Understand the Subject 254 

A False Explanation of the Anointed Prince Spoken of In 

Dan. 9: 24-27 '. 269 

Is There Only One Anointed Prince Spoken of In Dan. 

9 : 24-27 ? 272 

We Will Now Explain the Prophecy In Dan. 9: 24-27 With 

Biblical, Historical and Scientific Facts 277 

A New Book On Daniel 296 


A New Reformer 297 

Pastor Charles T. Russell's Great Error In Daniel's Eighth 

Chapter 297 


Errors Concerning Daniel's 11th Chapter. '. 312 

Pastor Russell's Astounding Errors In the 11th Chapter 312 


A Mistake of Eighteen Year's In the Chronology of Pastor 

Russell 340 


A Warning to the Adventist Preachers 344 

Warning to the Seventh-day Adventist Preachers and Their 

People 370. 


Let the People Know the Truth ' „ 396 

Appendix 405 


After careful deliberation, and in order to keep a clear con- 
science before God I have published this book ; and in preparing 
the same I have had especially two objects in view : — 

1. To show every Seventh-day Adventist his great mistake 
in the prophecies. The foundation which they believe to be 
unshakable will be proven to be false according to the Bible, 
history and science, and will sooner or later be overthrown. 

2. I intend to prove to other readers Outside of the Ad- 
ventist communion, who desire information, the correct in- 
terpretation of Dan. 8th, 9th, 11th, and 12th chapters. 

In order to understand the book of Daniel it is necessary 
to be familiar with the general history of the world. Daniel 
predicts what is going to happen, history when it did happen. 
To find the truth it becomes necessary to draw right conclu- 
sions from the facts of history and apply them correctly to 
the times and peoples mentioned in the book. 

The Adventists have at this writing (1912) for sixty-eight 

years proclaimed a message, to which they have given several 

names, viz. : The Third Angel's Message (Rev. 14: 6-12) ; The 

Prophetic Message; The Last Message of Grace; The Saving 

Message, etc., indicating that the prophecy is for the believers. 

They claim they have proved to the world that the second 

coming of our Lord is near at hand, and have had the audacity 

to call their teachings "the present truth," yea, the whole truth. 

When anyone departs this life, the death notices inform us, 

that the deceased died believing in the present truth, and also 

state when he accepted it. To believe in their doctrines means 

life according to the Adventists. But when anyone finds 

out, that their doctrines are wrong and leaves them, then he 

has abandoned "the present truth," and is considered as an 

enemy, having fallen from grace. 


Members, who have left the Adventists, and who may be 
ever so godly, waiting for the coming of the blessed Lord, 
are excluded by the Adventists from the fold of Christ and 
are treated as enemies. We believe with St. Paul it is ex- 
pedient to preach all the word of God, and among other doc- 
trines also that of the second coming of Christ, one of the most 
glorious truths of the_ Gospel; but in doing so we should not 
base our preaching on a false foundation as we are going to 
show that the Adventists have done. 

If these prophecies were not in perfect accord with his- 
torical facts, we could not do anything else but either believe 
or reject them; they would simply become a matter of faith. 
But now they are not based on our faith only, but upon biblical 
and historical facts. If, therefore, the reader wishes to famil- 
iarize himself with the contents in this book, let him take 
sufficient time to study it carefully with the Bible and the 
diagrams on the last pages of the book. 

If he should encounter any points that are contrary to his 
previous belief, he should not pass hasty judgment, but study 
them over and over with this end in view, to find the truth. 

Seventh-day Adventists of all shades ! For your own wel- 
fare, lay aside the spirit of prejudice and seek the truth with 
reference to this subject and you will find that your prophet- 
ical structure has never had any real foundation, but has been, 
and is still, built upon sand. 

My greatest desire is to make my arguments so plain and 
clear that anyone should be able to grasp and understand them. 
Then I have reached the goal to which I have been aiming. 
Even if I had the ability to express my thoughts in elegant 
and polished phrases I would refrain from doing so. When 
the common and plain reader understands what is said, the 
present writer will feel that he has succeeded in his efforts. 



Beginning of the Advent Movement 

The Founder of This Movement Was William Miller, Who 

Misinterpreted the Prophecies of Daniel, and Built His 

Doctrine on a Supposition Without Evidence. 

The cause of all religious fanaticism is ignorance. As 
knowledge is power, so ignorance is the mother of various 
religious follies, fanaticisms and superstitions. One sect sur- 
passes the other in its peculiar ideas. Such people know every- 
thing. They are always ready to condemn those who differ 
from them in religious questions. If they only can get a 
leader they are ready to follow him whithersoever he leads. 
Evidences and arguments for what one shall believe are not 
required. Take everything they say for granted. 

I wish to submit some proofs of the foregoing statement: 

The "Kansas City Star" for August 30, 1911, contained a 
story of a party from Findlay, Ohio, who had been informed 
by their leader that they must be baptized in secret water 
in order to receive secret power, and therefore it was necessary 
for them to go to California. To obtain the required funds 
they sold their houses and farms thus raising the amount of 
ten thousand dollars. The money was deposited with the 
leader who at the arrival to their destination suddenly ab- 
sconded and found a hiding place, as it was believed, some- 
where in Pennsylvania. The party consisted of twenty-six 
persons. Another party were ready to follow the first one, 
but had to send their money to help their deluded brethren in 

A sect calling themselves "waterwalkers" pretends that its 


members can walk on the water. Some people in the South 
made a trial of walking on water in 1911, but all were drowned. 
One of the leaders said at a meeting, that if they had met an 
accident at sea they would have been able to walk on the 
water. There was seemingly some reason in this. Then it 
happened that some members went out on a lake excursion. 
The boat sprang a leak. All came into the water. Now they 
had a fine opportunity to show their ability to walk on the wet 
element; but not one could keep himself above the surface. 
They all went down. 

July 14, 1912, I read of a party from Kamsack, Canada, 
who had heard from a preacher that Christ had come down 
somewhere on the prairies of western Canada to fetch a pre- 
pared people. But it was necessary to meet him in the costume 
our first parents had in Eden. Clothes and money were burnt 
the same night and with as little apparel as possible they set 
out to meet Christ. The Northwest Mountain police received 
word about it and started out with blankets to protect them. 
Some were taken to jail, and others were sent to Veregin, 
where they had their headquarters. 

In the "Chicago Daily News" for Jan. 26, 1912, we read 
that thirty fanatical women from Lodz in Russian Poland 
had chosen a certain man for their Saviour, whom they also 
worshipped as the Son of God. Soon the idea struck them 
that he should be crucified; if he could rise again on the third 
day he must be the right one. The man refused to concede to 
their wishes. Then his adherents stormed the house, and if 
the police had not interfered no one could predict what would 
have happened. 

When William Miller, the founder of Adventism, began to 
preach the second coming of Christ he was ignorant of the 
Word of God. We have no objection to the preaching of this 
doctrine, but he started from a mistaken ground. He even 


went so far as to set the time on two different occasions. 
Several thousand followed him, most of them belonging to the 
ignorant class. "International Cyclopedia," Vol. I, page 112. 


Reason is the most valuable gift that God has given us. 
When the light of reason is extinguished the victim is a burden 
to himself and others. Several times I have seen insane people 
who have been out for an airing. What a sight ! One is ready 
to exclaim, "My God, whatever be my lot in this life, let me 
keep my reason !" 

The mind should be cultivated. In 2 Peter, 1st chapter, we 
read that God "hath given unto us all things that pertain unto 
life and godliness, through the knowledge of Christ." Here 
are also mentioned nine different kinds of fruits. If we want 
to become possessors of these fruits and be partakers of divine 
nature we must aim to obtain knowledge of God. If we lack 
these fruits Peter says we are blind and cannot see afar off. 

We should learn to think for ourselves. We should dare 
to think. Just think, how many there are who believe what 
others have said without understanding in the least. Let not 
other people so hedge in your mind that all your thoughts 
belong to somebody else. To take other people's thoughts is 
good if they are true and throw any light upon the desired 
questions. If you do not dare to think for yourself but set your 
mind aside, your opinions will be those of some other person. 
If his opinion is wrong, and you take it without investigation, 
you will also have a wrong opinion. 

Let us use our understanding and think freely as well as 
correctly. Should you become a freethinker it matters not, if 
you don't become an atheist. 

It happens frequently that people ask us what we believe in 


regard to a certain question. Formerly I used to give a ready 
answer and was always sure I was right. Lately my answer 
is, that it is of very small importance what I believe, but what 
I know. We may believe one thing and be sure in our belief, 
but if our belief is without a foundation in fact or science it 
does not amount to very much. And the things I know I don't 
need to believe. 


"Both periods of time shall begin there." — "If this view is 
correct, then it is so." — "We think it is so." — "If it is as we 
believe, then it is right." — "-Without any doubt it is meant 
prophetic time."- — ■" According to our opinion it belongs here 
or there." — "If we are right, now, then the Turk becomes the 
King in the North." — "If this application is correct, then the 
time of the end commenced A. D. 1798." 

But when we now will prove to you, that the end of the 
time is not A. D. 1798, that the end of time has nothing what- 
ever to do with 1798, are you then willing to accept the truth 
and admit that your application is wrong ? 

The whole doctrine of the Adventists is built on "ifs" and 
"buts," suppositions, imaginations, fancies and assertions. It 
has gone so far that they don't think it is necessary to examine 
the foundation. 

If one of their number comes to the conclusion, that one- 
half times one-half equals one, then it is so. But let us think 
a little. If one-half times one-half is not one, what then? 
Many have discussed the question how much one-half times 
one-half makes, and said it is one, of course. If this problem 
were a matter of faith, you could not do anything with it. But 
arithmetic is a science and "figures do not lie," therefore they 
may be examined and the one who is right can prove his 


statement. And the same thing can be said about the founda- 
tion, upon which the Adventists have built their message. It 
can be proved with mathematical certainty that it is absolutely 
wrong and rests only upon the loose suppositions of some 
mistaken leaders. It is my intention to point out in this book, 
that their message does not correspond with the certain and 
well known facts of the Bible and history, and I advise every 
reader to think over and study carefully each statement, be- 
fore drawing any conclusions. I do not promise to send out 
a, book that is perfect, errors may occur, but let the reader apply 
the exhortation of St. Paul, "Prove all things ; hold fast that 
which is good." 


As a rule a number of good people mistake true science for 
worldly wisdom which the apostle warns against. When you 
try to prove to them from history that their suppositions are 
wrong, they often answer that for God everything is possible, 
because it says so in the Bible. But there are in fact many 
things that God cannot do. It is just as impossible for him 
as for you and me to make two times two anything but four. 
He can do a miracle today if he so desires, but to make twq 
times two equal anything else but four would not be a miracle. 
That would simply be an untruth or a falsehood. Lying doesn't 
require miraculous power, folks have been able to do that a 
long time. But God cannot lie. All truth must be in harmony 
with itself. 


All truth is valuable from whatever source it comes. But 
unfortunately there are many people who dare not believe in 
anything that is not subscribed to or promulgated by their 


own denomination. Their church is inspired, she alone has the 
truth, everyone else is in the wrong. If they find that their 
theology does not harmonize with the Bible or history, then 
these sources must be changed, because their theology must 
be correct. But is it not a better method to investigate the 
questions in doubt, and if you find that your theology is wrong, 
do not fear to accept the truth. Truth will be victorious at 
last, no matter what position you take in regard to it. 

A Seventh-day Adventist pastor, whose eyes were opened 
in regard to the question of the Sanctuary, began to show 
others their mistakes. He was excluded from their com- 
munion. One of his former colleagues said to him lately, 
"I know you are right, my brother, but if I should commence 
to preach this I would be expelled, and what should I then 

Ministers of the Gospel! We sympathize with you if you 
have to lose your daily bread because you speak the truth. 
But fear not. Truth is worth more than anything else. Preach 
the truth and you will have bread enough. In Rev. 21 : 8 ws 
read of a sinful company among whom are counted the "fear- 
ful." The Lord does not compromise. 


Heb. 5 : 14 has something to say about strong meat be- 
longing to them that are of full age, those who by reason of 
use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil. 
With St. Paul we say, we are not perfect but are reaching 
forth unto those things which are before. 

Of what use is our reading if we do not understand what 
we read, or if we are receiving a wrong impression of the 
word ? It is by far better to get the right meaning. The way 
of salvation is plain and simple, it is true, so a wayfaring man 


can see it. But when theological disputes are to be settled, 
the Bible is no easy book to comprehend. Even those, who 
make the greatest ado about the Spirit who shall lead them, 
have made great mistakes. Those who claim to be in posses- 
sion of the whole truth, only show their ignorance. The Bible 
has many different versions and has been differently translated, 
giving various meanings of the same verse. The pertinent 
question often arises, "Which is the correct meaning?" 

"Believe all," some say. No, we want the facts. Then it 
is good to have the senses exercised by reason of use to 
discern between good and evil. I have often been attacked as 
one who falsifies the Bible when I call attention to some of 
its discrepancies. 

Let me quote some examples. 

Take for instance the story of David's sinful treatment of 
Uriah and his wife Bath-Sheba (2 Sam. 11). In 1 Kings 
15 : 5 we see, that David had done what was right in the eyes 
of the Lord as long as he lived., save only in the matter of 
Uriah. In the first book of Chronicles (21:1) it says that 
Satan provoked David to number Israel, and in 2 Sam. 24 : 1 
it is plainly stated that it was the Lord who moved David to 
number Israel and Judah. And a little further on (verse 10), 
"David said unto the Lord, I have sinned greatly in that I 
have done." There is certainly reason to inquire, how can 
this be? 

God had forbidden Israel to go in to see the ark when the 
holy things are covered lest they die (Num. 4: 20). When the 
ark was brought to Beth-she-mesh (1 Sam. 6:19) it is said 
that the Lord killed fifty thousand and three score and ten men, 
because they had looked into the ark. Now history tells us 
that this particular place never had over five thousand in- 
habitants. This passage should read fifty princes and three 
score and ten men. 


In Luke 17 : 20 the Pharisees asked Jesus when the King- 
dom of God should come, and he answered (v. 21), the King- 
dom of God is within you. One D. D. wrote in a paper that 
this is meant the disciples, but that is to falsify the text. 
Other commentators say that it should read, "The Kingdom of 
God is among you." By reason of use we now discern be- 
tween right and wrong and say, the Kingdom of God was 
not in the Pharisees but among them. And the Kingdom of 
God is neither in the modern Pharisees who attack me for 
calling their attention to these things. 

Bitter contentions have been going on regarding the mean- 
ing of Isaiah 9 : 6, the child that was born, the son that was 
given. Most people admit that this has reference to Christ. 
But then his name is The mighty God, The everlasting Father, 
The Prince of Peace. It is impossible that Jesus can be mighty 
God and everlasting Father, when God himself is it. One com- 
mentator suggests the following reading, "The one in council 
wonderful and mighty God and everlasting Father shall call 
him Prince of Peace." Then there is only one everlasting 
God and Father. To this I say, Amen; the reader may think 
what he pleases. 

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (chapter 9) has 
placed the golden censer within the vail in the Holiest of all. 
This is an error. In an Adventist paper they had got the 
censer in two different places in the same issue. If you tell 
them this is impossible, you distort the Scripture. 

Of Stephen we read in the 6th chapter of the Acts, that 
he was full of faith and the Holy Ghost, grace and power; 
but in his address before the Council he made several errors. 
In chapter 7 he says, "Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; 
The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when ho 
was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran (Haran), 
and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy 


kindred . . . Then came he out of the land of the 
Chaldaeans." Abraham did not come out from his kindred 
and from the country of the Chaldaeans ; for his father Terah 
went out from there with his kindred and Abraham went with 
his father (Gen. 11:31). Terah was seventy years old when 
Abraham was born (Gen. 11:26). Abraham was seventy- 
five when he came out of Charran (Gen. 12:4). Terah was 
therefore seventy plus seventy-five, or one hundred and forty- 
five years when Abraham left Charran. When Abraham;* 
father had died, Stephen says, Abraham came out of Charran. 
But in Gen. 11 : 32 we are informed that Terah was two 
hundred and five years when he died in Charran. The differ- 
ence between two hundred and five and one hundred and forty- 
five is sixty. Abraham could not attend his fathers funeral 
sixty years before the latter was dead. We believe therefore 
that Terah lived sixty years after Abraham had left Charran, 
that the Old Testament is reliable here and that Stephen was 
wrong or there may have been some error in the translations. 
Is it fair to accuse a person of distorting the Scripture 
because he shows that some parts do not harmonize? 


If the leaders of this sect should be dealt with according 
to their merits this would be an astounding book. But we 
will leave them to him who says, "Vengeance is mine." A 
number of smaller treatises have been published against various 
mistakes in their system, or showing them where they are 
wrong, so there is no excuse for their ignorance. And if any 
of their professors, preachers or members tried to open the 
eyes of the believers, their answer h'as invariably been, "We 
have the whole truth. Out with him who does not think like 


we do. Mrs. White is an inspired and true prophetess." And 
as long as they adhere to this belief neither God nor man can 
do anything for them. Not to believe in her visions means 
eternal damnation. This the deluded people believe and are 
therefore bound in fetters. Fortunately there are some who 
begin to doubt her inspiration; and if it is in my power to 
throw some light upon their path out of ignorance and super- 
stition I shall consider myself well repaid for my efforts. 

Fifteen years ago there appeared a small book by J. Ny- 
quist on the eighth and eleventh chapters of Daniel's prophecy, 
which are the real foundation of their doctrines. When 
glancing over the pages the first time, I found an expression 
which alone is powerful enough to sound the deathknell over 
their doctrine. It made me ashamed not to have thought of 
that before. This book has been criticized by their preachers ; 
but they have not seen that it is sufficient to demolish their in- 
terpretation of the prophecies. They well deserve the epithet 
"leaders of the blind." Most of their people burn the books 
of other authors. They cry, This is Babylon, Babylon! 

I shall return to the fatal argument later on. 


is William Miller, a farmer, who was born at Pittsfield, Mass., 
1781, and died 1849. He enjoyed but slender educational ad- 
vantages. During the war of 1812 he served as a volunteer 
with the rank of captain. About 1833, while a resident of 
Low Hampton, N. Y., he began his career as an apostle of a 
new doctrine, which taught that the world would come to an 
end in 1844. The main argument on which he rested his 
belief was Daniel 8 : 14, "Unto two thousand and three hundred 
days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." This passage he 
misunderstood. We will here only state his arguments and 
postpone the refutation of the same till later on. 


The ninth chapter of Daniel relates that the prophet was 
engaged in prayer. While he was speaking and praying the 
angel Gabriel came forth and announced that he was sent 
from God to give him skill and understanding. "Seventy 
weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city," 
the angel said (v. 24). In the following verse we read that 
this time should begin at the going forth of the commandment 
to restore and to build Jerusalem, etc. One day means one 
year in Daniel's chronology. Seventy weeks are thus 490 years, 
Miller thought that this commandment went forth in the 
seventh year of the Persian king Artaxerxes, when he sent 
Ezra up from his captivity, to restore the Jewish polity at 
Jerusalem (Ezra 7) in the year 457 B. C., and that there 
was no other prophetic time from which to cut off the 490 years 
than from the 2,300 days. He therefore dated these two 
periods from the year 457 B. C. He ended the 490 years 
(or seventy weeks) in A. D. 33 with the crucifixion of Christ 
and the 2,300 days ended A. D. 1843. He thought further- 
more that the earth was the sanctuary to be cleansed by fire 
according to 2 Pet. 3 : 10, 12. 

No one doubts that Miller was a sincere and honest 
reasoner, a humble and devoted Christian man; but he was 
impervious to any argumentation that contra.dicted his set 

A conference was held in Boston, Oct. 22-24, 1840. Miller 
was present. Dr. Ward was elected chairman. He called 
Miller aside and asked him not to fix a certain time for the 
second coming of Christ, according to Mark. 13 : 32, "But of 
that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels 
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Other 
members of the conference said the same: How do you pretend 
to know the time when the Son and the angels do not know 
it? Nothing could change his opinion. He went home and 


preached as before. Religious fanatics always claim a great 
measure of God's Spirit. The Spirit will make up for the 
lack of knowledge. But they forget that the Spirit leads 
according to the word. 

A person who can make such a mistake as this will commit 
any blunder. There is not a sound thought in his doctrine. 
The 2,300 days are not years. They did not begin 457 B. C, 
and did not end A. D. 1843. The earth is not the sanctuary. 
This I intend to prove to the satisfaction of any whose mind 
is open for conviction. 

If Miller had used his reason for ten minutes he would 
have thought, The power which is represented by the little 
horn in Dan. 8 : 9 should cast down the place of the sanctuary 
at the beginning of the 2,300 days. If the earth is the sanctu- 
ary, does history record that this power cast down the earth 
457 B. C. ? No, history does not know any sanctuary which 
was cast down the year 457. 

The power which was to destroy the sanctuary should ap- 
pear, according to the angel, toward the end of Alexander's 
divided kingdom (Greece). It is proved that this time was 
between 176 — 30 B. C. This power could no more destroy the 
sanctuary 457 B. C. (281 years before its beginning) than 
Miller could preach the second coming of Christ in the year 
1498, or 281 years before he was born. 

But nevertheless the "History of Advent Message" is bold 
enough to declare on page 596 that this is God's truth as sure 
as the Bible. There is no possibility of a mistake this time. 
Those who reject this light are lost. Those who do not accept 
these arguments are reprobates. 

When a person will contradict the plain statements of the 
Word of God, we think that he has no message from the 
Lord and that he is not led by God's Spirit, no matter how 
sincere are his intentions. 


"It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the 
Father has set within his own authority." (Acts 1:7.) 

"I know the time," says Miller; "1843 is the right time. 
I have calculated that Christ shall return then." 

The predicted year went by, but Miller's calculation was 
wrong. Then he and his followers made the great discovery 
that the commandment was given late in the year 457 B. C, 
and accordingly the end of time could not occur before late in 
the fall of 1844. 

Jesus says, "No man knoweth the day." 

Miller said, "Now we know the day with certainty; it is 
Oct. 22, 1844. There is no mistake about it this time. He 
who does not believe this is lost." 

There is no need of proving that this message also was 
false — the Lord has not come in these sixty-eight years since 

When 1844 had gone by, Miller and most of the Adventists 
admitted they were mistaken; Miller himself being honest, 
enough to make a public statement to that effect, saying that 
it was wrong and dishonest to deny the facts. ("Hist, of the 
Second Advent Message," page 383.) 

As we have seen, Miller did the right thing to admit his 
error, when his calculations had failed. But the Adventists 
took up his false way of reasoning and have gone further than 
he did. They still insist that the 2,300 days are just so many 
years, beginning 457 B. C. and ending A. D. 1844. If these 
dates are false, then their whole doctrinal system is crumbling 
to the ground with all they have built thereon. 

We are going to prove with unalterable facts that these 
two dates are resting upon, a loose and shaky foundation. 


Mrs. Ellen G. White 

Conclusive Proofs, Showing That Her Prophecies are False 
and Deceptive. 

Superstition and theological mistakes are slow in dying, 
because there is generally someone ready to stand up and de- 
fend the originator even when he is defeated. In this case 
the instrument was a young girl, Miss Ellen Harmon, now Mrs. 
Ellen G. White. Because she has with her visions and hal- 
lucinations misled these people she is the principal cause of 
their numerous mistakes. She has published several books, 
some of them good. But when it comes to interpretation of 
the prophecies, their special message to the world, there is no 
end to her superstition and follies. As she has played the most 
important part in the propaganda, we will have occasion to 
refer to her frequently in this book. We will begin with a 
short biography of this remarkable woman. 

Mrs. Ellen G. White was born in Gorham, Maine, Nov. 26, 
1827. Her parents moved later to Portland, where they were 
members of the Methodist Church. At the age of nine she 
met with an accident in which she suffered the fracture of the 
nasal bone, preventing her breathing through the nostrils for 
a couple of years. 

Depressed at heart on account of this calamity it seemed 
impossible for her to continue her studies, and she attended 
school but little. Her nervous system was so weak, that the 
hand trembled when she was writing and while reading her 
forehead was dampened by perspiration. Following the advice 
of her physician she stayed out of school for two years. After 


taking up studies again her condition grew worse ; so she was 
compelled to leave school at the age of twelve. 

This is a condensed story of her life, taken from the book 
"Early Writings," given under the heading "My Youth." 


In March, 1840, W. Miller made his first visit to Portland, 
Me., and delivered lectures on the prophecies, that Jesus was 
coming again to the earth A. D. 1843. His statements found 
a fruitful soil in her heart, and although her experience of 
conversion was fluctuating up and down she finally believed 
that her sins were pardoned. But this excellent experience did 
not last long before she fell in despair again. 

While in this despondent condition she had a dream, in 
which she saw a temple. Those who sought protection there 
were saved. She entered the temple, but was seized with fear 
and shame over the fact that she had to humble herself before 
the people who were there. When she awoke she thought that 
the Spirit of God had departed from her, never to return 

When Miller preached that the Lord should return in 1844, 
she says, "Miller gave a careful and convincing exposition of 
the prophecies. The year 1842 Miller came to Portland again. 
Several of the ministers of the city pointed out Miller's heresy, 
but he brought out so clear and convincing truths and sup- 
ported his statements with biblical arguments, and an irresist- 
ible power accompanied the word, so many received the im- 
pression that he presented the truth." 

Now let us reason a little. Miller came to Portland in 1840 
and in 1842. }Ars. White was born 1827, therefore she war* 
thirteen and fifteen years old when she heard these sermons. 
We ask, How much does a thirteen or fifteen-year old girl 


know of the prophecies of Daniel, when the Adventists after 
sixty-eight years of meditation do not understand them in 
spite of the fact that they have several learned men among 
them? And besides the Adventists, there are many scholars 
who admit that they stand baffled before many of their hidden 

In order to understand Daniel's book it is necessary to be 
thoroughly familiar with the history of the Bible lands and 
understand the chronology of this writer. Lacking in these 
qualifications no one will understand him. It is already clear 
to the reader that Miller did not have enough knowledge, — • 
and Mrs. White much less, — a frail girl who had left the school 
at the age of twelve. 

Miller believed without a reasonable foundation; the Ad- 
ventists have believed Miller and Mrs. White without in- 
vestigating their foundation. 

Miller's doctrine that Christ was to return to the earth in 
1843 or 1844 proved to be a miserable failure, and it is evidence 
enough that Miller did not know his subject and had no con- 
vincing truth or power in his message. But he was sincere, 
and admitted his failure as an interpreter of the oracles of 
God. If his followers were as sincere as he, their prophetic 
message would cease in a month. Miller had none to show 
him what his mistake was ; now there are many who are able 
and willing to do it. 

When Miller was forced by the calendar, to give up his 
belief Mrs. White took up his mantle. She knew it was right 
because it corresponded with the Bible, with this difference 
only that it was the sanctuary in heaven which should be 
cleansed. Miller did not understand that, she says in her book 
"Early Writings." My edition was published in 1885. 
She was then fifty-eight years old and should have known 
better than to insist that God had sent Miller. Let the Scripture 


decide the issue. "When a prophet speaketh in the name of 
Jehovah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the 
thing which Jehovah hath not spoken." (Deut. 18 : 22._) 

The thing which Miller prophecied did not come to pass, 
therefore the message was not from Jehovah. 

If his hearers have no judgment, and the speaker enjoys 
the confidence of the public, everything he says is right. If 
he then can show that the Bible approves of his statements, he 
must be all right. But who cannot find support in the Bible 
for his opinions, no matter how inconsistent and impossible? 

"We must resemble Christ in all," a man said to me once. 
I told him that is impossible and is not God's meaning either. 
The man was shocked. I said that if we should be as poor 
as he was we would freeze to death. "And you are not like 
Christ in everything," I added. "Yes, I am," was his reply. 
"But Christ was not married; you have both a wife and 
children," I answered. The fact of the matter is that we should 
be like Christ in all principles of righteousness. 

A person once asked one of Dr. Dowie's preachers, why the 
doctor traveled in such elegant style in Chicago. Is that to 
be like Christ? The minister answered, "Have you not read 
that he became poor in order to make us rich?" 

A man whom I know very well told me one day that he had 
heard a powerful sermon on a certain subject, when the speaker 
had proved with the Bible everything he said. One or two 
weeks after he heard another speaker on the same subject Who 
spoke absolutely against the conclusions of the former. Then 
he said to me that he had seen the latter speaker many times 
filled with God's Spirit, but not to the same extent as this time, 
and proved all that he said with the Scripture. 

What was the cause of the ridiculous and contradictory 
statements of this man? He had not a particle of judgment, 
and I am sorry to say he is in a numerous company. The 


truth in the matter is this, the former speaker preached what 
he thought without any real knowledge, and the latter said 
what he knew. I heard his sermon and know that it would 
have been hard to disprove his arguments. 


I have just finished a book, "Early Writings," by Mrs. 
White, which contains more superstition and fanaticism than 
I formerly would credit her with. Either one must leave Mrs. 
White and her experience or the Bible ; it is impossible to hold 
both. "Early Writings" contains 295 pages. She says 351 
times what she has seen, what God has shown to her. Her 
imagination is extremely productive. She mentions Satan 269 
times, and what he has said and done. It is hard to understand 
that the Adventists try to defend her peculiar views in general, 
but it is incomprehensible that they really try to stand by her, 
even when her visions run in opposition to God's word. 

Referring to W. Miller she says, "God directed the mind 
of Miller to the prophecies, and gave him great light upon the 
book of Revelation . . . and in the power of the Holy Spirit 
he opened the prophecies." "Early Writings", page 231. 

"Angels of God accompanied Wm. Miller in his mission. 
He was firm and undaunted, fearlessly proclaiming the message 
committed to his trust. I saw that God was in the proclama- 
tion, of the time in 1843." Page 231. Miller's message was 
that Christ was to return 1843. 

This she calls the message of the first angel. But the mes- 
sage of the first angel in Rev. 14, 7 reads, "Fear God, and 
give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come," and 
worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the 
fountains of waters." This verse does not say that Jesus 
should come, but Jesus says himself that the hour for the judg-' 
ment of God had come (about A. D. 90). Therefore it is 


clear, that the judgment Jesus speaks of had already come. 
This is the judgment, that the light has come, not shall come 
in the future. Afterwards Jesus warns against false worship. 

God sends no angels with him who goes out to preach 

Did Mrs. White see that God was in the movement of 
1843 ? We dare not make such accusations against the Lord. 
If God had given to Miller a special message and sent angels 
with him, he would not have preached the way he did. 

How could she see that the Lord was in the movement of 
1843 ? She had not had any vision yet. The first vision came 
1845. ("Early Writings", page 13). And "in this she sees that 
she is going to live until Christ's second coming; because on 
page 17 she says, "We all went under the tree, and sat down 
to look at the glory of the place, when Brethren Fitch and 
Stockman, who had preached the Gospel of the Kingdom, and 
whom God had laid in the grave to save them, came up to us 
and asked us what we had passed through while they were 

What she writes on pages 13-17 shows, that Jesus came and 
brought his people to the new earth, and that she was included 
without having to lie in the dust. Mrs. White is now past 85 
years of age; but if she dies before Jesus comes, are the Ad- 
ventists then willing to admit, that her first vision was a 
mistake ? 

Again she says, "Some left their field to sound the mes- 
sage, while others were called from their shops and their mer- 
chandise. And even some professional men were compelled to 
leave their profession's to engage in the unpopular work of 
giving the first angel's message. Thousands were led to em- 
brace the truth preached by Wm. Miller, and servants of God 
were raised up in the Spirit and power of Elijah to proclaim 
the message." ("Early Writings," pages 232, 233.) 


No one called them to leave their occupations to go out and 
preach errors. They went owing to their deplorable ignorance 
and their superstitious beliefs. Can a preacher proclaim false 
doctrines in the Spirit and power of Elijah. It only seems so 
to those, who are ignorant in the Scripture and are lacking in 
the Spirit of Christ. 

Again, "But these (false) shepherds stepped in between the 
truth and the people, and preached smooth things to lead them 
from the truth. They united with Satan and his angels, crying 
'Peace, peace' when there was no peace." — "Ministers who 
would not accept this loving message themselves hindered those 
who would have received it. The blood of souls is upon them. 
Preachers and people joined to oppose this' message from 
heaven." — "The rnost devoted gladly received this message. 
They knew that it was from God, and that it was delivered at 
the right time. Angels were watching with deepest interest the 
result of the heavenly message, and when the churches turned 
from and rejected it they in sadness consulted with Jesus. He 
turned his face from the churches, and bade his angels faith- 
fully watch over the precious ones who did not reject the testi- 
mony, for another light was yet to shine upon them." Pages 
234, 235. 

If the preachers never before had done their duty, they did 
it now. Because the message was not from heaven. The ig- 
norant who accepted it thought it was from God, but they be- 
lieved without knowledge. Neither was it timely. The angels 
did not expect with interest to see errors. When the congre- 
gation turned away, they did their duty.- And the Lord Jesus 
does not turn his face away from a congregation which refuses 
to accept foolish doctrines. 

"I saw," she says again, "the people of God joyful in ex- 
pectation, looking for their Lord. But God designed to provo 


them. His hand covered a mistake in the reckoning of 
prophetic time." (Same page). 

Miller had now preached the message of God from heaven 
during ten years. The angels of the Lord accompanied him 
on his mission, she says. The message was that Jesus should 
appear again on earth 1843. The time passed, and so they 
were forced against their asserted proofs from the Bible and 
history to admit that they were mistaken. 

She continues, "Jesus and all the heavenly host looked with 
sympathy and love upon those who had with sweet expecta- 
tion longed to see him whom their souls loved. Angels were 
hovering around them, to sustain them in the hour of their 
trial. Those who had neglected to receive the heavenly mes- 
sage were left in darkness, and God's anger was kindled against 
them, because they would not receive the light which he had 
sent them from heaven. Those faithful, disappointed ones, 
who could not understand why their Lord did not come, werq 
not left in darkness. The hand of the Lord was removed from 
the figures, and the mistake was explained. They saw that the 
prophetic periods reached to 1844. — God designed to disap- 
point them." (Page 236.) 

Thus the mistake that led to their disappointment was 
with God. Miller had in all his sincerity preached the messagQ 
of God for a number of years. Faithful believers had believed 
and followed him. But God had hidden the figures with his 
hand, so it was impossible for anyone to find the truth, before 
God removed his hand. First to' send a message and then 
cover it with his hand, that none could see it for a period of 
■ten years, afterwards showing his wrath upon those who did 
not believe, this kind of reasoning is enough to make God a 
veritable arch hypocrite. To those who believed in God's 
strange dealings, though disappointed, God sent his angels to 
comfort them. That was indeed not too much, when he him- 


self was made the cause of their sorrow. But is this good 
logic ? 


In "The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan" we 
read, God in his providence ordered it so, that this message 
was coupled with the message of the second angel and added 
to its force. 

And in "Early Writings", page 237, she says, "As the 
churches refused to receive the first angel's message, they re- 
jected the light from heaven, and fell from the favor of God. 
They trusted to their own strength, and by opposing the first 
message placed themselves where they could not see the light of 
the second angel's message. But the beloved of God, who were 
oppressed, accepted the message, 'Babylon is fallen,' and left 
the churches." 

The message of the second angel is found in Rev. 14: 8, 
"Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made 
all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication." 

In "The Great Controversy" we are told, that since it was 
found that 1844 was the correct time when Jesus should come 
again and the believers were not permitted to bear testimony 
to this new discovery in the churches, the followers of Miller 
could no longer look upon them as Christian congregations. 
Therefore about 50,000 left the churches in the summer, 1844. 

It is not at all surprising that these fanatics were silenced, 
in the churches. Their testimony was of course that Christ) 
was going to return this time 1844. This the churches refused 
to believe, and their opinion was the correct one, whereas the • 
Adventists who left were disappointed again. 

No congregation becomes a Babylon because it refuses to 
accept a false message. On the contrary it becomes such by 
accepting it. 



As the Saviour did not come in 1843 some Adventists began 
to doubt their whole system. In "The Great Controversy" Mrs, 
White has written a chapter under the heading "Prophecies ful- 
filled," in which she lets us understand that the parable of the 
Ten Virgins was fulfilled between 1843-1844. (Matth. 25.) 
This the Adventists believe and preach to this day. One of 
their preachers who worked among them for some time chose 
this parable as text for a discourse in Chicago. But he 
did not agree with Mrs. White on this point. I remember 
clearly how the hearers signified their disapproval and after- 
wards accused him of heresy. God afterwards showed him 
that their views on the prophecies also were in contrast with • 
God's word, so he took courage and found his way out of this 
place of torment. 

Unmistakable signs indicated that the coming of the Lord 
was nigh. 

"The coming of the Lord as announced by the first angel's 
message, was understood to be represented by the coming of 
the bridegroom. The widespread reformation under the 
proclamation of his soon coming, answered to the going forth 
of the virgins." ("The Great Controversy," page 393.) 

"William Miller had no sympathy with those influences that 
lead to fanaticism. He declared with Luther, that every Spirit 
should be tested by the word of God. 'The devil,' said. Miller, 
"has great power over the minds of some at the present day, 
There are many spirits gone out into the world; and we are 
commanded to try the spirits. The spirit of error will lead us 
from the truth." ("The Great Controversy," pages 396, 397.) 

"While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept, 
And at midnight there was a cry made, "Behold, the bride- 
groom ; go ye out to meet him." Then all those virgins arose, 


and trimmed their lamps. In the summer o£ 1844, midway, 
between the time when it had been first thought that the 2,300 
days would end, and the autumn of the same year, to which 
it was afterward found that they extended, the message was 
proclaimed, in the very words of Scripture, "Behold, the 
Bridegroom cometh." 

"This work was not founded on human wisdom and learn- 
ing but upon the power of God. It had a persuasive power, 
and the "midnight cry" was proclaimed by thousands of be- 

"In like manner, Miller and his associates fulfilled prophecy^ 
and gave a message which inspiration had foretold should be 
given to the world, but which they could not have given had 
they fully understood the prophecies pointing out their disap- 
pointment, and presenting another message to be preached to 
all nations before the Lord should come. The first and second 
angel's messages were given at the right time, and accom- 
plished the work which God designed to accomplish by them." 
Pages 398-405. 

"An exceedingly bright and glorious light shone around 
those who had cherished the light which had been imparted to 
them. Their faces shone with excellent glory, and they unite4 
with the angels in the cry, "Behold, the Bridegroom- cometh !" 
("Early Writings", page 242.) 

From these extracts of her writings we learn, that she 
taught, that the parable of the ten virgins in Matth. 25 was 
fulfilled. They were not mistaken in regard to the signs. 
Miller had no sympathy with fanaticism. She was convinced 
that Miller was led by the Spirit of truth, that the power of 
God accompanied the message. But as it appears from her in- 
terpretation, as though it was necessary for God to send Miller 
first with an erroneous message in order to get in another 
which possibly might be true. Near the end of the message of 


the second angel the poor woman has wrought herself up to 
such a certainty that she heard angels crying, "the Bridegroom 
cometh !" 

We have not yet come to the end of 1844, and she has al- 
ready said a dozen times at least, "I saw," "God has shown me" 
etc. But all her visions came since the time was passed. The 
first vision she had, according to her own statement, was 1845. 
It had reference to the future. 

It is most likely that she had brooded over these things 
which had passed, and so she began to believe that what she 
thought about them came directly from the Lord. But this is 
in plain English self-deception. 

With reference to the ten virgins in Matth. 25, we know 
with certainty, 

1. That they all were slumbering and slept. But all were 
not slumbering in 1844. Your books testify truly against you. 
Mrs. White says that the assurance of pleasing their Saviour 
was of greater importance to them than their daily bread, and 
if their hearts were under any cloud they did not rest before the 
cloud was removed. When I read this I wrote in the margin, 
"That is the way it ought to be." Political papers had also this 
to say, "The Adventists have never been more awake than in, 
1844." The parable does not apply to the Adventists at that 
time; it fits in better now. ' 

2. When the parable was fulfilled Jesus came. He did not 
come in"1844. When Jesus came the door was closed, the time 
of grace was gone. The door was not closed 1844, though 
Mrs. White said so. Thousands and thousands have been con- 
verted to God since 1844. Among them is the writer. 


God held his hand over the figure 1843 in order to conceal 
an error ; but then he removed his hand and they saw immed- 


iately where the mistake was. Jesus was not going to return 
to the earth before October 22, 1844. Now they were sure, no 
possibility of a mistake now, because the word of God could 
not fail. The word did not fail either, but it was Miller's false 
chronology and Mrs. White's visions that failed and are a 
failure to this day. 

October 22, 1844, passed by the same way as other days, 
and another mistake was discovered: Jesus did not come. 
Their troubles increased and the jeering of the multitude was 
more pronounced than they had anticipated. Some became so 
offended on account of this defeat that they wished they could 
disappear from earth. Miller and others abandoned their pe- 
culiar notions, while others planned for an honorable retreat by 
new speculations. 


The principal error in their doctrinal system is that the 
2,300 days in Dan. 8 : 14 are thought to be so many years, be- 
ginning in 457 B. C. and ending in A. D. 1844. This view they 
retained as correct. When Jesus did not come to cleanse the 
earth, which they thought was the sanctuary, they hit upon the 
idea that he went into the holiest of all, accomplishing there the 
same work for his people which the high priest did in the Jew- 
ish sanctuary once a year. There Jesus has been officiating 
ever since, viz. 68 years. The period has been called "The In- 
vestigative Judgment." 

The two greatest and most glaring mistakes they made in 
connection with Jesus' change from the holy to the holy of 
holies were, that Jesus had a marriage feast, when the parable 
of the ten virgins was fulfilled and that the door of grace was 
closed. When a whole denomination, as well as an individual, 
use subterfuges and fasify the meaning of their own writings, 
we can no longer consider them as honest men and women. 





Mrs. White says, "Jesus sent his angels to direct the minds 
of his disappointed ones to the most holy place, where he had 
gone to cleanse the sanctuary and make a special atonement 
for Israel. Jesus told the angels that all who found him would 
understand the work which he was to perform. I saw that 
while Jesus was in the most holy place He would be married 
to the New Jerusalem; and after his work should be accom- 
plished in the holiest, He would descend to the earth in Kingly 
power." ("Early Writings", page 251.) 

The marriage represents the reception by Christ of his 
Kingdom. The holy city, the new Jerusalem, which is the cap- 
ital and representative of the Kingdom, is called "the bride, the 
Lamb's wife." Said the angel to John, "Come hither, I will 
show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." "He carried me away 
in the Spirit," says the prophet, "and showed me that great city, 
the holy Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God." (Rev. 
21: 9, 10.) Clearly then the bride represented the holy city, 
and the virgins that go out to meet the bridegroom are the 
symbols of the church. ("The Great Controversy," page 426.) 

"I was shown what did take place in heaven at the close of 
the prophetic periods in 1844. As Jesus ended his ministra- 
tion in the holy place, and closed the door of that apartment, a 
great darkness settled upon those who had heard and rejected 
the messages of His coming, and they lost sight of Him. Jesus 
then clothed Himself with precious garments. Around the bot- 
tom of His robe was a bell and a pomegranate. A breast- 
plate of curious work was suspended from His shoulders. As 
He moved, this glittered like diamonds, magnifying letters 
which looked like names written or engraved upon the breast- 


plate. Upon His head was something which had the appear- 
ance of a crown. When fully attired, He was surrounded by 
angels, and in a flaming chariot He passed within 'the second 
vail. ("Early Writings", page 251.) 

"At the appointed time the Bridegroom came, not to the 
earth, as the people expected, but to the Ancient of days in 
Heaven, to the marriage, the reception of His Kingdom. 'They 
that were ready went in with Him to the marriage, and the 
door was shut.' They were not to be present in person at the 
marriage ; for it takes place in Heaven, while they are upon the 
earth." (The Great Controversy", page 427.) 

"Those who rejected the first message could not be bene- 
fited by the second; neither were they benefited by the mid- 
night cry, which was to prepare them to enter with Jesus by 
faith into the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary. And 
by rejecting the two former messages, they have so darkened 
their understanding that they can see no light in the third an- 
gel's message, which shows the way into the most holy place." 
("Early Writings," page 260.) 


"I do not give expression to my own thoughts in the papers ; 
it is what God has revealed to me in visions, a wonderful light 
from the throne of God." (Test. 31, pages, 63.) 

"The instruction I have given you in writing and speach 
has been the light God has given me." (Test. No. 33, page 

"In past times God spoke to men through the mouth of the 
prophets and the apostles ; in these days he has spoken to them 
through the testimony of the Spirit." (Test. No. 33, page 


"I took the holy Bible and surrounded it with the various 
testimonies to the church." (Test. Vol. 2, page 605.) ■ 

"It is scarcely possible for people to commit a greater sin 
before God than rejecting and despising the means (her testi- 
monies) which God has appointed for their guidance." /Page 

"The testimonies were not written to produce a new light, 
but God simplified by them the great truths that already were 
given." (Test. No. 33, page 193.) 


From the foregoing it is clear that Jesus had a marriage in 
heaven 68 years ago and received his Kingdom. The bride 
was the city. Only those who believed in Mrs. White's vi- 
sions, that he rode into the most holy place in 'a carriage, could 
understand his work there. Now they were with him in faith. 
But the worst of it is, that they had no faith in or understand- 
ing of this doctrine, when Jesus had his marriage — this faith 
they received five years later (1849). 

Alas, what a miserable marriage Jesus must have had in 
1844! Only a few poor, misinformed Adventists who went 
around on earth despondent over their defeat had a marriage 
in heaven, five years before they found it out from Mrs. White. 
If a marriage feast is celebrated somewhere and a person is in- 
vited, but cannot attend in person, he can at least think of tho 
marriage when it is going on ; but to believe he was present in 
faith five years before he knew anything about it, is unreason- 
able. Those who died between 1844 and 1849 did not find out 
that they were present in faith even. According to my view 
of the matter a guest may be present in faith, but the bride 
must surely be there in person, 


Nothing less would satisfy me at my wedding, I wanted 
above everything else to see my bride there ; and and the Ad- 
ventists would not be satisfied with anything less. I am sure 
of that. 

To attend a wedding in faith is fanaticism of the highest 
order. Adventists, how can you accept such doctrines ? 

Of course, we read in Rev. 21 : 9, 10, that the bride is called 
the Lamb's wife, and that the new Jerusalem was shown to 
him ; but we must look into this matter and try to find, if it is 
meant that Jesus had no other bride and if Jerusalem is the 
bride. The time was 1844. 

Rev. 21 : 2, "And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming 
down from God, out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned 
for her husband." 

We see here that it does not say Jerusalem was the bride, 
but the city was prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 

In Rev. 19 : 6-9, we read first, "The Lord God omnipotent 
reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice and give honor to him: 
for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife has made 
herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be ar- 
rayed in fine linen, clean and white : for the fine linen is the 
righteousness of saints." The city is not "her." In verse 9 
we read, "Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage 
supper of the Lamb." A city can neither be invited to a meal 
or eat. This interpretation seems to be the correct one. Some 
may answer, "If the people are the bride, who are then the 
guests? The present inhabitants of heaven may fill this re- 
quirement, if there necessarily must be any. It is possible to 
have a marriage without guests, but not without a bride. 

Dear reader, may the Lord lead us so that we may become 
partakers of his glory. And God knows, that I do not wish 
to see a single Adventist excluded from this blessing. 

That Jesus changed a place or room in the year 1844 is 


contrary to the teaching of the Bible, and if this view is wrong 
the whole Adventist structure crumbles to dust. When we 
are going to study the nature of their foundation, it will be 
shown that the building is tottering before the unchangeable 
facts of prophecy, but I must touch upon the subject even here. 

Mrs. White says in "The Great Controversy," pages 420, 
421, "After ascension, our Saviour began his work as our high 
priest. Says Paul, Christ is not entered into the holy places 
made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into 
heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." 
(Heb. 9, 24.) Thither the faith of Christ's disciples followed 
him as he ascended from their sight. Here their hopes cen- 
tered, "which hope we have," said Paul, "as an anchor of the 
soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that with- 
in the veil ; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even 
Jesus, made an high priest forever." "Neither by the blood 
of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once 
into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for 
us." (Heb. 6: 19, 20; 9: 12.) 

Here she uses the Bible correctly, and we are not inclined 
to attack a person, where he is right. But then she continues 
"For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued in 
the first apartment of the sanctuary." 

Let us call a halt here. The exegesis is getting crooked 
again. If her testimony is written, "not to produce new light, 
but to hold fast the true word," then we have a perfect right to 
ask, "Where is it written in the Scripture, that Jesus has been 
in the first apartment and ministered for us?" "Now of 
which things we have spoken this is the sum : We have such 
an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the 
Majesty in the heavens" etc. 

Does the reader believe, that the throne of the Majesty was 
in the holy place? Jesus entered after his ascension within 


the veil and became our high priest. And there is no support 
to the theory, that Jesus has come back and ministered for us 
in the first apartment. "But this man, after he had offered 
one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of 
God." (Heb. 10, 12.) ■ Is there anywhere a more holy place 
than where God is ? 

Had Jesus ministered, as she says, eighteen centuries in 
the holy place till 1844? He ascended to heaven A. D. 34. 34 
from 1844 leaves a rest of 1810 years. If Jesus had ministered 
in the first apartment during this period, there would be no 
high priest during these 1810 years, because his ministration 
was not in the first apartment but in the most holy place. We 
are exhorted to "come boldly unto the throne of grace." (Heb. 
4, 16). Where was the throne of grace. in the earthly sanc- 
tuary ? In the most holy place. It is also situated in the most 
holy place in the heavenly sanctuary, and if Christ had been 
there 1810 years, no prayers would have been answered during 
that time. Therefore we cannot believe that she has any new 
light from the throne in heaven, nor that it is a sin to reject 
such revelations. If we commit no greater wrong, the judg- 
ment day will have no terror for us. If the new prophets 
"speak not according to God's word, it is because there is no 
light in them." (Isa. 8: 20.) We believe according to God's 
word, and therefore we receive no light from Mrs. White's 

As our hight priest, the Lord Jesus, has entered into the 
heavenly sanctuary for us, we think that there is a sanctuary 
and ministration in it for us. How this service is performed, 
we cannot say . But we see from both type and antitype that 
it cannot be as confused as the Adventists have made it. 

If one sees the shadow of a horse, there must be a horse 
somewhere. If one sees the shadow of a man, a man must 
be somewhere in the neighborhood. If the earthly sanctuary 


is the shadow in this meaning, then the ideal which is in heaven 
performs the same service as the shadow, which was in the 
earthly tabernacle. 

According to Mrs. White's visions Christ began his priestly 
functions A. D. 34. This ministration was the ideal; the 
shadow thereof was here on earth in the earthly sanctuary. 
The shadow accordingly was before the object, the earthly 
ministration before the heavenly. We could never have seen 
the shadow of a horse, if no horse existed. The earthly priests, 
offered animals twice daily. If now ideal and shadow were 
corresponding here, Christ must have been killed more than 
one million three hundred thousand times till 1844. But he 
offered himself as a sacrifice only once. The blood of the 
sacrificial animals was sprinkled on the altar (Lev. 4, G), the 
blood of ,Christ was shed on the ground. Christ was raised on 
a cross. The animals were not sacrificed in that manner. 
Their bodies were burnt, Christ's was not burnt. The former 
were killed before the door of the tabernacle. (Lev. 16 : 3, 4.) 
Christ was killed on Calvary outside of Jerusalem. As this 
tabernacle was not made with hands (Heb. 9: 11), and the 
veil was his flesh (Heb. 10: 20), it is clear that all these refer- 
ences are figures of speech. The Adventists make much ado 
of the fact, that Moses was commanded to make the earthly, 
tabernacle like the pattern, which was shown to him on the 
mountain (Ex. 25; 10). Nobody has contradicted that. But 
where is it written, that the type which Moses saw is the sanc- 
tuary in which the heavenly ministrations take place? The 
tabernacle of Moses was forty-five feet long and fifteen wide. 
The holy place thirty feet long and the holy of holies fifteen. 
As to the dimensions of the heavenly places we have no knowl- 

Jesus rode in a carriage into the most holy place 1844, Mrs. 
White tells us, to begin his ministration as a high priest, Now 


he has ministered there for 1810 years. If his earthly mini- 
stration is the shadow of the heavenly, then Jesus must min- 
ister as many days in the most holy as in the holy. 1810 days 
make five years and ten days. Jesus will thus have completed 
his priestly ministration November 1, 1849. But now he has 
been there 68 years- instead of five. The high priest had only 
one day a year, but Jesus has already had one day of each 
twenty-seven days or thirteen of 360, corresponding to 24,480 
years in the holy place instead of 1810 years. My brethren ; 
listen to the voice of Jehovah, recorded in Isa. 3 : 12, "As for 
my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over 
them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, 
and destroy the way of thy path." 


This is an astounding statement, and the Adventists say 
now that Mrs. White never has said so, as it is too thick. 

I have published a circular on the 8th chapter of Daniel 
and show them a reasonable interpretation of this prophecy. 
But as long as they persist in believing that Mrs. White is a 
veritable prophet, whatever is proven to them, they will not 
see. She stands before their vision as a dark body before the 
natural eye. Afterwards I published another circular, contain- 
ing twenty-three paragraphs, against her unfulfilled and un- 
biblical prophecies. 

This document caused not a little stir in the camp. It con- 
tained salve enough to anoint the eyes of those, who wanted to 
have them opened, to see for themselves whether Mrs. White 
is a false prophetess or not. 

In a little monthly paper, published by the Adventists in 
College View, Neb., my circular was analyzed by an appointed 
committee. The committee did not dare to attack more than 
five of the weakest points, and in order to clear her case they 


were constrained to avail themselves of cheap tricks and arti- 
fices, not to say anything worse, to save the reputation of some 
of her writings from which I had taken my quotations. But 
unfortunately these are as impossible to defend as it is to run 
between New York and Chicago without stopping. 

Many have told me that I have a hard class of people (Ad- 
ventist preachers) to deal with. I am aware of this, but feel 
in my spirit as Hezekiel did, when the Lord told him that he 
had to deal with a people whose foreheads were hard. "As an 
adamant, harder than flint, have I made thy forehead' fear 
them not, neither be dismayed at their looks, though they be a 
rebellious house" (Hez. 3:9). 

One of my points was that Mrs. White taught that after 
1844 the door of grace was shut. The committee said, that 
she did not teach this but was opposed to those who held this 

Wm. Miller taught first that the door of grace was shut. 
He says in "Advent Herald," Dec. 11, 1844, that he had made 
it his chief object in life to warn sinners and to try to wake up 
the congregation dead in formalities. God has in his provi- 
dence shut the door. This was twenty days after the date they 
thought Christ would return, October 22, 1844. Miller gave 
up his speculations afterwards, seeing how mistaken he was. 
He says again, "I have no confidence in the new theory, which 
has gone out from this movement, namely that Christ came as 
a bridegroom, that the door of grace is shut, that there is no 
more grace for sinners, that the seventh trumpet has sounded, 
it does not agree with the prophecy in any respect." ("Adv. 
Message", page 412.) 

When he was honest enough to abandon his erroneous 
doctrines, he received some special attention from Mrs. White. 
She says, "At length William Miller raised his voice against 
the light from heaven. He failed in not receiving the message 


which would have fully explained his disappointment and cast 
a light and glory on the past, which would have revived his 
exhausted energies, brightened his hope, and led him to glorify 
God. He leaned to human wisdom instead of divine. God 
suffered him to fall under the power of Satan. I saw that he 
erred as he was soon to enter Canaan, in suffering his influence 
to go against the truth." ("Early Writings," pages 257, 258.) 

Again, "Then I was shown that the commandments of God, 
and the testimony of Jesus Christ relating to the shut door, 
could not be separated." (Page 42.) 

She might just as well have said that she saw that her vi- 
sions and the commandments of God could not be separated. 
The foregoing proves conclusively that she believed the door, 
of grace was shut. 

A little worn out paper called "Word to the Little Flock," 
published in Brunswick, Me., 1847, which had found its way to 
Chicago was read here by many some years ago. It was 
borrowed on condition to return immediately. Though it may 
be difficult to secure a copy to verify the quotation I am going 
to make, there are several persons living who can bear me out 
in this. There she has these pregnant words, "I saw that there 
was no more grace for sinners after 1844." 

A certain John Megquier, Poland, Me., writes that she had 
visions in his home, according to her own statements. At these 
occasions God had shown her, 

That the door of grace was shut and no more opportunity 
given for salvation. ("True Sabbath," page 70.) 

That Jesus had left the throne of grace and the world was 
doomed to destruction. ("True Sabbath", page 72.) 

For further testimony in this matter I refer to page 429 in 
"The Great Controversy," "After the passing of the time when 
the Saviour was expected, they still believed his coming to be 
near, they held that they had reached an important crisis, and 


that the work of Christ as man's intercessor before God had 
ceased. — Having given the warning of the judgment near, they 
felt that their work for the world was done, and they lost their 
burden of soul for the salvation of sinners, while the bold and 
blasphemous scoffing of the ungodly seemed to them another 
evidence that the Spirit of God had been withdrawn from the 
rejecters of his mercy. All this confirmed them in the belief 
that probation had ended, or, as they then expressed it, "the 
door of mercy was shut." 

"But while it was true that the door of hope and mercy by 
which men had for eighteen hundred years found access to 
God was closed, another door was opened, and forgiveness .of 
sins was offered to men through the intercession of Christ in 
the most holy. One part of his ministration had closed, only to 
give place to another. There was still an "open door" to the 
heavenly sanctuary where Christ was ministering in the sin- 
ner's behalf." (Page 430.) 

Having now been compelled, against their wish, to concede 
that she had taught the door of mercy to be closed in 1844, 
they say that she meant for those who rejected the light. 
What light? The edition of "The Great Controversy" which 
I use was published forty-four years after she taught that the 
door of hope and mercy was shut. Now if she meant that it 
was closed for those, who did not believe in Miller's or her 
light, then she ought to have written that the work of Christ 
as the mediator between God and man had ceased, as far as 
they were concerned, in 1844. "Not a ray of light shall reach 
the sinners after 1844." 

Why not say then that she meant those who did not be- 
lieve in 1844? 

When she does not write anything but what God has given 
her through visions, then the door of mercy is shut or she is a 
false prophetess. 


The last edition of "Early Writings" is published 1907; five 
years ago. There is an article under the heading, "The open 
and the shut door" (pages 42-45). She says, "The ene- 
mies of the present truth have been trying to open the door of 
the holy place, that Jesus has shut, and to shut the door of the 
most holy place, which he opened in 1844. Satan is now using 
every device in this sealing time to keep the minds of God's 
people from the present truth, and to cause them to waver. He 
was at work through ministers who have rejected the truth, 
My accompanying angel bade me look for the travail of soul 
for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see it; for 
the time for their salvation is past." 

On one page she uses seven lines, when those who have 
taken it upon themselves to defend her require thirty-nine to 
defend her and make us believe, that she does not mean what 
she says but something else. 

If they dared to speak out and say, "She does not mean 
what she says and cannot be depended upon," we would be- 
lieve that they were ready to accept the real truth. But now 
they think that no greater sin could be committed than to reject 
her wonderful light from the throne of God. 1 Therefore they 
are hidebound in their errors. 

The committee chastized me and stigmatized me as a falsi- 
fier, when I pointed out these statements from her own pen. 



"I saw a throne, and on it sat the Father and the Son. 
I gazed on Jesus' countenance and admired his lovely person. 
Before the throne I saw the Advent people — the church and 
the world. I saw two companies, one bowed down before the 
throne, deeply interested, while the other stood uninterested 


and careless. I saw the Father rise from the throne, and in a 
flaming chariot go into the holy of holies within the veil, and 
sit down. Then Jesus rose up from his throne, and most 
of those who were bowed down arose with him. I did not 
see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the careless multitude 
after he arose, and they were left in perfect darkness. Then 
he raised his right arm, and we heard his lovely voice saying, 
'Wait here ; I am going to my Father to receive the Kingdom, 
and in a little while I will return from the wedding and receive 
you to myself." Then a cloudy chariot, with wheels like flaming 
fire, surrounded by angels, came to where Jesus was. He 
stepped into the chariot and was borne to the holiest, where 
the Father sat. There I beheld Jesus, a great High Priest, 
standing before the Father. I turned to look at the company 
who were still bowed before the throne; they did not know that 
Jesus had left it. Satan appeared to be by the throne, trying 
to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up to the throne, 
and pray, 'Father, give us Thy Spirit.' Satan would then 
breathe upon them an unholy influence. Satan's object was to 
keep them deceived, and to draw back and deceive God's chil- 
dren." ("Early Writings", pages 54-56.) 

If this is not fullfledged lunacy we don't know what it is. 
We need to read the lithany, "From such miserable doctrines, 
save us, O dear Lord." 

The genial committee says, that the above nonsense is a 
description of the contest between the powers of light and 
darkness during the era of grace, and that I have ignored the 
context, wherefore I am an irresponsible deceiver. 

Let us now see, who is deceived, the committee or I. We 
have proved already that, according to Mrs. White, the. 2,300 
days ended in 1844. This is as certain as Providence. 

The Lord has his throne in heaven. "Heaven is my throne, 
and the earth is my footstool." (Isa. GG: 1.) If Satan were 


to appear before God's throne, he must be where God's throne 
is. If Satan appeared on earth, God's throne must be there. 
But it has in all probability not been removed. The writings 
of Mrs. White show, that it was those who refused to believe 
in her visions about the change and the riding in a flaming 
chariot who could not be present at the marriage feast; they 
were now foolish virgins. When they teach to this day, that 
the parable of the ten virgins was fulfilled in 1844, anyone can 
see how foolish the application will be. 

She closes her article with these words, "Satan's object was 
to keep them deceived, and to draw back and deceive God's 
children." If Satan was on the earth, what is then meant by 
"draw back" and deceive God's children who also were on the 
earth ? 

The committee answers, "She means that she saw them by 
faith standing before God's throne." 

Adventists ! You ought not to accuse the pope in Rome of 
keeping his people in bonds and fetters, as long as you believe 
in and are bound by the fanaticisms of an old woman. If she 
cannot claim the honor of being the pope No. 1, she certainly 
is No. 2. Satan was cast out and his angels ; neither was their 
place found any more in heaven. This is the verdict of God's 
holy Spirit (Rev. 12). 

Let us consider for a moment the position the poor people 
were in, whom she saw bowed before the throne, praying, 
"Father, give us Thy Spirit." Whether it was in heaven or 
on the earth they were offering this prayer, Satan came and 
breathed upon them. The only thing that helped them was 
Mrs. White's wonderful "light from God's throne." A great 
light, indeed. He who can believe such fantasies is a full- 
blooded Adventist. He who does not believe them is, like 
myself, a renegade who has abandoned the truth. 

About a year ago I wrote to one of their preachers who 


was not sufficiently rooted and grounded in "the truth," and 
asked him if he had read, that Mrs. White saw Satan before 
God's throne. Neither he nor his wife believed that this was 
the case, but that I probably was mistaken. His wife persuad- 
ed him to send for the book "Early Writings" so that they 
might see for themselves. Afterwards he wrote to me that he 
had found it as well as many other things, which neither he 
nor thousands of other Adventists had ever seen. They left 
the sect afterwards and visited me in Chicago. The wife told 
me that when they had read this chapter, they fell upon their 
knees and cried over the misery. My own eyes are filling with 
tears when I write this. 

I also wrote to a brother in the West asking him how he 
liked "Early Writings." He answered that when he read the 
book he had the same feeling as if he was knocking his head 
against the wall. He could not have given a better answer. If 
the followers of Mrs. White have a scintilla of common sense 
left they cannot very well read her visions and dreams, fanat- 
ical imaginations and bottomless humbug without waking up 
from their own dreams and getting ready to leave the com- 
munion which no longer has any power over them. Many of 
their congregations have been hopelessly split on this account. 

As we have already shown, Mrs. White teaches that "in 
former times God spoke to the fathers through the prophets 
and the apostles, but in these last days he speaks to them 
through the testimony of the Spirit." 

It seems to me and a large number of other believers, that 
the holy Scriptures contain all that pertains to life and salva- 
tion, there is therefore no need of her nine large books — 
"testimonies"— about six times as voluminous as the Bible. 
This oracle of God contains 66 books, 1189 chapters, 31173 
verses, and among this vast literature there is, to my knowl- 
edge, not one word written by a woman. This word informs 


us that God in these last days speaks to us through his Son. 
Her testimonies and the Bible disagree in a great number of 
places. It is safest for us to follow the injunction of St. Paul 
to Timothy, "But continue thou in -the things which thou hast 
learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast 
learned them — the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee 
wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 
(2 Tim. 3: 13-17.) 

One of their preachers who had been with them a long time 
said some time ago, "Her prophecies have been the greatest 
curse among us. Congregations have been split and the most 
intimate ties of friendship have been broken through them." 
Did he exaggerate? What was the cause of the separation of 
1,321 Sabbath observers at the Lake Union Conference in 
1910? Of course, "they left the truth." The aforesaid 
preacher has also broken the chains that kept him in bondage. 

Mrs. White says in her testimonies, (Vol. iv, page 230,) 
"My work for the last thirty years bear an imprint of either 
God or Satan. The testimonies are either by God or the 

As far as we can comprehend her writings, her testimonies 
are neither from God nor Satan, but an expression of her im- 
agination or fantasies. But as people have been misled by 
them and great damage done among the plain and ignorant 
classes, it becomes a duty to reveal their true nature and warn 
against them. If she was the only believer in them we would 
riot go to the trouble of attacking them. 

Some of the Adventists are real dreamers and easy marks 
as herself. A preacher dreamed of me and one of the mem- 
bers that we were in a serpent's nest. When I had left the 
congregation he made public reference to his dream, but men- 
tioned only my name. Two years later the preacher had some 
difficulty with the other member. Then he found out that he 


also was in the serpent's nest. The interpretation of the dream 
was that I had left the truth and come among a people that are 
opposed to the Adventists. Among these he especially noticed 
D. M. Canright and W. Norstrom. Both of these men have 
done their cause a great deal of harm. The dreamer was 
thinking of these things, when he saw that I did not swallow 
everything he set before me, he feared I was going to leave 
them. If the dream has any meaning at all, it must be that I 
came out of the serpent's nest (their doctrinal system). The 
Lord brought me up out of the horrible pit. Glory to his name ! 

There was another member, among them, a plain and good 
man, but simple minded in the highest degree. A certain per- 
son boarded in his home. The boarder had forgotten his door- 
key one evening when he was coming home late. God now 
shook the gas chandelier so he woke him up at the right mo- 
ment in order to open the door. When he told me of this won- 
derful incident I said to him that he should not believe such 
nonsense. The man was in no danger. There might have 
been some object to shake the ga,s fixtures if fire had broken 
out in the building and the poor people had gotten a chance to 
escape the flames. The shaking of the gas fixtures can more 
easily be explained by physical reasons. 

A woman who received coal from the Associated Charities 
refused to accept it, because the driver belonged to a labor 
union, and this institution is of the deyil. 

Among such people independent and clearheaded thinking is 
a crime and an abomination. 


September "23, 1849, Mrs. White had a vision again, "Then 
I was pointed to some who are in the great error of be- 
lieving that it is their duty to go to old Jerusalem, and think 


they have a work to do there before the Lord comes. It would 
take a long while to make a very few of the Jews believe even 
in the first advent of Christ, much more to believe in His 
second advent." ("Early Writings," pages 64-65.) 

The committee says now that she dissuaded them in the 
beginning of their work to go to Jerusalem. Now they believe 
there is a mission for them in -Jerusalem; therefore they are 
sending missionaries to the holy land. Why should it be a 
greater error then than it is now. I pointed out in the protest 
that if God had shown her this in the vision, he ought to have 
understood better. You will admit that the vision she had in 
1849 was an error or else it is an error to send missionaries 
now. (See page 64.) 


These words appeared in a circular I published against her. 
Now the committee says that I criticized her because she had 
warned some persons who were urging the question of diet 
too hard. 

I have not attacked her because she pressed the dietary 
question too severely; but I have shown that she is a false 

Some preachers had read in the Bible that pork was an un- 
clean food, because the swine belong to the unclean animals. 
They believed this and preached it to others. (Lev. 11 : 17 ; 
Isa. 66: 17.) 

Now Mrs. White got a vision in reference to the case, 

1. I saw that you have wrong ideas concerning your bodies 
as you abstain from nourishing food. 

2. I saw that your views concerning these things are 
wrong. i 

3. I saw that you are deceived concerning your duty and 
that of others. 


4. I saw that your view concerning pork will not cause any 
evil, if you only keep it to yourselves. 

5. You run ahead of the angels who are leading these 

6. Some think that your proposed views are humiliating. 
They are mistaken ; you are mistaken. 

7. You are both doing a work from which you should 

8. Your souls are withering under the destroying influence 
of your own error. 

9. A fanatical spirit is in you which you take to be the 
Spirit of God. 

10. You are mistaken. (Testimonies, Vol. I, pages 205- 

In "The Great Controversy", page 595, Mrs. White says, 
"Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand 
a plain 'Thus saith the Lord' in its support." 

If the preacher had acted unwisely, let them correct him. 
But it cannot be proved to be error. To keep the truth to 
themselves and to put the light under a bushel is hypocrisy. 
They were not ahead of the angels. But they were ahead of 
Mrs. White who wants to govern these people with the big 
stick. They were not doing a work from which they needed 
to be saved. Unwise zeal is no sin. Their souls were not with- 
ering. They were not guided by a fanatical spirit. They had 
a "Thus saith the Lord" in support of their doctrine. 

Five years after she had this vision about the mistake of 
the preacher, she had another vision (1863) in regard to sani- 
tary reform. Then God showed her what they should not eat, 
and she exhorted all, especially the preachers, to take a definite 
stand against the following articles of food : Tea, coffee, meat, 
pork, cheese, butter, eggs, spices, mince pie, sugarcake, 
etc. This is stated in several of her books. 


She claims that God has, through visions, opened her eyes 
to these things, that God has given her testimonies for their 
guidance, and that no greater sin can be committed than re- 
jecting her testimonies. But it is not given to produce any 
new light. 

Now we want Mrs. White or any other Adventists, to show 
us where in the Bible it is forbidden to eat all these things, or 
otherwise let them acknowledge that she is a false prophetess. 
Because one who is half right and half wrong is not acknowl- 
edged by the Lord. When she had this great vision, as it is 
erroneously called, she took away nearly all that there is on 
a hungry man's table; no wonder there was a great confusion 
about what people were allowed to eat. Many thousands 
wrote and others came to the preachers asking what food was 
permitted to the faithful. 

With the exception of a few desiccated souls, who are alto- 
gether wrapped up in Mrs. White and her follies, the Adventists 
have rejected her bill of fare, save pork; against this item they 
have all taken a firm stand. Thus she punished the preacher 
and the others, the only tenable thing in her vision. Will you 
admit that such is the case, or do you intend to procure a larger 
brush to whitewash your deception with, when you come to- 
gether next time ? 

"Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, 
and have seen nothing." (Ez. 13: 3.) 


January 4, 18C2, some things were shown me concerning 
our nation. (Testimonies, Vol. I, page 253.) 

"This system of slavery which is going to ruin our nation 
will live and call forth another civil war." 

Did the civil war ruin America and did it call forth another 


civil war? No, no. Will you admit that this is no wonderful 
light from God's throne? Lies! 

"It seemed impossible to carry on the war with success." 
(Page 256.) 

Was the war carried on with success? Everybody knows 
that it was. Her prophecies way from the mark again. 

"I saw misery and hunger in the land." (Page 260.) 

Does history know of any such calamity at that particular 
period. No more than at other times. 

In connection with these visions about the nation she says 
concerning slavery, 

"All heaven beholds with indignation human beings, the 
workmanship of God, reduced by their fellowmen to the lowest 
depths of degradation, and placed on a level with the brute 
creation. Angels have recorded it all ; it is written in the book. 
The tears of the pious bondmen and bondwomen, of fathers, 
mothers and children, brothers and sisters, are all bottled up 
in heaven. God will restrain His anger but little longer. His 
wrath burns against this nation, and especially against the re- 
ligious bodies that have sanctioned this terrible traffic, and 
have themselves engaged in it." ("Early Writings", page 275.) 

"I saw the pious slave rise in victory and triumph, and shake 
off the chains that'bound him, while his wicked master was in 
confusion, and knew not what to do." (Page 285. ) 

Here my opponents say that she meant the slavery' of sin, 
which is going to last till Jesus comes. She saw the wrath of 
God stirred up and could only be held back a little longer. But 
let us examine this a little closer. It was the pious slave who 
was to shake off the chains, but is it not curious that the slaves 
of sin should be called pious? That is a contradiction I will 
not lay at the feet of Mrs. White. She did not mean them, but 
the slaves of America who have been free for fifty years. 
When slavery was abolished her theories were shown to be tin- 


sound, and in order to repair her sinking ship the following 
editions have a note in the marginal, that she does not mean 
the slavery of America, which is precisely what she says. Her 
apostles always know what she means when her prophecies 
turn out to be absolute failures. 

Does she really mean the slave of sin on page 286, in 
"Early Writings" ? "I saw the pious slave of sin rise in victory 
and shake off the chains that bound him in sin ?" Let the Ad- 
ventists ris'e and explain the wonderful logic in this consum- 
mate nonsense. 

If people were as afraid of doing wrong as they are anxious 
to save their miserable idols, our world would look a great deal 
better than it does now. 

The Adventists are greatly enraged against me, because I 
point out their astounding mistakes. But I hope they will get 
their eyes open by and by. 

Finally my antagonists rebuke me for getting into con- 
troversy with a woman who is 85 years old. 

As far as I know I have not started any controversy with 
her ; my object is only to show that her prophecies are false and 
misleading. But if it can be shown me in the Bible that it is 
wrong to reveal false prophets, when they attain to a vener- 
able age, I shall immediately desist and ask both her and the 
Adventists to pardon me. God himself cries woe over false 
prophets, and as far as my means will allow I intend to follow 
the voice of the Spiiit in this respect and unveil the falsehood. 

Why cannot the Adventists leave the Catholic church alone ? 
They answer, "Because this church teaches so many erroneous 

Abandon your own erroneous teachings and prophecies, and 
people will leave you in peace, but not before. When one 
ceases another begins. 
. It is just as impossible for the Adventists to defend Mrs. 


White's revelations without subterfuges and deception as it is 
for them to go to 'the moon and plant potatoes. Christ said 
that all he said he received from the Father, and Mrs. White 
writes and speaks nothing she does not receive from God's 
throne. In this respect she places herself in the same exalted 
position as the Lord Jesus, thereby making greater claims for 
herself than any prophet dared to do. The Catholic church 
believes in their pope and traditions ; the Adventists have their 
pope and her traditions, which cannot be proved from the Bible 
more than the Catholics can prove theirs. It is just as impos- 
sible for them to show the proof that the 2,300 days in Dan. 
8, 14 began 457 B. C. as it is to prove from the Bible accounts 
that the woman was created before the man. But they still 
persist in preaching this error, which is — as their prophet says 
— the hub in the wheel. If they cannot prove that Jesus en- 
tered the heavenly sanctuary and commenced his office as a 
high priest in A. D. 1844, it is thereby proven that their 
doctrinal wheel has never had any hub. Since my circulars 
have come out, the Swedish Adventists have written more than 
ever about their foundation, the 2,300 days and the year 1844, 
in "Tidens Tecken" ("Signs of the Times",) their Swedish 
organ in America. When one ceases some one else is ready 
to begin. 

Just now a copy of this paper, dated March 12, 1912, came 
in my hands. In this Henry Johnson has an article on the 
mediatorial work of Jesus. This is the way he commences, 
"When Jesus ascended to heaven in the first room, the holy 
place, in the heavenly sanctuary" etc. 

Why does he say so? Because Mrs. White has seen it in 
her visions, and she never says a word that is not a wonderful 
light from the throne of God. Here we have the pope of the 
Adventists just as infallible as the one of the Catholic church. 
But the plain teaching of the Scripture is that Jesus entered in 


once into the* holy place, having obtained eternal redemption 
for us. (Heb. 9, 12 ; 6 : 19-20.) Since this profound and orig- 
inal thinker had given the readers a sample of Mrs. White's 
unspeakable nonsense and perverted the truth, he becomes sen- 
timental and exclaims, "O what depth of wisdom there is in 
God !" Exactly. But let us add, "O what depth of foolishness 
there is in Henry Johnson, who can believe in Mrs. White !" 

If she has said so, it is right. No examination of her state- 
ments is necessary. She cannot make any mistakes for the 
simple reason that God never makes any mistakes, and she 
receives her wonderful light directly from God's throne. 

Last spring an American preacher spoke for a whole hour 
in the Swedish Adventist school a little way from Chicago. 
During this long sermon he did not mention Christ a single 
time, but he found occasion to elevate Mrs. White to the posi- 
tion of the greatest prophet in the world. This is one of his 
assertions, "Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul and others were great 
in their day. But since the beginning of the world God has 
not sent a message to mankind so rich and full of grace as that 
of Mrs. Ellen White." 

A Swedish professor who flared to think for himself said 
to the graduating class the day after, "Beware to preach in 
this way when you come out among our people. It is almost 
a blasphemy. He does not do any favor to Mrs. White or the 
Adventists thereby." 

I am deeply sorry for these deluded people who are so 
easily caught in the snares of this peculiar woman, who can 
lead them withersoever she wants. 

Several years ago, when the Swedish Adventists bought 
their property in Chicago at 213 West Oak St., I was a mem- 
ber of the business committee. I figured out that it was im- 
possible under the present circumstances to open bathrooms 
without losing money. But bathrooms were established. We 


made appeals through the papers to the public, we begged 
privately from our friends. I was also one of the solicitors for 
funds. If I had then known what I know now about their 
work, I should not have done it. They elected me as one of 
the auditors. After the year was up, the congregation found 
that there was a loss of $300 on this enterprise, though the poor 
people had done all that they could. One woman out West 
had set a hen to get some chickens, the income from which 
was used for this purpose. What I will show with this, is that 
Mrs. White is the leader in everything they are doing, the 
greatest as well as the least, and what she dictates must be 

In "Testimonies," Vol. Ill, page 492, Mrs. White says some- 
thing like this, I have been shown that the highest tribunal 
God has on earth is the general conference (of the Seventh Day 
Adventists). He who opposes this opposes God's highest trib- 
unal on earth. 

When the S. D. A. have their general conference, and Mrs. 
White as their inspired prophetess is among them, then they 
have God's highest tribunal on earth. Has the pope in Rome 
ever claimed higher authority? Some of their ministers do 
really believe, that they are the grand jury of the Almighty and 
yet they cannot see how dangerously near they are to the 
Catholic pretentions, which they continually criticise for the 
very same reason. 

All other churches and ministers are called Babylon's 
churches and Babylon's priests. What other denominations 
are doing has no value for them. When they appear in public 
they assume the air of deepest sanctity and humility and sin- 
cerity, while at heart they are cold, harsh, critical and conceited. 
But this is only a natural result of their system. 

Some years ago a decree was published, it was stated, from 
Mrs. White, that a Seventh-day Adventist could not expect the 


protection of God's angels, if he listened to other ministers. 
This I heard since I had left them. Some thought this went a 
little too far, so they have not obeyed the hard edict. 

There is a partiality that is commendable. It is right to 
stand up for and defend a true doctrine, but that is not the 
same as despising and hating others, whom God evidently have 
blessed. A Baptist preacher left the church of which he had 
been a member for fourteen years and where he had received 
many spiritual blessings, in order to join the Seventh-day Ad- 
ventists. When he later passed this church, where he had been 
preaching and praying for so many years he spit at her and 
called her a harlot. He is now professor in one of the Ad- 
ventist schools, and if he still has the same spirit, it is easy to 
understand, what kind of Adventist preachers we can expect 
for the future. We have a right to demand common decency 
from those who are going to teach others. The Adventists 
need not say that these statements are fabrications of my own, 
because I can name both the preacher and the church, but that 
is of no importance here, as I am only after the system and 
not the persons. That this professor is as ignorant in the 
prophetical word as the people he has proved through his con- 
tributions to "Tidens Tecken." 


"It was seen, also, that while the sin-offering pointed to 
Christ as a sacrifice, and the high priest represented Christ as 
a mediator, the scapegoat typified Satan, the author of sin, 
upon whom the sins of the truly penitent will finally be placed." 
("The Great Controversy", page 422.) 

We have then two mediators who bear our sins : Christ and 
Satan. But if Mrs. White is right, how shall we then under- 
stand Isa. 53 : 6, "The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity 
of us all"? (See also 1 Pet. 2: 24.) 


A little illustration will make this clear. A owes B one 
thousand dollars. A is poor and cannot pay the amount. B 
waives his claim and A is free from debt. Would it be right 
for B to go to one of A:s neighbors who partly was the cause 
of A:s poverty and indebtedness, who also was without means, 
and ask of him to demand of A that he should pay the thousand 
dollars. You say, that is wrong. 

But such is the God of Mrs. White. She informs us that 
Jesus has borne our sins and suffered for them ; but in spite of 
this Satan must suffer and be punished for our sins which are 
pardoned. Now it is not at all certain that Azasel means Satan. 
Some interpreters say that it simply means one who carries 
away and was the symbol of the total removal of sin. So the 
Lord does ; he casts our sins in the depths of the sea and blots 
them out as a cloud. 


In the year 1849 Mrs. White saw that Jesus rode in a 
cloudy chariot within the second veil 1844. Jesus had accord- 
ingly been there five years before Mrs. White saw how he was 
borne there and became our high priest. 

The following was written 1849, "I saw that the time for 
Jesus to be in the most holy place was nearly finished, and that 
time can last but very little longer. ("Early Writings", page 

And again in 1849, "The time is so nearly fulfilled ;. what 
we have had several years to learn the new converts must 
acquire in a few months." 

At this time she had seen that the time was so nearly ful- 
filled that the young converts had only a few months to learn 
what others had had several years to learn. 

As she never writes anything that is not a wonderful light 
from Gods throne, a guidance for his people, and a greater sin 


can hardly be committed than rejecting her testimony; then 
we have a right to demand that she shall speak the truth and 
not deliberately mislead us. 

Who speaks the truth here ? Am I unreasonable and is my 
position untenable, as the committee says? "He who has the 
truth is not blind." 

When Adventists start meetings in a new place they have 
as a rule a series of subjects which they present in a line, 
the one after the other, leaving the burning topics to the last. 
If they cannot, as one pastor said, get their hearers in the trap, 
the game is considered lost. 

Now, Adventists, I have succeded in getting all, prophetess 
and committee, in the trap, and there is no other way out than 
to admit, that your prophetess has prophecied falsely. We in- 
tend to go after you ; here and before the living God we ask 
you, "What will you do about the prophetess now?" 

Suppose for the sake of argument that a company is com- 
ing to Chicago and among the company is my aforesaid com- 
mittee. They intend to visit a place outside of the city and 
wish to have a guide. I am familiar with the place they want 
to see ; therefore they accept me as their guide and we begin 
our journey. Having gone five miles, one of the company asks 
me, how much is left of the way. I answer, "There is only a 
little bit left." It is absolutely necessary that we must have 
passed more than half of the way, before I am justified in giv- 
ing such an answer. We travel sixty-three miles more and 
come to most desolate places. Many begin to suspect me as a 
' false leader and they drop out, one after the other. One of the 
company who had left it or them, finds where the place is sit- 
uated and comes back to them with a map, showing them in 
all friendliness that I have led them the wrong, way. Would 
it then be reasonable to select a committee to defend my poor 
leadership and attack those who had sense enough to leave in 


order to find out with certainty where the place was ? That is 
precisely what the committee has done. 

Mrs. White said in 1849, that the service of Christ in the 
heavenly sanctuary was nearly finished then, so the newly con- 
verted had only a few months' time remaining before Jesus 
was going to appear. Since she said that sixty-three years have 
passed away and they are yet here on earth in the most mis- 
erable darkness with their prophetess and her visions, but still 
they don't dare to examine their chart, although hundreds upon 
hundreds are leaving them on account of the many false as- 
sertions she has made. 

You ought to be ashamed of yourselves before God and 
all the heavenly hosts and before all men because you dare to 
stand up and defend such a prophetess who is deceiving people 
in such a shameful manner. Sixty-three years are not a few 
months ; the young converts have already had twelve times 
more time than she has allotted them, and you don't know how 
much more they get . Seven hundred and fifty months is not 
equivalent to a few months. 

Will you not accept the truth yet? There will be a .day 
when you will be compelled to do so. I do not wish that you 
should wait till God appears against you and uses his stronger 
arguments. But those who know the Adventists of the extreme 
type, fear that they will not yield before they are forced by 
irresistible means. 

Proofs to sustain this view are many. About seven years 
ago, when we had tent meetings in Chicago, I was going to 
make a platform for the music-band. The pastor had already 
bought the lumber, the lumber was five blocks away from the 
place and the weather was extremely warm. Two of us were 
going to carry the lumber. I figured out that we had bought 
just twice as many boards as were needed. I told the pastor 
this three times. The third time he felt hurt and answered me 


shortly, "Bring the lumber here, I know it is right." We car- 
ried only half the number of boards to our lot and built the 
platform according to his plan. Half the boards we did not 
need and received half of the money back from the lumber 
yard. Then he was compelled to admit that he was wrong. I 
don't mention this because he made a mistake in his calcula- 
tions, but because he would not change his wrong opinions. 
He ought to have said the first time, "Let's figure again." But 
it is not only in religious questions these people consider them- 
selves as the highest authority, Mrs. White's notions crop out 
also in everyday life. 



Mrs.' White says, "I was shown Adam and Eve, who were 
privileged to behold the beauty and loveliness of the garden of 
Eden, and were permitted to eat of all the trees in the garden 
except one. But the serpent tempted Eve, and she tempted 
her husband, and they both ate of the forbidden tree. They 
broke God's commandments and became sinners. The news 
spread through heaven, and every harp was hushed. I then 
saw Jesus approach the exceeding bright light wihch enshroud- 
ed the Father. The anxiety of the angels seemed to be intense 
while Jesus was communing with his Father. He told them he 
had been pleading with his Father, and had offered to give hfs 
life a ransom, to take the sentence of death upon himself, that 
through him man might find pardon. It was even a struggle 
with the God af heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or 
to give his beloved Son to die for him. God suffered his be- 
loved Son to die for man's transgression. Jesus went then 
and told the angels that he would stand between the wrath of 
his Father and guilty man. Then joy, inexpressible joy, filled 
heaven. And the heavenly host sang a song of praise and ador- 


ation. They touched their harps and sang a note higher than 
they had done before." ("Early Writings", page 125, 126; 

"The Kingdom of grace was instituted immediately after 
the fall of man, when a plan was devised for the redemption 
of the guilty race." ("The Great Controversy", page 347.) 

Is 'there any foundation for such doctrines in the holy writ, 
or is she coming with a new light again from the throne of 
God? It is not only a new light, but it is contrary to the plain 
teaching of the word and common sense. The fall of man did 
not provoke any stir in heaven. 

Paul, the apostle of Jesus Christ, says in Ephesians 1, 4, 
"God hath chosen us in him before the foundation of this 
world." And the apostle Peter writes in his first epistle 1 : 20, 
that our salvation was foreordained before the foundation of 
the world. 

If the Adventists did not believe that she was a greater 
prophet than Paul and Peter, they would not want to publish 
such books. Mrs. White is directly against these apostles of 
the Lord. Who is right? You will have to reject one of the 
two, either the words of Paul and Peter or those of your 
prophetess. "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Hearken not unto 
the words of the prophets that prophecy unto you; they make 
you vain : they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out 
of the mouth of the Lord." (Jer. 23 : 16.) 


Let us listen to Mrs. White once more. "While appearing 
to the children of men as a great physician who can heal all 
their maladies, he will bring disease and disaster, until popu- 
lous cities are reduced to ruin and desolation. Even now he 
is at work. In accidents and calamities by sea and by land, in 
great conflagrations, in fierce tornadoes and terrific hail 


storms, in tempests, floods, cyclones, tidal waves, and earth- 
quakes, in every place and in a thousand forms, Satan is exer- 
cising his power. He sweeps away the ripening harvest, and 
famine andv distress follow. He imparts to the air a deadly 
taint, and thousands perish by pestilence. These visitations 
are to become more and more frequent and disastrous. De- 
struction will be upon both man and beast. "The earth mourn- 
eth arid fadeth away," "the haughty people ... do languish. 
The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof ; because 
they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinances, 
broken the everlasting covenant." (Isa. 24: 4, 5.) (The 
Great Controversy, pages 589, 590.) 

Is it not the height of ignorance when people in this en- 
lightened age will publish books, in which the devil is blamed 
for all eveil that is done in the world? If the devil is to be 
blamed for all evil Mrs. White lays before his feet, then it seems 
as though he had taken supremacy over both God and man. 
The calamities by sea and by land he is the author of. He 
was accordingly in the cow that overturned the lantern which 
caused the great Chicago fire. He was, of course, in the 
electric wire and caused the fire in the Iroquois theatre some 
years ago, wherein more than six hundred people lost their 
lives. He is the origin of all conflagrations, arson included. 
Several buildings collapse here in Chicago every year ; some 
while under construction. Trains collide daily when thousands 
lose their lives. The hospitals are full of patients. Diseases 
are prevalent in cities and in the country. Ships are wrecked 
by the hundreds and one hundred after the other of innocent 
human beings are called away through these calamities. The 
devil is doing all this. He placed the iceberg in the way of the 
Titanic, causing one of the most apalling disasters in modern 
times. He holds back the rain in India for long seasons, but 
allows China to be flooded causing death and destruction in 


both countries. Earthquakes, cyclones, droughts etc. are. be- 
yond human control ; but most accidents and calamities are 
caused by carelessness or dishonesty on the part of someone. 
Diseases are caused by the violation of the laws which the 
Creator has given us to obey. If she speaks the truth in the 
foregoing paragraph, she certainly has received a great and 
peculiar light from the throne. Mrs. White makes God a ver- 
itable weakling instead of one who has all power in heaven 
and on earth, who allows the devil to run his universe one 
millenium after the other. If God is unable to put a stop to 
his malicious government, the great world powers ought to do 
something to check him. 

But my opinion is that even if all the military powers in 
the world called out their men and began to shoot in all direc- 
tions, they would not hit him. When the housebuilder tries 
to cheat the owner and puts in inferior material and workman- 
ship in the foundation, the house will fall, and the builder is the 
cause of the accident. Therefore we consider it right, that 
the court pronounces the sentence over him, and does not 
bother itself about the devil. The same reasoning can be ap- 
plied to the guard who falls asleep at his post and forgets to 
put the switches right ; he is the cause of the railroad collision 
that .fallows, but not the devil. Mrs. White understands seem- 
ingly just as much about the laws of nature as Nimrod and 
his people who were aiming to build a tower reaching toward 
heaven; if he had had only a little elementary knowledge in 
natural history he would never have thought of such foolish- 
ness. She finishes her article with a quotation from Isaiah, that 
these phenomena are punishments which God is going to send 
at last. Has God no power Himself to do this without sending 
his archenemy? Paul says he has power in the air (not over 
the air), and Mrs. White's arguments have about the same 
weight as the air ; they are amazingly light and incoherent. 


She continues, "As the crowning act in the great drama of 
deception, Satan himself will impersonate Christ. The church 
has long professed to look to the Saviour's advent as the con- 
summation of her hopes. Now the great deceiver will make it 
appear that Christ has come. In different parts of the earth, 
Satan will manifest himself as a majestic being of dazzling 
brightness, resembling the description of the Son of God given 
by John in the Revelation (1: 13-15). The glory that sur- 
rounds him is unsurpassed by anything that mortal eyas have 
yet beheld. The shout of triumph rings out upon the air, 
"Christ has come ! Christ has come !" The people prostrate, 
themselves in adoration before him, while he lifts up his hands, 
and pronounces a blessing upon them, as Christ blessed his 
disciples when he was upon the earth. His voice is soft and 
subdued, yet full of melody. In gentle, compassionate tones 
he presents some of the same gracious, heavenly truths which 
the Saviour uttered; he heals the diseases of the people, and 
then, in his assumed character of Christ, he claims to have 
changed the Sabbath to Sunday, and commands all to hallow 
the day which he has blessed." ("The Great Controversy", 
page 624.) 

It is the great prophet of Adventism that predicts future 
events in this way. He who can believe all this has no need to 
pray with the disciples, "Increase our faith !" It is the wildest 
imaginations that a human being can have that she here pre- 
sents to her church ; but still there are people who believe in 
this a great deal more than in the Bible. An Adventist preach- 
er, about sixty years old, told me not long ago that he believes 
in her more now than ever before. As soon as a person has 
faith in her as a prophetess he is uncapable to spread the light 
that Christ wishes, to have spread in the world, but he becomes 
an adept in the art of circulating Mrs. White's perversions and 
to make proselytes for her imaginary truth. 



"It is at midnight that God manifests his power for the de- 
liverance of his people . . . Everything in nature seems turned 
■ out of its course. The streams cease to flow. Dark, heavy 
clouds come up, and clash against each other . . . The moun- 
tains shake like a reed in the wind, and ragged rocks are scat- 
tered on every side." ("The Great Controversy", page 636.) 

"The sun came up, and the moon stood still . . . the sea 
boiled like a pot, and cast out stones upon the land." ("Early 
Writings", page 34.) 

Then she sees the 144,000, who were changed and taken up 
in heaven. They had been without a mediator. These were 
the Seventh-day Adventists. In their mouths no lie had been 
found, because they are without a blemish. Neither had they 
been contaminated with women (other churches) etc. 

Have we any support in the Scripture for such statements ? 
The streams will cease to flow, the moon will stand still and 
the sea boil as a pot. Then it will be so hot that no human be- 
ing can live here, not even the devil during the thousand years 
he — according to the Adventists — shall dwell here. Are the 
Adventists the 144,000 of the tribes of Israel? Have they 
never belonged to other churches? If no lie shall be found in 
their mouths, than we have to wait a long time, before we get 
144,000 such Adventists. In the first place they will have to 
repudiate all of Mrs. White's prophecies and all superstructures 
that have been built upon them ; but, alas ! it will no doubt re- 
quire a long period before they get grace enough to do that. 


Once upon a time she saw in a vision how'the dress of the 
sisters ought to be so they should not have to follow the 



fashions of the world. The reformdress should be nine inches 
from the ground, the lowest seam to be midway between the 
knees and the ground, then the pantaloons followed to the feet. 
When this model was ready she says, 

"Those who have heard me on this 
question are responsible for the light 
they have received. I have done my duty. 
I have given my testimony. Those who 
have heard me must either accept or 
reject the light." ("Testimonies," Vol. 
I, page 523.) 

This time tbe prophet ran up against 
a snag. The sisters rejected the light 
from the Lord (Mrs. White) and ran 
their own risk. Not one accepted her 
reformdress, a heavy blow to the great 

When the sisters were obstinate and 
protested against the first reformdress, 
Mrs. White made the unchangeable Lord 
make an exception in this case and 
showed her another dress, which was 
supposedly more according to the taste of the sisters. 

Once when I mentioned to an Adventist preacher that God 
seemed to change his views just as she wished, he answered, 
that Lot was ordered to flee to the mountains, but asked of the 
Lord permission to go to Zoar which was granted him. 

The reformdress number two was longer, but pantaloons 
should still be worn, and the edict caused a great deal of trouble 
among them. The men refused to be seen in company with 
the sisters. The boys mocked and laughed at the women when 
they walked on the street. Some of them cried ; and no wonder, 
I have seen people shed tears over smaller things than this. 


The reformdress was after a while laid aside both by Mrs. 
White and her sisters. 

But it goes without saying that this was a terrific blow to 
one who was used to being obeyed in everything, and at last 
it became a burden to her. On January 3, 1875, when she was 
in Battle Creek, Mich., it was shown to her that the great 
dissimilarity in dress was harmful to the congregation, and the 
reformdress had been a blessing if accepted. For no kind 
of dress could be better in the Sanitarium and should not have 
been rejected. ("Testimonies," Vol. IV, page 636.) 

Since God had shown her this some simpleminded souls 
began to adopt the reformdress again which they formerly had 
rejected. They thought like this, "If she is a prophet it is 
better for us to obey, or we may be lost." And, of course, they 
were right — if she is a prophet. 

The waves that had been quiet for awhile commenced to 
rage again. Let us now listen to Mrs. White's testimony, which 
she published to relieve them from the duty to wear the reform- 

"Our sisters, whose mind is agitated again over this matter, 
namely the reformdress, should pray much and carefully guard 
every thought in this direction. The Lord has not ordered any 
specimen of human device to come in and stir up the minds 
of our people. No certain form has been given to me as a pat- 
tern for all to dress after. Plain clothes should be used." 
("Review and Herald," Sep. 11, 1900, page 583.) 

If the poor woman is so simpleminded then she is in a 
deplorable condition, or otherwise she is sly as a fox. God 
knows her. Here she has gone the most crooked ways to 
escape disgrace. She speaks untruthfully either the first time 
or the second. 

We may be reasonably sure, that if the Lord had shown 
her the reformdress, the first one would do without any altera- 


- tions. It does not work well to fool with God in this way. 
But Mrs. White evidently does not take it so serious, as she 
laid aside the reformdress and was willing to take the con- 
sequences for disobeying this injunction from God's throne. 


If anyone should ask the Adventists, "What is the testimony 
of Jesus?" they would invariably answer, "That is the Spirit 
of prophecy." And let someone say, "Who is the spirit of 
prophecy?" and the answer immediately is, "That is the 
testimony of Jesus." This is true ; but we receive no light upon _ 
the subject. They might just as -well say, the doctor is the 
physician, and the physician is the doctor. But we want to 
know, what is the occupation of the doctor or physician? If 
you ask the Adventists in a meeting, "All those who believe 
that Mrs. White is the Spirit of prophecy please raise your 
hand," most of them would lift one hand, and some would raise 
both their hands. And again let us say, "All who believe that 
Mrs. White's nine large books are the testimony of Jesus to 
the congregation," they could be depended upon to do as 

She has taken the holy book and surrounded it with the 
different testimonies to the churches. A greater sin could 
hardly be committed than to reject them. God speaks through 
them now. It is a divine light from God's throne. 

Some six years ago, before I had left them, I was delegate- 
to a conference that was held on the Southside in Chicago. 
Elder Moon had the subject Organization for discussion. He 
showed how Moses was the general of the Israelites, and that 
the whole multitude, or a part of them, turned to Moses when 
they were bewildered about what to do, Moses then turned to 


the Lord, and the Lord gave his oracles to Moses who com- 
municated them to the people. And what Moses was for Israel 
Mrs. White is for us. She receives a special revelation from 
God on all such questions, not understood by us, that we may 
be one in faith. 

But unfortunately it is not true that they are one in faith. 
There is a great diversity of opinion even here. A pastor once 
asked a young graduate from their seminary, "How many 
Gods have we?" He said he was going to find out. He cer- 
tainly is a first rate preacher in Mrs. White's sect, because he 
did not dare to have any independent opinion, but was ready 
to accept any theory that came from her. 

The only doctrine where they are unified in faith is the 
prophetical, and this subject they do not understand, neither 
professors, pastors, nor people. 

When someone is seeking information concerning a special 
subject they always recommend their bookshops, where they 
think all the treasures of knowledge and wisdom are available. 

In their schools there are no question of examining doctrinal 
statements, but to read the books and thus be familiar with 
their theories. When such a person who cannot and dare not 
think comes out in the field, he is incapable of grasping any- 
thing but the miserable doggerel he has learned in school. 
Students from the seminary have come to me with questions 
regarding certain things in their theology, which do not har- 
monize with the Bible. Once I asked a student why he did 
not put such questions to the teacher. He answered, "It is no 
use, because if we do not believe just as he says we are con- 
sidered incompetent to carry the message." It is only the 
prophet or some elder who has a right to bring any new light. 
Therefore, as long as an Adventist believes in Mrs. White he 
is shut out from all light. They are just as fettered and hide- 
bound as the Catholics, 


In case of discussion between two brethren regarding some 
biblical subject this question invariably arises, "What says the 
Spirit of prophecy" (Mrs. White)? What she says is right, 
whether it agrees with the Bible and science or not. 

I was taken to a world with seven moons — and it is so. 

There I met Enoch who was translated — and it is so. 

Satan tempts people more now than formerly — and it is so. 

Jesus was borne in a carriage into the holy place 18-44 — 
and it is so. 

Her accompanying angel showed her, June 27, 1850, that 
the mediatorial work of Jesus was nearly fulfilled — and it is so. 

In 1849 she wrote, Now the time is soon accomplished, so 
what we have learned in many years, the young converts must 
learn in a few months — and it is so. 

In 1850, I saw there remained much to do for those who 
were so reluctant in receiving the message of the third angel, 
but there was little time left — and it is so. 

The churches fell and become a Babylon in 1844, because 
they rejected the light from heaven — and it is so. 

I saw that blind leaders worked upon the souls to make 
them as blind as they are themselves — and it is so. 

Satan appeared before the throne' of God trying to im- 
mitate the work of God — and it is so. 

The multitude that prayed, "Father, give us thy Spirit," 
was upon earth, but was represented to me as being before 
the throne of God — and it is so. 

I had never had the idea, that any individual really was in 
the new Jerusalem, nor that Satan was there. But did not 
John see the red dragon in heaven? Of course — and it is so. 

I saw that it was the meaning of the Lord, that the sisters 
should wash the feet of the brethren— and it is so. 

(But why don't the sisters do it then?) 


God is willing to work in our meetings. But Satan said, 
"I will hinder their work," and his agents said, "Amen"— and 
it is so. 

(I call the reader's attention to the fact, that this is the 
first time Satan's agents have said amen.) 

The news that Adam and Eve had fallen in sin spread 
through heaven. The angels removed their crowns and hung 
up their harps — and it is so. 

When the angels found out, that Jesus was willing to die 
for the fallen, they took their harps and sang a tone higher 
than they had done before — and it is so. 

"Satan was once an honored angel in heaven, next to Christ. 
His countenance, like those of the other angels, was mild and 
expressive of happiness. His forehead was high and broad, 
showing great intelligence. His form was perfect; his bearing 
noble and majestic. But when God said to his Son, "Let us 
make man in our image," Satan was jealous of Jesus. He 
wished to be consulted concerning the formation of man, and 
because he was not, he was filled with envy, jealousy and 
hatred. He desired to receive the highest honors in heaven 
next to God 

"All heaven seemed in commotion. The angels were mar- 
shalled in companies, each division with a higher commanding 
angel at their head. Satan, ambitious to exalt himself, and 
unwilling to submit to the authority of Jesus, was insinuating 
against the government of God. Some of the angels sym- 
pathized with Satan in his rebellion, and others strongly con- 
tended for the honor and wisdom of God in giving authority 
to his Son 

"But the good and true angels prevailed, and Satan, with 
his followers, was driven from heaven. 

"After Satan and those who fell with him were shut out 
of heaven, and he realized that he had forever lost all its 


purity and glory, he repented and wished to be reinstated in 
heaven. He was willing to take his proper place, or any 
position that might be assigned him. But no ; heaven must 
not be placed in jeopardy 

"When Satan became fully conscious that there was no 
possibility of his being brought again into favor with God, his 
malice and hatred began to be manifest. He consulted with 
his angels, and a plan was laid to still work against God's 
government. When Adam and Eve were placed in the beauti- 
ful garden, Satan was laying plans to destroy them 

"Holy angels often visited the garden, and gave instruction 
'to Adam and Eve concerning their employment, and also taught 
them concerning the rebellion and fall of Satan, and cautioned 
them not to separate from each other in their employment, for 
they might be brought in contact with this fallen foe." ("Early 
Writings," pages 145, 146.) 

This is the way in which Mrs. White lets her wonderful 
light shine, although she says that God has not sent her with 
any new light. In Rev. 12 we certainly read about a rebellion 
in heaven ; but we have good reasons to doubt whether the 
angels were arranged as fighting armies. And when Satan 
with his angels returned weeping its seems to me as if God 
ought to have compassion on them, as he knew that Satan 
should seduce man to sin and cause such endless misery, as 
she says. 

However beautiful her new light seems to her, I am pre- 
pared to show that it is only darkness, horrible error. 

According to her article of the fall of Satan, this incident 
took place before Adam's and Eve's fall in Eden. 

In Rev. 12:7 we read, "And there was war in heaven: 
Michael and his angels fought against the dragon ; and the 
dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not, neither was 
their place found any more in heaven" (vers 8). 


■Have we any reasonable ground in the Scripture for the 
belief that this occurred before the fall in Eden? 

The Lord Jesus says, "Now is my soul troubled ; and what 
shall I say ? Father, save me from this hour : but for this 
cause came I unto this hour." 

"Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from 
heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it 
again. The people therefore that stood by, and heard it, said 
that it thundered : others said, An angel spoke to him. Jesus 
answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but 
for your sakes. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall 
the prince of this world be cast out." (John 12: 27-31.) 

"Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." 
(John 16:11.) 

"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall 
from heaven." (Luk. 10:18.) 

When Satan was cast out a loud voice was heard from 
heaven saying, "Now is come salvation, and strength, and the 
kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ : for the ac- 
cuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before 
our God day and night." (Rev. 12 : 9, 10.) 

If Satan was cast out before the fall, there was none to 
accuse before God. "The devil is come down unto you, having 
great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time." 
(Rev. 12: 12.) If he was cast out before the fall he has had 
all the time — could he expect any more? 

Let us once more examine Mrs. White's new light. 

"I saw Satan, when he was an elevated angel. I have also 
seen him as he now is. His eyes are piercing and witness that 
he is sly and cunning. His form of body is large ; but the flesh 
was hanging loose on his hands and face" — and, of course, it 
is so. 


"The devil shall appear in different parts of the world in 
majesty as a great physician before Christ comes" — and it is 

"A triumphant cry shall sound in the air when the devil 
comes, Christ is come ! Christ is come !" — And it is so. 

"The glory that encircles him surpasses all that mortal men 
have yet seen" — and it is so. 

"The people fall down and worship the devil, while he 
raises his hands and blesses them" — and it is so. 

"After Satan had tempted Jesus in the desert, the angels 
prepared food and gave him" — and it is so. 

"I also saw that old Jerusalem never would be built up 
again — and it is so. (Jerusalem has been rebuilt, if you 

"There was no joy in heaven when Jesus was betrayed. 
The angels laid down their crowns and harps." 

"The angels could not bear glittering crowns when Jesus 
had a crown of thorns. 

Three times she saw the cross was laid upon Jesus and 
three times he fell to the ground. 

A multitude of angels soared over the place where Jesus 
was crucified. 

Before Jesus was nailed to the cross, the disciples carried 
away his mother, so as to be spared the agony of hearing the 
blows of the hammer when the nails were driven through his 
hands and feet. 

I saw that as Jesus was rejected so was the message of the 
third angel rejected. 

When Jesus came back to heaven all the heavenly trains 
passed into the city, afterwards the celestial multitude sur- 
rounded the majesty of Jesus and bowed before him in deep 
veneration and removed their glittering crowns and cast them 
before his feet. 


It was shown to me that the remnant followed Jesus within 
the second veil into the most holy place. 

I saw three steps, the first, second and third angel's message. 
My accompanying angel said, "Woe unto him who tries tq 
oppose or touch this message!" 

I saw that individuals approached our position and exam- 
ined the foundation. Others stepped down, examined it and 
announced that it was falsely laid. But I saw, that almost 
the greatest number remained on the ground and exhorted 
them who had gone down to cease complaining, for God was 
the founder and they were fighting against him. 

It is sad, indeed, when a person is so ignorant that he 
believes, that the God of all wisdom has laid the foundation 
for the prophetic message of the Adventists. Then she de- 
serves our pity. He who wants to examine the foundation 
will need only a short time to find out, that it is false. Those 
who have a little sense come down from it, but those who are 
thoroughly converted to Mrs. White's errors will in all prob- 
ability remain until their eyes will be opened some day. Warn- 
ings are of no avail. 

I saw that as the Jews crucified Christ, so the churches have 
crucified the message of the third angel. I saw that God has 
sincere children in these fallen churches; but before the last 
plagues are poured out, both preachers and members will go 
out from the churches and receive the message with joy and 
place themselves among the remnant. 

I saw, since the message of the second angel was announced 
that the churches were fallen, that they have become more and 
more depraved. Satan has taken full control over the churches 
as a body. The message that was given by the second angel, 
that Babylon was fallen, was repeated and to it was added the 
corruption which penetrated the churches since 1844." 

She saw when the message of the third angel was concluded, 


that God gave them the last rain as a refreshment. The great 
last warning was announced everywhere. 

She saw angels hurrying back and forth in heaven. An 
angel with the inkwell at his side returns from the earth and 
reports to Jesus that his work was done and that the Saints 
were sealed. 

Have you read anything like this in God's holy word ? Jesus 
knows his own and is known by them; therefore it seems 
unnecessary to have an angel coming over here to put an ink- 
stamp upon God's people. The only seal the Bible knows 
anything about is the seal of God's Holy Spirit. Seek to get 
the blessing the Lord promises in his word. If you are going 
to wait for the angel Mrs. White saw coming to earth with an 
inkstand by his side, you will wait in vain. 

It is recorded in the ninth chapter of Ezekiel that one of 
the six men who came from the higher gate and was clothed 
with linen that he had an inkhorn by his side and that the Lord 
said unto him, "Go through the midst of the city, through 
the midst of Jerusalem and get a mark upon the foreheads of 
the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that 
be done in the midst thereof." (Verse 4.) And the man clothed 
with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported saying, 
"I have done as thou hast commanded me." (Verse 11.) 

If Mrs. White had studied the contents she would not have 
made this applicable to the time when Jesus shall leave the holy 
place of heaven as she has done. " 

She has been thinking that this was going to take place then, 
and straightway she got a vision about it. 

This vision deals with the inhabitants in the city of Jerus- 
alem ! Manasseh, the King of Judah, rebuilt the high places 
which his father Hezekiah had destroyed. (2 Kings 21:1-3.) 
Idolatry flourished in Judah and Jerusalem. The King of 
Judah, Josiah, was a good man. The people had burned incense 


unto other Gods and provoked the Lord to anger. (2 Kings 
22 : 17.) Josiah commanded them to bring out from the temple 
all the vessels that were made for Baal. And he put down 
the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained. 
(2 Kings 23.) 

In the eighth chapter of Ezekiel we are told how the idol- 
atrous abominations were most flagrant in Jerusalem. Seventy 
elders had each a censer in their hands and burned incense to 
the heathen deities. 

When the prophet came to "the inner court of the Lord's 
house he beheld "at the door of the temple of the Lord, between 
the porch and the altar, about five and twenty men, with 
their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces to- 
ward the east, and they worshipped the sun toward the east." 
(Verse 16.) Jerusalem was destroyed and the people went into 
captivity. The aforementioned vision was applied to the 
people before the captivity, but it may also have a symbolical 
meaning and refer to future events. 

In the seventh chapter of the Revelation mention is made 
of an angel ascending from the east, haying the seal of the 
living God : and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, 
to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea, saying, 
Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have 
sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads." (Verses 

This picture should not be taken lightly. But it is not easy 
to say how it is going to be fulfilled. Yet, not even the Ad- 
ventists believe that an angel is going to come and make a 
mark with ink upon the foreheads of the righteous. They 
believe that the Sabbath is the seal of Go,d. We think it is better 
to adhere to the word of God. In Ephesians 1 : 13 it is stated, 
that those who had believed and received salvation "were sealed 
with that holy Spirit of promise," and in chapter four, verse 


30, we read, "And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby 
ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." 2 Chor. 1 : 22 : 
"Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit 
in our hearts." 


The reader cannot wonder that I am tired to relate these 
numberless follies which the Adventist leader has sent out in 
the world. We could keep on till we had several books full of 
them. If you have followed me from the beginning, and 
noticed the various illusions which she is pleased to call 
heavenly visions, one tenth is sufficient to prove that she is not 
of a sane mind, as a reasonable person ought to be, but is sickly 
and deplorable in some way. Sometimes she has written with 
sense, but not when she has treated the subject of prophecy. 
No one should have followed her leadership or listened to her 
from the beginning. Now her superstitions and prevarications 
have fenced in nearly one hundred thousand souls, among 
them many sincere, though ignorant, children of God. There- 
fore we raise our voice against her errors and want to show 
them the truth, in order to persuade those who are honest 
to investigate the dark and mysterious net, in which they have 
been caught, that they may be able to get out in liberty again. 

Not one Adventist out of ten has read Mrs. White's un- 
fulfilled prophecies. I was among them about four years before 
I saw that there was something wrong about them. I never 
bothered myself with her prophecies and did not know that 
they played such important part, before I had been several 
years among them. They receive their members in a mysterious 
way. When members are received in their congregations, they 
ask if you believe in the Spirit of prophecy; but the candidate 


does not know that they mean a woman, nor that her nine large 
books, called the testimonies, are going to be his guiding star 
■ henceforth. This" alone is a huge deception. It may be that 
the practice varies among different leaders ; but it is dishonest 
to come after a year and demand that people should believe 
in her. Why not enlighten the members about her position, 
before they enter their fold ? It is easy to explain. A person 
who can think for himself would never join them. But after 
a' while they begin to speak of their prophet and her "Tes- 
timonies" to the congregation, declaring that it is of great 
consequence not to believe in her as a prophet. Simpleminded 
people believe this and take a stand for a thing they do not 

They learn the Adventist dogmas by heart and talk as long 
as they are permitted, while the others accept their harangues. 
As long as they can proceed in this easygoing manner every- 
thing is pleasant. But if they are going to prove what they 
say they are speechless as the fishes in the sea. They read 
their books without understanding what they read; believe 
blindly without any foundation. 

Has he nothing good to say about Mrs. White- they ask. 

That is not the question under discussion now, but we are 
investigating her claims to be a prophet of the Lord, which 
she pretends to be. Where she is right she needs no defense. 

For the sake of illustration let us suppose that you receive 
frequent calls by someone. From time to time he is telling 
you various stories. At last you commence to investigate 
whether his statements are reliable, and you find that they are 
fabrications of his own fancy, pure and simple. With his 
prevarications he has caused a great disturbance in the com- 
munity and is summoned before the Court to answer for his 
conduct that has caused so much harm. The Court is trying 
to find out whether the man is guilty of lying or not. There 


is no question of how many times he has spoken truthfully in 
his life, but whether he is guilty of the misdemeanor of which 
he is accused. The plaintiff has called two witnesses. They 
testify that the defendant has told falsehoods. The defendant 
has produced one hundred witnesses, who testify that they 
have heard the accused say many things which are true, but 
do not know anything about the present charges. The judge 
is not interested in how many times he has spoken the truth, 
but will judge the defendant guilty on the testimony of these 
two truthful witnesses. 

A thief has entered your house and stolen a clock. A 
person saw when the thief came out of the house with the 
clock. The thief was arrested and put on trial for stealing. 
There was one witness who saw that he stole the clock. The 
Court returns a verdict of guilty on the strength of the testi- 
mony of one witness. The case is the same here. We have 
not been investigating, how many times Mrs. White has spoken 
the truth, but we have found that she has said untruthful things 
time and again. And we have a right to demand that a prophet 
should speak the truth. A "thus saith the Lord" is more 
valuable to us than ten thousand "thus saith Mrs. White." 

The Seventh-day Adventists boast that they are the only true 
church of Christ, because they have this woman among them. 
All other churches are Babylon and fallen, which have not 
"the testimony" of Jesus, the Spirit of prophecy (Mrs. White) 
among them. 

Elder G. J. Butler writes (in "Sions Vaktare," Dec. 13, 
1908) : "We have many years rejoiced over the benefits we 
have in possessing the testimony of Jesus, the Spirit of pro- 
phecy among us. This precious privilege we have had from 
the beginning of the message to the present time — a privilege 
the church has not had since the clays of the apostles." Mr. 
Butler calls Mrs. White a servant of the Lord. 



"And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto 
me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy 
brethren that have the testimony of Jesus : worship God : for 
the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (Rev. 19 : 10.) 

We propose now to expound the same text as the Ad- 
ventists use, "The spirit of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." 
This reminds us of a thing we already have pointed out, The 
doctor is physician, and the physician is doctor. But what is 
the business of the doctor or physician? 

The angel who appeared before John said that he had the 
testimony of Jesus, and that it was the spirit of prophecy or the 
spirit of the prophecies, not excluding any truth or prophecy 
from beginning to end. 

Jesus is the center in all the prophecies from the beginning 
till now. He was the Word, the Light, the Way, the Truth and 
the Life. " 

Some testimonies from the Bible are in order here. 

Jesus should arise from the stem of Jesse. (Isa. 11:1.)" 
"I will raise unto David a righteous Branch and a King shall 
reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in 
the earth." (Jer. 23: 5.) In those days, and at that time, will 
1 cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David, 
and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land." 
(Jer. 33:15.) 


The promise by the seed of Abraham: Gen. 18: 18; 22: 18. 
Fulfilled: Gal. 4:4. 

To be born in Bethlehem: Mica 5:2: "Out of Bethlehem 
shall he come forth unto me." 


Fulfilled : Matt. 2:1: "When Jesus was born in". . . 

A prophet like unto Moses : Deut. 18 : 15-18. 

Fulfilled: Acts 3:21-23. , 

Entered Jerusalem : Zech. 9:9: "Thy King". . . 

Fulfilled : Matth. 21 : 5 : "Behold, thy King cometh". . . . 

Poor: Isa. 53:2, 3. 

Fulfilled: Luke 9:58: "The foxes have -holes". . . . 

Rejected by his brethren: Ps. 69. 

Fulfilled : John 1: 11: "He came unto his own". . . . 

Betrayed by a friend : Ps. 55 : 13-15. 

Fulfilled John 13 : 18-21 : Judas betrayed Jesus. 

To be sold: Zech. 11: 12: "So they weighed for my price 
thirty pieces of silver." 

Filfilled: Matth. 26:15: "And they covenanted with him 
for thirty pieces of silver." 

Smitten : Micah 5 : 1. 

Fulfilled : Matth. 27 : 30 : "And they spit upon him." 

Hands and feet pierced : Ps. 22 : 17. 

Fulfilled: John 20 : 25 : "Except I shall see in his hands the 
print of the nails". . . . 

Gall and vinegar to drink : Ps. 69 : 22. 

Fulfilled: Matth. 27:34: "They gave him vinegar." 

Parted his garments : Ps. 22 : 19. 

Fulfilled: Luke 23: 3-i: "And they parted his raiment." 

Not one of his bones broken: Ps. 34: 21. 

Fulfilled : John 19:33: "They broke not his legs." 

We do not doubt the resurrection and ascension of Jesus. 
Why should the remaining testimonies of his coming again 
be more doubtful, and why should we not believe that this 
glorious chapter of the prophecy also will be fulfilled some 
time ? 

Of the testimony of Jesus, the spirit of prophecy, there 


remains to be fulfilled these two facts : the coming again of 
Jesus and the time when he shall sit on his father David's 
throne and execute judgment and righteousness in the land. 
When shall he execute judgment and righteousness in the 
land? Before, during, or after the thousand years ? It cannot 
be before millennium. After the thousand years he shall give 
all to his Father — it cannot be then. This authority of Jesus 
must therefore be exercised during the thousand years. I 
will not take up this subject here, but have only made some 
suggestions. In Rev. 5 : 10 it is clearly stated that they shall 
reign on earth. When I read this verse in an open meeting 
I was three times called a liar by an Adventist, because Mrs. 
White has said different. 

As we already have proved, the prophets of the Bible had 
the testimony of Jesus, and in the fulness of time he came him- 
self, the true and faithful witness, the Lord Jesus Christ. All 
that he spoke was from the Father. The Pharisees objected 
that Jesus did not speak the truth (John 8: 13), and they are 
the same today. What we expect of a witness is that ne shall 
speak the truth; and we believe that Jesus spoke the truth 
straight from the shoulder to the Pharisees, and so do his 
followers as far as they understand. 

God is the fountain of all truth, and when Jesus came with 
his testimony, he received it from the Father. "I have many 
things to say and judge of you: but he that sent me is true; 
and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of 
him." (John 8:26.) Here is the testimony of God to the 
world through Jesus Christ. 

"For I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which 
sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and 
what I should speak." (John 12:49.) 

If the testimony of Jesus should continue, it was necessary 
that some should accept it. His disciples did so. "He that 


hath received his testimony hath set' to his seal that God is 
true." (John 3:33.) 

The disciples believed that Jesus was the true light which 
should come into the world; therefore they received his testi- 
mony as God's own. Jesus said to them, "And ye also shall 
bear witness, because ye have been with me from the begin- 
ning." (John 15:27.) 

Jesus had finished the work which God gave him to do. 
(John 17:4.) He promised his disciples to send them the 
Spirit of Truth, which proceeded from the Father; he should 
testify of Jesus. (John 15:26.) What a person testifies is 
his testimony, whether it is true or not. 

Anyone who has read the Acts knows, how much Paul, the 
Apostle of Christ, had to suffer for the testimony of Jesus. 
He writes in his second epistle to Timothy (1: 8-10) and asks 
him not to be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord for the 
sake of which he was a prisoner. It was this gospel that was 
foreordained in God's grace and mercy, before the world was 
made, but which now was made manifest through the revelation 
of Christ. 

John gave his testimony in chapter 1 : 19, 20. But Jesus did 
not receive testimony from any man. (John 5:34.) "But 
I have a greater witness than that of John" (verse 36). 

The disciples were going to be persecuted for their testi- 
monies. (Mark 13: 9.) 

In 1 Cor. 2 : 1 Paul calls the word a testimony of God. 
"The testimony of Christ was confirmed in you." (1 Cor. 
1:6.) When the apostles Peter and John stood befoie the 
great Council they bore testimony with great power of the 
resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

"He that believeth on the Son of God hath witness in 
himself. . . . And this is the record that God hath given to us 
eternal life, and this life is in his Son." (1 John 5:10, 11.) 


"The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the 
eyes." (Ps. 19: 8.) "For he established a testimony in Jacob, 
and appointed a- law in Israel, which he commanded our fathers 
that they should make them known to their children : that the 
generations to come might know them, even the children which 
should be born; who should arise and declare them to their 
children." (Ps. 78: 5, 6.) "Quicken me after thy loving 
kindness: so shall I keep the testimony of thy mouth." (Ps. 
119: 88.) "And we have seen and do testify that the Father 
sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." (1 John 4: 14.) 
"And he that saw it bear record, and his record is true : and 
he knoweth that he says true, that ye might believe." (John 

The Revelation — John was commanded to write this book 
when he was on the isle of Patmos. 

He was 'sent to this island under the reign of the Roman 
emperor Domitian, between 81 and 96 after Christ. He had 
"borne record of the word of God, and of the testimony of 
Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw." (Rev. 1:2.) 
Therefore he was sent to this island, "for the word of God, and 
for the testimony of Jesus Christ" (verse 9). The island 
of Patmos is situated about eight miles from the coast of 
Asia Minor; it is an insignificant place, about one-twentieth 
the size of Chicago. 

The souls that were seen under the altar had been "slam 
for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held" 
(6:9). "When the two witnesses shall have finished their 
testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit 
shall make war against them" (11: 7). "And I saw thrones, 
and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them; 
and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness 
of Jesus and for the word of God" (20:4). 

"Ye are my witnesses," says Jesus. In a trial where several 


witnesses are to testify, some know more, others less in the 
case. What is expected of all is that they shall testify to what 
they have heard and seen. The judge weighs -the evidence of 
all the witnesses, before he renders his verdict. If false wit- 
nesses have testified, the judge has been misled and he pro- 
nounces the innocent guilty. It is gratifying to us to know, 
that none can deceive the Judge whom God has appointed 
to judge the world. False prophets, Jesus says, shall appear 
in the last days and seduce many. This proves that they do 
exist. If those who believe that they are called to be witnesses 
for Christ would study the word of Christ, before they go out 
witnessing, there would be no need of books like this. 

The truth of God, revealed in the holy Scripture, is the 
testimony of Jesus. This was first revealed through the 
prophets, for the Spirit of Christ was in them. Then it was 
revealed in its fulness and glory when the Lord Jesus was m 
the earth and proclaimed the wonderful counsels of God to 
men. The disciples received the testimony of Jesus directly 
from him. Others have received the testimony from the 
disciples. In this way the testimony of Jesus has arisen and 
been continued to our times. 

Jesus promised to send his holy Spirit, who should lead 
them to the truth and remind them of all that he had said. 
And this was enough. His Spirit leads according to the word ; 
and he who is led by the Spirit does not come with unscriptural 
interpretations and speculations in great number as Mrs. White 
has done. Here are some samples, "The angels sang a tune 
higher when Jesus promised his heavenly Father, that he should 
die for sinful man." — "The plan of salvation was laid after the 
fall." — "Satan was before the throne of God, since he was 
once ejected." — "Satan ejected before the fall." — "Satan wept 
when he could not come back to heaven," etc., etc. 

The testimony of Jesus or the Spirit of prophecy therefore 


is, The eternal counsel of God to save mankind, revealed first 
through the prophets who zvere filled with the Spirit of Christ, 
afterwards through Christ, his apostles and all the believers. 

According to the Adventist doctrine Jesus has not had any 
testimony to his church from the days of the apostles until 
Mrs. White appeared in the middle of the nineteenth century. 
We are, therefore, not permitted to count those who were slain 
and beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, who suffered martyr- 
dom under the persecutions of the Roman Catholic church. 
They could not have been slain for the testimony of Jesus, as 
he had no testimony during that time( !). I will not advocate 
the theory with any degree of certainty, that the souls who 
John saw were those who died under these terrible persecu- 
tions. But we know from history that sixty to seventy-five 
million people suffered martyrdom during the dark ages for the 
testimony of Jesus. There were accordingly many millions 
who had the testimony of Jesus, whereas the Adventists say 
that Jesus did not have any testimony from the days of the 
apostles. How poor he was ! The Lord Jesus had no testimony 
to the world for more than seventeen hundred years, till Mrs, 
White came with her superstitious notions ; then they became 
"rich and need nothing and don't know, that they are' wretched 
and miserable and poor and blind and naked : I counsel thee to 
buy of me gold tried in fire, that thou may est be rich; and 
white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame 
of thy nakedness do not appear; and annoint thine eyes with 
eyesalve, that thou mayest see." (Rev. 3:17, 18.) 

The Adventists say, that they are the last congregation. 
Here the faithful and true witness has witnessed concerning 
them and shown them theii real picture, and it is certainly 
nothing to boast of, as they are doing. 

Adventists, if you had heeded the counsel, which the faith- 
ful and true witness has given you, and bought eyesalve to 


annoint your eyes, you would long before this have seen, that 
Mrs. White is a false prophetess and that your prophetical doc- 
trine is built on sand only. If you had loved the truth, you 
would not after sixty-eight years be in the thickest darkness 
and still persist in believeing that you are the only true church 
of God upon the earth. But when they don't love truth God 
shall send them great error, that they shall believe the lie. 
They have believed the lies of Mrs. White, and have there- 
fore reached the condition in which they are. And it is so, 
because I know their system from beginning to end. 

The measure which the Adventists lay upon all speakers 
is found in Isa. 8 : 20, "To the law and to the Testimony" ; 
if they speak in harmony therewith, good and well, otherwise 
there is no light in them. Then they apply 3 John 10, 11, 
"Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he 
doeth, prating against us with malicious words : and not con- 
tent therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, 
and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the 
church." They know pretty well how to fit the things to- 

We are going to use the same measure, because it is the 
measurement of God, only we know how to use it. The Ad- 
ventists use it and measure every persons words according 
to Mrs. White's nine great books (called testimonies), and if 
anyone speaks according to her words, there is a great light in 
him. We measure the light of a believer according to the word 
of God (the Bible) ; if he does not speak in harmony with it, 
there is no light in him; and if he speaks in harmony with 
Mrs. White there is no light in him, and we do not welcome' 

Does not Mrs. White say much that is truthful in her 
Testimonies? Yes. But we do not want to follow a prophet 
who does not speak the whole truth. Eat a ten course dinner, 


and mix poison in three or four of them, and you are a dead 
man. Mrs. White's doctrines contain a deadly poison for 
God's people. That is certain. 


If they believe not the Testimonies (Mrs. White's nine 
books), but leave the Adventists, they go out in sin again; 
everybody seems to believe it, because Mrs. White has said 
so. Here is another falsehood. When Jesus did not come in 
1844, as they expected, a great number fell back in sin again, 
especially those, who had been the most zealous advocates of 
the doctrine. Are we to be converted to God or to the doctrine ? 
If those people had known the only true God and whom he has 
sent, Jesus Christ, they had not gone back to the world again. 
But they were converted to Miller's false doctrine, and when 
that failed, their hope was gone. Oh ! what difference it makes 
to be converted to God and not to a doctrine without God ! 

We agree with everything that is true, but we do not want 
to accept wrong doctrines. It is true that some who have 
left them on account of their false views have gone back to 
their troughs of sin. They were converted to the doctrine, as 
the case was in 1844, and seeing that this was wrong, they have 
nothing certain to hold fast. What is the difference between 
being a sinner inside or outside of the church? When inside 
he pretends to be something that he is not, and is in such a 
case a hypocrite; if he comes out of it, there is some hope 
that he will consider his condition ; as long as he remains and 
they make him believe, that all is well, if he only believes "the 
present truth," he is absolutely deceived. When the Adventists 
are going to recite how badly those have turned out who have 
left them, they always mention some of the worst cases they 
know of, and they are held up as typical for all. But is this 


right? There are people who have left them who are just 
as good and godly as any within their own communion; but I 
have never heard them say anything good about those. As 
long as a person lives a righteous life it is of small importance 
whether he is inside or outside of the church, no one can accuse 
him. Many godly people can be found among them, though 
they do not understand their doctrines, and there are many 
who believe the doctrine and Mrs. White ; if they were to find 
out their mistakes, they would become bankrupts spiritually 
and many would be despondent on account of their mistakes 
as Miller's followers were in 1844, when Jesus did not come. 
Oh, that they^were able to lay aside the straight- jacket and put 
on the robe of righteousness ! But that is impossible, as long 
as they are attached to this erroneous system. 


That is what the Committee said in their protest against me, 
in which they pointed me out as a person who was only en- 
deavoring to find faults. 

We all have our faults, and I am no exception from the 
rule. It means a great deal to be so perfect that we do not 
offend in a word, as James says. But no one needs to search 
long for mistakes, when he is reading Mrs. White's views on 
prophecy, because they contain hardly anything but errors. 

Let us illustrate this point. A farmer who wishes to sow 
wheat in his field is anxious to get the best kind of seeds. He 
therefore picks out very carefully all other seeds that may be 
mixed in his wheat. But however careful he has been to select 
only good grains of wheat, he found that weeds came up with 
the wheat. But let us now suppose that the man did not under- 
stand the difference between seeds of wheat and those of weeds, 


and put the seeds of weeds in his field. People commence to 
talk of the crop he is going to get. The owner still persists in 
believing that he is going to have a crop of wheat. An expert 
from an agricultural college is sent for to determine, whether 
it is wheat or weeds. Will the expert then have to investigate 
very long, before he finds the weeds, when the whole field is 
full of them? He asks the owner, "What have you sown here?" 
The owner answers, "This is first rate wheat." The expert 
asks him again, "Have you made a scientific study of farming?" 
He answers, "No, but I belong to a very ancient society, they 
have told me there that is the best kind of wheat; and they 
cannot be mistaken." The expert says to him, "You have sown 
weeds here that have a resemblance to wheat. You are de- 
ceived." At the same time he warns the man not to sell any 
seeds from his crop as wheat. 

The man is indifferent to what the expert has said; and 
when he is ready he puts the seeds he has harvested in the 
market and sells it as pure wheat, because the members of his 
society have made him believe it is wheat. When he is selling 
his wheat another expert asks him, if he calls the seeds wheat. 
He answers, "Yes." The expert says, "You are mistaken. 
Come with me home, and I will freely show you the different 
kinds of seeds. You stand here deceiving people and may be 
arrested for dishonesty. You are selling seeds of weeds." 
Instead of investigating his seeds the weedman leaves the 
town and goes to another city to sell his wheat. Here he was 
arrested for dishonesty. The court asked him if he did not 
know what he was offering. "Yes, I have first rate wheat. 
Two experts have told me it is weeds, but I belong to a society 
sixty-nine years old, and the members have told me that 
this is the best kind of wheat and they cannot be mistaken." — 
"Have you graduated from any agricultural college?" — "No." 
The judge asks again, "Do you know that you are selling first 


class wheat on account of the great confidence you have in 
your society ?" — "Yes, I have confidence in the society, to which 
I belong." — "You sell the seeds as wheat because you think 
it is wheat ; but you don't know it," says the judge. The man 
is put in jail, and the case is postponed for two weeks. 

In the meantime some members of the society find that one 
of their number is arrested, because he has sold seeds of 
Weeds which, they believe is wheat. , When the case is called 
thousands of the members of his society appear to defend him. 
All believe he is right; but nobody knows what wheat looks 
like — they have never investigated. The two experts are' there, 
each bringing a box of wheat, and the judge understands what 
wheat looks like. The accused has also brought a box con- 
taining seeds from his field. The judge says, "All who have 
graduated from an agricultural school raise your hand." The 
judge and the two experts raise theirs. The accused has an- 
other opportunity to defend himself. He turns around to 
his thousand friends and says, "All of you who believe that I 
am right, please raise your hands." The whole audience raises 
its hands. The man feels safe when he has so many on his 
side. The trial begins. The two experts are first called to 
the witness stand and their testimonies agree, that "the best 
wheat" of our man is only weeds. The whole audience is now 
requested to swear that they shall testify to what they know, 
and nothing else. One after the other is summoned before 
the judge, and every one swears before God in heaven, that 
the accused has sold only wheat; but all admit that they do not 
understand it, but have believed it, because they had heard all 
the time that it was so. The many witnesses who had no actual 
knowledge could not help him with all the faith they had in 
the man and his goods. The judge says, "You have no excuse, 
as these experts warned you against selling your grain for 
wheat ; for it is weeds, and they offered to teach you to discern 


between the various kinds of seeds, so you should not go out 
and deceive your fellows. If you had been an honest man, 
you should have examined the seeds before coming to this 
town; but instead it has been shown that you have warned 
your society against these experts. You have called them 
falsifiers who have done the work of the devil, because they 
have hindered your society to sell their weeds which they 
imagined were good wheat. , Why have you not investigated 
this matter?" asks the judge. 

"Your honor! These experts have belonged to our society 
before and left us, and since they parted company with us they 
have never left us alone; hence we have thought they were 
possessed by the evil one in order to hinder us from selling our 

The judge says, "It has been proved that these men have 
the facts in the case, and that your society is wrong, no matter 
how old it is and how many you are. These men have done 
their duty and warned people against your humbug. I will 
give you a chance to repent. Go with these experts and learn 
the difference between the various kinds of grain. When you 
have found out, that you have sold weeds instead of wheat, 
owing to your ignorance, pay back, if possible, what you have 
stolen and confess your fault. If you cannot restore what you 
have taken, ask for pardon. Then tell your society about it. 
If your society will not listen to your words it is your duty to 
warn people against such a society, and let the world know 
what kind of business they are conducting. If you are brought 
before me again, I will punish you to the full extent of the 

In this manner the Seventh-day Adventists have peddled their 
weeds in their ignorance for sixty-nine years. But as they 
see how one after the. other leaves them on account of their 
false doctrines, they ought to examine their theology. They 


are without excuse before God. They can no longer shield 
themselves under "times of ignorance." When the Lord says 
that the plan of salvation was laid before the fall of oar first 
parents, Mrs. White says it was laid after. If this error is 
pointed out, her defenders say, she did not mean it, probably 
the printer's mistake, or the fault of her secretary. You only 
look for mistakes, you are a critic. You are serving the devil, 
perverting the truth. You are fighting against the prophetess 
of -the Lord, etc. These and similar accusations are hurled 
against those who point out their false prophecies. 

If the Adventists sought the truth and wanted to walk in 
the truth, they should examine the points or the foundation, 
upon which their peculiar doctrines rest. If the foundation is 
false, then the whole superstructure is untenable. They ought 
to admit what is proved to be right and leave that which they 
cannot understand, till they get more light. That would be 

I have never been more blessed than in writing this book. 
I am sure I am doing the work the Lord wants me to do, 
though the Adventists say that I am opposing the prophetess 
of God and pervert the truth. 

The Committee complained that Mrs. White cannot defend 
herself as I am attacking her in the Swedish language. But 
the Committee is not ignorant of the fact that my circulars 
have been translated to English and have been sent to Mrs. 
White. Besides these circulars I have once sent her a registered 
letter, reading as follows, 


Chicago, May 29, 1912. 
Mrs. Ellen G. White, 
Sanitarium, Calif. 

Dear Madam: — 

Some years ago I belonged to the' church of the Seventh- 
day Adventists, but having studied their doctrinal system to- 
gether with the prophecies of Daniel I have found that they 
are in perfect darkness with reference to the prophecies. They 
have never had any prophetical message to the world ; the 
foundation is laid on the sand, and as you are the chief cause of 
their spiritual darkness, the Lord has moved me by his Spirit 
to send you this letter that your blood will not be required at 
my hand. (Ez. 3 : 18-20.) After you have read the enclosed 
circular on Daniel's 8th chapter, it is easy for you to see that 
the 2,300 days in Daniel 8 : 14, which you say is the hub of the 
wheel in your message, could not commence before the latter 
part of Alexander's divided kingdom, between 176 — 30 B. C. 
and not 457- B. C. as the Adventists say. I know you are an 
elderly lady, but as long as you can think, it is easy for you 
to see, that the 2,300 days could not begin before the little horn. 
The little horn exercised great power and did not appear until 
after 175 B. C. (Dan. 8:23.) 

When you have seen this, I ask you in God's name to re- 
tract in- the paper this great error before you leave the world. 
This is probably the most serious and significant letter you ever 
have received. 

With love for yourself and your misled people, 

Aaron Nyman, 
1050 Wellington Ave. 


Exhortation to Study the Prophecy 

Private Letters to the Adventist Papers and to 1 the Swedish 

C ongreagtion of Seventh-day Adventist s in Chicago, 

and Also to Private Individuals. 

Without fear and trembling for what will be said against 
me by human lips — let them call me a liar, a rascal, a devil 
and Satan, and other epithets — I propose to show every honest 
seeker, Adventist or not, that the Seventh-day Adventists never 
have had any prophetic message to the world. 

"Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted 
shall be rooted up." (Matth. 15:13.) 

Is Mrs. White (who is still living) and her followers 
willing to follow her advice in the book "Gospel Worker," 
page 127, where she says, "If the pillars of our faith cannot 
endure investigation, it is time for us to find it out. Eet us 
not be like the Pharisees." 

We are now going to show that the pillars of the Ad- 
ventists' faith will not endure a careful examination. Let us 
then see how many there are who follow her advice and step 
down from the false foundation. Our small space makes it 
impossible to go into details and refer to the history at every 
step, neither is it necessary. But we do promise that when the 
prophecy rests upon certain historical facts we will produce 
as many as have come to our knowledge. 


If the reader wishes to obtain real knowledge in the pro- 
phecies which are treated in this volume it is important that he 


should study them carefully. Let it be understood from the 
beginning that he cannot peruse them hastily like any other 
book and get any real benefit. Read slowly and try to under- 
stand every sentence. Don't give it up until you understand it, 
if possible. Think it over again and again. Don't accept any 
statement, before you see it is correct, and especially those 
important points upon which the prophetic structure is built. 

These prophecies are not built upon speculations and no- 
tions of various people, but upon historical facts, on Bible his- 
tory and other scientific sources. When the reader has ob- 
tained complete knowledge of these facts he can meet the 
phalanx of Seventh-day Adventists and reveal their ignorance 
of the real meaning of the prophecy. There is no corner where 
they can seek shelter without taking to deception or refusal to 
acknowledge the truth. While reading this treatise use the 
diagrams at the same time. It will give you material aid to 
understand what you are reading. 

Do not take for granted that your opinion always is correct. 
Examine what others have to say on the same subject, without 
reference to what school of thinkers he belongs. Lay aside 
all selfish motives and let the Spirit of truth be your only guide. 
Do not give up when you find out you are right ; and remember 
that truth will gain victory at last. We will give the Adventists 
their due whenever they are right. But we will never make 
any concessions to their false interpretations of prophecy. 

At the period in my life when I belonged to them I had no 
time for studies. My business was new and required all my 
attention. We had a long season of financial depression in the 
country, and the spare time I had was used for other studies. 
When I spoke publicly my subjects were of a general character, 
as the power of the Gospel, sanctification, peace, joy in the 
Lord and holy living. And if any denomination needs to hear 
a Gospel of liberty it is the Seventh-day Adventists, Sometimes 


I also touched upon the prophecies. S. Mortenson asked me 
several times to speak on certain topics ; but I answered I had 
no time for study. He said, "Read in our books." If I had 
been converted to the Adventist doctrine, swallowed their 
books, believed them without understanding their true meaning, 
thanked God for power to believe the full truth and that we 
are the only true church of Christ, which has the spirit of 
prophecy (Mrs. White) among us; then, of course, I had been 
a good man according to their way of reasoning. If I, in 
addition to all this, had believed in tithing and emphasized 
these two points in their system, tithing and Mrs. White, then 
I had been held in special esteem. But I have never believed 
in Mrs. White nor in tithing as binding for the New Testament 
dispensation, therefore they found that I was not suitable in 
the long run. S. Mortenson asked me a few times, if I 
wanted a local preacher's license; but I refused. Christ has 
called me to liberty, not to be shut up in an icebox and receive 
punishment for not being able to perspire. My Lord, what 
leadership ! He who is used to live on good board outside of 
the prison walls has no desire to go inside to eat hard crusts, 
if he has his own way. My conscience did not allow me to 
remain with them any length of time. But I am grateful to 
God for the time I was permitted to spend among them as it 
gave me an insight in their erroneous teachings and has en- 
abled me to enlighten those who wish light upon their doctrines. 

When I left them I saw several things which were not as 
they ought to be ; but I did not know that their whole structure 
was built upon quicksand. 

Shortly after I read a pamphlet (30 pages) by J. Nyquist, 
entitled "The Mistake of Miller and the Adventists." When 
I reached the point in the book upon which their special doc- 
trine rests and saw that it was false, my soul was so mightily 
stirred within me that I could not sleep for three nights. Be- 


ginning from that time to study their prophecies seriously and 
carefully I found the one fault greater than the other, and that 
Nyquist had proved their errors. Do you think that I rejoiced 
in this discovery? Indeed hot. The poor deluded people think 
they have an important message to the world. The message 
is built upon chronology, which they don't understand, but 
fumble in darkness. It became to me a matter of conscience to 
do what I could for them. First I made a diagram on the 
eighth chapter of Daniel, the very cornerstone of their mes- 
sage. The diagram was three feet long and one and one-half 
wide. Then I announced a meeting in my home to which sev- 
eral Adventists and adherents were invited. After this meet- 
ing some told me that my views were invincible, in perfect 
harmony which Biblical prophecy and science. I continuel my 
studies in the Bible and in history. My only object was to 
find the truth. It was no question of certain beliefs, but of 
wisdom. When Daniel asked God for assistance, the angel 
stood by his side and said to Daniel that he had come to teach 
him wisdom. We need wisdom from on high more than any- 
thing else to clearly understand the word of God. The prob- 
lems were not very difficult. I found readily so gross mistakes 
in the Adventist books that one has reason to marvel at their 
blindness. I will come to the mistakes by and by. 

A rumor was soon circulated among the Swedish Adven- 
tists that Nyman is trying to prove that they have not had any 
foundation for their prophetic message. Those who did not 
know me thought that I was an ignorant crank who dared to 
undertake such things. Others who knew me said that ignor- 
ance was not my greatest crime, but I had left the truth, and 
was under control of the devil. 

Their preacher was going to discuss the eighth chapter of 
Daniel in two consecutive Sunday evenings. I went to the 
meeting and sat far back in the hall, 313 West Oak Street, 


Chicago. The pastor asked us to step up farther, as there 
was plenty of room. Several of us moved up to the first row 
of chairs. We were not enemies, but looked upon one another 
as brothers, though some meant I had left the truth. The 
preacher commenced his old lesson which he knew by heart but 
did not understand. I and some others said it was not right. 
He asked us to wait till he had finished and then we could 
speak. "Then we won't be heard," said I, "There will be 
no time left to show your mistakes and the hearers have no 
desire for information." 

At the close of the discourse I arose and turning to the 
congregation said some words to this effect, "Brethren and 
sisters ! You do not understand your doctrine, it is_ false alto- 
gether. I am sorry for you that you should be so deceived." 
An elderly good brother then said to me, "Brother Nyman; 
have you not believed in former days as we?" I answered, 
"Yes, I believed then without knowledge, and therefore I was 

The main point under discussion was the 2,300 days (Dan. 
8: 14), which, according to their opinion should begin 457 B. 
C. I told them that if the preacher could prove the following 
Sunday night that the 2,300 days begin there, I would give to 
the congregation the sum of $500. Another brother who had 
also left them said that he was willing to give $1,000, if they 
could prove their statements. "Then you have $1,500 to re- 
ceive next Sunday if you are able to prove it," I said and then 
the meeting adjourned. 

If the preacher cannot prove that the 2,300 days in Dan. 
8:14 began in the year 457 B. C, he has lost. During the 
week I asked the minister to come and see me. I wanted to 
show him where the great mistake lies and if possible make him 
see how apparent it is that it requires very little exertion to see 
it- The pastor came to my home, but said nothing while I was 


speaking. He could find no objection to my arguments, but 
asked me where I got my map. "I have made it myself,." I 
answered. "It is like the one the Catholics have in their 
Bibles," he said. "If that is the case," I answered, "The Cath- 
olics are right." If a murderer says that seven eighths of fifty- 
six is forty-nine, and my own wife says it makes thirty-five, I 
must side with the murderer, because his calculation is correct. 
Catholic priests are undoubtedly better mathematicians than 
Adventist preachers, and if their calculations correspond with 
what I know to be right, I will give them credit where credit 
is due. 

The next Sunday evening, shortly before the meeting was 
to begin, I asked him if he was to defend the old foolish doc- 
trine. "I am just going to say what I believe regarding the 
matter," he answered. If he had been sure of his position he 
would have answered something like this, "I am going to show 
you, Brother Nyman, that you are mistaken, and the truth I am 
going to proclaim is built upon the firm foundation of the 
word of God and the testimony of history." But he had noth- 
ing to say against the clear exposition I had given. 

The meeting began, and owing to the promise of $1,500 a 
few more people were out than the previous Sunday. The 
pastor commenced to explain the old Adventist heresy as be- 
fore. "This is my position," he said; but to prove that the 
2,300 days in Dan. 8 : 14 began 457 B. C. is another thing. If 
the angel Gabriel had placed himself beside him and given him 
promise to stand next to Christ on the new earth, if he could 
prove this, all he could do, if he was honest, was to restate the 
views of the Adventists, but he could not prove if it was so 
or not. After he had finished his speech I asked if I was per- 
mitted to put a question. He answered a decided "no." 
"Then I turn to the congregation," I said, and ask if my re- 
quest be granted," A member with a strong faith in Mrs, 


White rose and said that there was no need of asking any 
questions, as they did not want any discussion. I sat down 
quietly and said nothing. Others began to stir. A man who 
never had attended their meetings before asked if their doc- 
trine was so weak that it could not endure a question. This 
man looks decent and is asking politely. I told them to be 
quiet and assured them that the Lord takes care of his own 
truth. The members suggested that I rent a hall in which to 
preach my opinions. 

A building contractor arose and added, "I will rent Belmont 
Hall for you, Nyman, if you want." 

With a feeling of compassion for these poor deluded people 
I left the meeting and went home. 




My greatest desire has been and is yet to persuade the 
Adventists to study and find out how shamefully they have 
been deceived. I therefore wrote to Elder S. Mortenson, who 
is appointed by the conference to superintend the work of the 
Swedish Seventh-day Adventists in America, and told him that 
the foundation of their prophetic message is false. My copy 
of the letter is lost, but I remember that I told him he is the 
man who ought to investigate the foundation and then tell 
others it is unsafe. At the same time I asked him to study this 
subject with me without hurting each other's feelings. I left 
it to him to decide if, when and where to meet. 

No answer. 

Afterwards I sent a letter to the congregation, reading as 


Chicago, 111., Nov. 18, 1910. 
To the First Congregation of the Seventh Day Adventists in 
Chicago, 111. 
Peace of God, our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ ! 
As you are deceived regarding your doctrine of the "Sanc- 
tuary" I will, upon invitation of your congregation, deliver 
an address on this subject and show you without a doubt 
where your mistake comes in. 

The founder of the erroneous calculation, Wm. Miller, was 
often told that he was wrong; but no one pointed out to him 
where the mistake was. 

Any question pertaining to the subject may be asked. 
The congregation as well as individuals are at liberty to 
accept or reject the light, and you are responbile for the con- 
sequences at any event. Please answer. 

In brotherly love and in the interest of the truth, I remain, 
Yours sincerely, 

Aaron Nyman, 
1050 Wellington St. 
No answer. 

Then I sent a letter to "Review and Herald," the greatest 
organ of the Adventist body in America, published weekly in 
Tacoma Park, Washington, D. C, and one letter to the Swe- 
dish paper, published in College View, Nebraska. The letters 
were registered and read as follows, 

Chicago, Feb. 18, 1911. 
Editor "Tidens Tecken", 

College View, Neb. 
Please insert in your paper the following lines, 

To the first Adventist elder or member, man or woman, 
who can prove to me, that the 2,300 days in Dan. 8 : 14 began 


before the king who is signified by the little horn, which arose 
in the divided kingdom of Greece and toward the end of the 
kingdom, I will deed — thirty days after this is proved — a lot 
32 feet wide and 125 feet deep with a two story house and 
barn upon it. The property or the value thereof shall be used 
for missionary purposes. It is valued at $5,000, and all in- 
cumbrance, I am going to pay myself. The address of this 
property is 1050 Wellington St., Chicago, 111. 
' . Yours truly, 

Aaron Nyman. 

A private letter to the editor to "Tidens Tecken" was en- 
closed : 

Chicago, Feb. 18, 1911. 
Dear Brother Vermelin: — 

Grace and peace ! A businessman who knows that his 
books are kept properly does not fear an examination. You 
trust of course, that your opinions in regard to the Sanctuary 
is correct, and as you know, the doctrine of the Adventists is 
chiefly built upon that question. I hope therefore that you 
kindly will insert the enclosed offer in your paper. Don't be 
a coward and back out now. The cowards will at last find 
themselves in among a bad lot and have a miserable end ac- 
cording to Rev. 21 : 8. 

You have an opportunity now to prove the foundation of 
your faith. Brother Vermelin ! It is better to have the exam- 
ination made now, before you go any further. Because if the 
foundation should be defective and the house will collapse, 
what a fall that would be! There has not been a single proof 
in your books or papers. Make an effort now to produce a real 
and valid argument, and you may rest assured that I am going 
to live up to my promise. 

I have always read your articles in the paper when others 


have been unread. I love and respect you as a brother in 
Christ. Yours sincerely, 

Aaron Nyman. 

Neither the two papers nor Vermelin were heard from. 
Another letter was sent to Mortenson: 

Chicago, April 7, 1911. 
Elder S. Mortenson, 

I have commenced to analyze the doctrine of the Seventh- 
day Adventists, and it is astonishing to me that you have been 
able for so long time to make people believe that you have the 
whole truth. It is a pity that both yourself and your colleagues 
cannot see what a flood of error you send out in the world 
under the name of the present truth. But I pity the poor, ig- 
norant members more, who suffer the greatest hardships under 
your erroneous teaching. 

I have done my duty, led by God's Spirit, in speaking to 
those who are misled. I have, as you know, written to the 
congregation and offered to enlighten the people if they desire. 
I have also written to you and asked if'you want to meet me 
to study the central point or the hub in your theological wheel. 
To the "Review and Herald" and to "Tidens Tecken" I have 
sent letters, holding forth a promise of a house on Wellington 
St., worth $5,000, to the first pastor or member who can 
prove that the 2,300 days in Dan. 8 : 14 began before the power 
which is signified by the little horn, that commenced in the be- 
ginning of the divided kingdom of Greece and in the end of 
their kingdom. The remaining part of the mortgage I have 
promised to pay. No one has answered yet. And as you are in 
need of money for the school, you are hereby invited to -show 
me, that the 2,300 days in Dan. 8 : 14 began before the power 
which fixed the days; and when that is done, you will obtain 


my house in behalf of the school, provided no one has been 
ahead of you. It is just as easy to prove that one can cut off a, 
part from a piece of cloth 457 years B. C, thatwas woven 175 
B. C. To cut off a slice from a piece of cloth nearly 300 years 
before it is woven is an impossibility, though I also believed it 
in my ignorance, before I had studied the subject. 

I beg you in the name of Jesus to leave Mrs. White, and 
pray to God for the guidance of his Spirit and you will at last 
come out right. Your friend, 

Aaron Nyman. 

No answer to any of these communications. 


I knew before, that the Adventists were not going to in- 
vite me to speak to them or answer my letters ; but if I had not 
given them a chance to defend their doctrinal system, they 
would have accused me for writing a book against them with- 
out giving them an opportunity to defend themselves. I there- 
fore announced a meeting to which the general public was in- 

The first announcement read as follows, 


The foundation for the message of the Seventh-day Ad- 
ventists is false. Only sand. 

This fact will be thoroughly proved with the Bible and 
history in the Free Mission Hall, 218-220 West Oak St. 

• Sunday, September 24, at 3 p. m. and Sunday, October 1, 
at 3 p. m. 

A property, worth $5,000, 1050 Wellington St., will be of- 
fered, at the latter meeting, to the first person, who after three 


months' preparation can prove before thinking" people, that 
Rome is the power, spoken of in Dan. 8, 9 and 11 chapters, the 
pivotal point upon which the Adventists have built their mes- 
sage in sixty-seven years. 

The Adventist preachers in this vicinity are invited to at- 

Brethren and Sisters of the Adventist persuasion ! You are 
deceived by your leaders. 

These meetings will be the most interesting held in Chicago. 

Come one ! Come all ! Only come ! 

Come both times ! 

Take the Bible, paper and pencil with you. All are wel- 
come. Especially Adventists ! Free admission. 
A lover of truth, 

Aaron Nyman. 

The hall was located on the second floor opposite the Insti- 
tute of the Swedish Adventists. At that time there were two " 
halls for rent under the Mission hall. On the inside of one of 
the windows I stretched a canvas, nine square feet, announcing 
the meetings in about the same wording as on the circular. 
The following night some one gave the window a heavy coat 
of white paint. When told about this I moved the canvas over 
to the other window and put up a sign with a promise of $25 
to any one who could give me the name of the painter, but 
without avail. It is improbable though, that the Adventists had 
anything to do with this action. There were other circum- 
stances connected with this affair, that have no bearing upon 
the question now before us. I will absolve the Adventists 
from the accusation of having obscured and colored the truth 
this time. 

September 24 wasa stormy day, and half an hour before 
beginning our meeting the rain fell in torrents. Still there 


were about 200 people in attendance, mostly men. Some Ad- 
ventists were present. The subject was Daniel's eighth chap- 
ter. The following Sunday I was to speak on the eleventh 

A person came forward and promised to give away a bank- 
note of $1,000 to any one who could show' that Rome is alluded 
to in Dan. 11 : 17—19. 

This gave me an occasion to send out a new circular, 

A BANKNOTE FOR $1,000.00. 

has been placed in my hands to be given away next Sunday, 
October 1, at 3 p. m. in the Free Mission Hall, 218-220 W. Oak 
St., to the person who can prove that Rome is the power al- 
luded to in Daniel's prophecy 11 : 17 — 19. 

If the Adventists cannot prove this their message is anni- 
hilated which they think they have had to the world sixty-seven 

Then the property was promised as in the previous circular. 

I appeal to the public and ask, if the Adventists have not 
had an ample opportunity to defend their theology. 

The battle is the Lord's, though strenuous and hot. Come 
and judge who has the truth at this meeting! 

Come one! Come all! Only come! 

The Adventists doubly welcome. 

One who fights for the truth, 

Aaron Nyman. 

The days between the first and second meeting I heard that 
some Adventists had spoken quite loud and accused me of tell- 
ing some untruths about Mrs. White. The second Sunday I 
referred again to what was said and quoted from her own 

If they had been just and reasonable people, they would 


have taken notes of what I said and tried to find out, whether 
it was true or not. How many of them know, what she has 
said? When they hear something about her, that does not 
suit their tastes, then they know that you are untruthful. She 
has made them believe, that they are the 144,000, who are go- 
ing to follow the Lamb, whithersoever he goeth. They are 
also to receive the high commendation, spoken of in Rev. 14: 
5, "And in their mouth was found no quite." 

If Jesus were allowed to set them free, it should not take 
very long, before they were set free from Mrs. White's proph- 

On October 1, we had a very pleasant meeting. We were 
seeking the truth without any beating around the bush, and we 
also found it. I held the banknote, and the money was in the 
State Bank of Chicago. As we approached 17, 18 and 19 
verses, I held up the note and said that the one who can prove 
anything else will receive this note for $1,000. I sat down to 
give any one a chance to stand up and oppose my argumenta- 
tion. No angel could have done it. So convincing were my 
reasons for the truth, and "the present truth" of the Adven- 
tists was found to be a series of falsehoods. There I pointed 
out how many prophetic branches there are which emanate 
from this stem, and that all their prophecies are false, bound 
to fall to the ground sooner or later. 

When their preachers understand that the doctrine is un- 
tenable, they find it most convenient to stay away, at the same 
time warning their members to have anything to do with Sa- 
tan. If they had a subject that could be defended they would 
be in evidence as grasshoppers. Satan means adversary, and 
shall a preacher have nothing to do with him, when he is at- 
tacking their doctrines ? When the adversary happens to be on 
the side of truth, it is better to leave him alone, because it is 
hard to be kicking against the goads. When they stand re- 


vealed before the unchangeable word of the Lord, then they 
don't want to have anything to do with Satan. But the day 
will come when these shepherds will have to deal with an ad- 
versary whom they dare not call Satan. 

The foundation of their doctrine is found principally in the 
eighth chapter of Daniel. When I had studied it, I issued a 
circular, demolishing the views of the Adventists. No one has 
yet tried to prove that it was wrong, and no one can do it 
without showing his ignorance and blindness. • True knowl- 
edge abides in all circumstances, when the creations of fancy 

The promise to give away the house to the first Adventist 
who can prove the truth of his doctrine was made from a pure 
motive, in order to prevail upon the members to study their 
system that they might discover at last, how they have* been 
deceived. If I had had a million dollars, I should have put 
them at stake for the same purpose. 


After three month's delay a letter was finally received 
from S. Mortenson, 5942 Peoria St., Chicago, 111. It read 
as follows : 

Chicago, December 31, 1911. 
Mr. Aaron Nyman, 

Chicago, 111. 
Honored Countryman : 

I have noticed through letters and announcements sent to 
me, that you desire a discussion and risk your whole property 
for the decision of the question. 

The reasons why I have not before taken any notice of 
these offers are mainly twofold. First, I have been so over- 


loaded with such work, that belongs to my responsible position, 
that I have had neither time nor strength to enter into any dis- 
cussion, which taxes a man's whole strength, if it shall be 
carried on with success. Secondly, I have carefully studied 
the exposition of Dan. 8th chapter and Antiochus Epiphanes 
long before I made your acquaintance and have found it to be 
untenable, wherefore I have considered it worthy of little 
or no attention. 

I do not think it is the best or proper way to promise house 
and property for the settlement of this question; but if you 
wish to have the matter settled in that manner, I am willing 
after such discussion to leave the decision of the question to a 
committee of seven persons, who are intelligent, well read in 
the Bible and history and who shall be present at the discus- 

Are you willing to select them in this way that you choose 
two, I choose two, these four to select the remaining three, 
of whom two shall be Swedish lawyers in Chicago, who have 
reputation for justice, who are absolutely impartial in the case 
and do not belong to any church, that there be no impediments 
to justice, and n.ot to be hindered by religious prejudice. 

Do you furthermore agree that the participants in the dis- 
cussion shall have right to consult other - translations of the 
Bible than the new one made by the Established Church, and 
that they have full right to use Hebrew and Greek dictionaries 
which throw more light upon the subject, explain passages in 
dispute and assist in getting closer at the full meaning of the 
original languages? 

As there are no laws determining the value of oral prom- 
ises, and a person accordingly can promise as much as he 
owns without any risk of losing it, I want to ask you, in order 
to let you show your sincerity in this matter, if you are willing 
to hand the deed to the aforementioned property, together 


with a legally attested agreement concerning its use, to the 
Swedish Attorney, Oscar D. Olson, 30 N. La Salle St., Chi- 
cago, 111., before the discussion takes place, and authorize him 
legally to transfer the property to me, if I, according to the 
verdict of the said committee, come out as victor in the dis- 

I think these conditions are sufficient to test the honesty 
of your proposal, and if you accept them, I will make plans 
for the discussion as soon as my time allows. 

You have a week from the date of this letter to weigh the 
matter, and if I don't hear from you before that time I con- 
sider my conditions rejected. 


S. Mortenson. 

Nyman's answer : 

Chicago, January 5, 1912. 
Bro. S. Mortenson, 
Peace of God, our Father ! 
Your letter was received yesterday, the 4th, for which I 
am very grateful. 

You say, "I do not think it is the best or proper way to 
promise house and property." I could not do anything better 
under the circumstances, but am willing to accept what is 

The time set was three months, from October 1, 1911. Bui 
no matter, I stand behind my circular, in which I demand that 
you, according to your doctrine, prove that Rome fills the 
prophecy in Dan. 8th, 9th, and 11th chapters. 

1. That Rome is the little horn in Dan. 8: 9. 

2. That the 2,300 days are as many years, and began 457 
B. C, and closed 1844 A. D. 


3. That Rome fills the prophecy in Dan. 11th chapter from 
the 14th verse. 

We have, of course, right to use all materials in our dis- 
cussion. I will not exclude any Bible translation. 

With regard to the Hebrew or Greek lexicons, neither you 
nor I are competent enough to use them. But have you any- 
one who can put the right words in the right place ? Are not 
the Bible and the history sufficient now as before? But use 
any materials which you believe will support the truth. 

To refer the question to a committee is satisfactory to me, 
and also who are not members of any denomination. 

To transfer my property, before the discussion, to a person 
I do not know, I don't want to do. My words in the circular 
are sufficient if you win. But if you are more interested in 
the house than in the facts, I am not. But if you have no 
confidence in my words, I am even willing to make this con- 
cession, so the opportunity for a discussion may not slip by. 

Concerning the circulars and time and place for the meeting 
it may be necessary to have a personal interview, the sooner 
the better. 

In brotherly love, 

Aaron Nyman. 

The answer from Mortenson : 

Chicago, January 10, 1912. 
Mr. Aaron Nyman, 

Chicago, 111. 
Honored Countryman: — 

Happy New Year! Your letter of the 5th instant is re- 
ceived with thanks. I have noticed its contents and will now 
answer the same. 

Regarding the use of Hebrew and Greek dictionaries you 
will kindly let me say, that there are some, which in connec- 


tion with a concordance give the words in the original text, 
put them in their right place and furnish a complete definition 
of the original word, and they are so arranged that even 
those who do not understand the original languages can use 
them advantageously. These helps are indispensible in exam- 
ining critical questions, and their authority is higher and more 
reliable than that of philologues, who are not competent to 
prepare such helpful books. This is the only reason for asking 
that permission be given to use them. 

You seem to insinuate that I am more interested in your 
hquse than in the fact in the matter. Why should I not take 
an interest in both, when you offer them so liberally? 

I made no mention in my former letter of the $1000.00, 
which are offered in connection with Dan. 11th chapter; I 
understand that it is another party, who made this offer, and 
I want to settle the case with you first, afterwards I will see 
to the other. 

Since it is you who are attacking us with another view than 
the one we hold of Dan. 8th, 9th, and 11th chapters, it is only 
fair that not only our view should be tested, but yours also. 
Therefore the subject for discussion ought to be formulated 
in this manner, 

"Resolved, that the little horn, mentioned in Daniel's eighth 
chapter, is a symbol of the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes, 
who persecuted the Jews; that the 2,300 days (verse 14) are) 
literal days and commenced 170 B. C, when Antiochus Epi- 
phanes began the destruction of Jerusalem, and ended when 
Judas Maccabeus cleansed the sanctuary, and that the posi- 
tion of the Seventh-day Adventists, that the little horn sym- 
bolizes the Roman power and that the 2,300 days are sym- 
bolical, that they began 457 B. C, and ended 1844 A. D., is 


Aaron Nyman, affirmative; S. Mortenson, negative." 

It is only just that the strength or weakness of your posi- 
tion shall be of equal importance with ours in settling this 

I notice what you say about trusting your words ; but I 
have learned in the past, that you sometimes change your 
views quite rapidly, and when you now have both in open 
speech and in writing stated that you are willing to stake all 
your property, I consider it as common justice that you place 
it within the reach of the law. You need not fear to hand 
your deed over to Mr. Oscar Olson, as he is a reputable lawyer 
who handles many cases before the courts of our city. Your 
papers in his keeping are just as safe as in your own drawer; 
as they are only kept by him in escrow. >. 

But if your property shall be transferred legally, it may 
be necessary, that you make out a real quit-claim deed which 
afterwards is given to him who wins in the discussion. 

I am already invited to attend other meetings on January 
21, but if we can agree to hold this discussion, I wish it could 
be arranged for January 21, at 3 P. M., and I will ask to be 
excused from the other meetings. 

If you accept these propositions I suggest that we meet 
as soon as possible in the office of Oscar D. Olson, 30 La 
Salle St., Chicago, eleventh floor. Friday or Monday would be 
most convenient for me. When the papers are ready, we may 
select our committee to judge in the question, and there are 
several other things to see to, and we need time for it all. 
I am going away the latter part of the month, and, therefore, 
I want the discussion on January 2l. 

Hoping to hear from you at once, I wish your whole 
family a Happy New Year. 

Yours truly, 
S. Mortenson. 


Nyman's answer : 

Chicago, January 12, 1912. 
Bro. S. Mortenson, 

Your letter of the 10th inst. is received. Thanks! In the 
letter I see that you want to dictate all the conditions, that 
I shall submit the title of my property under the authority of 
the law next Monday, and that you are going to have the 
discussion January 21 ; but where ? Then you propose that 
I speak first. Have you ever heard that the negative side 
speaks first? It is you who have the affirmative, the positive 
side, and I the negative, the opposing side. I cannot oppose 
a thing you never have asserted, or try to tear down a build- 
ing that never was erected. Then you exclude the 11th chap- 
ter, why? If you did not know that it is impossible to go to 
the bottom with such a profound subject in so short a time 
you were excusable. But you know very well that two meet- 
ings have been required to prove that Dan. 8th chapter refers 
to Rome, and yet, after my many years in Chicago, I have-not 
found a single member who understands these theories but 
they believe blindly without facts. 

It is the word of the Lord we are going to study, I there- 
fore renounce all crooked ways. It is I who have promised 
my house, worth $5,000.00. Therefore I have the right to 
propose the terms of the discussion, but not you. You are 
going to prove — according to my promise in the circulars — 
that Rome fills the prophecy in Dan. 8th, 9th, and 11th chap- 
ters. Then you are winning. 

In order to have a discussion I submit now for the last 
time my just and reasonable requirements : 

1. That the discussion be held in some large hall on the 
Northsicle or in Lake View, the public being invited; 


2. That at least three meetings be held. One for each 
chapter of Daniel in dispute; 

3. That you open every meeting with a discourse of one 
hour, and treat at the first meeting Dan. 8th, showing that 
Rome fills the prophecy there. Then I speak one hour, trying 
to refute your arguments and introduce such which seem to 
fit better. Afterwards you and I have ten minutes each for 

4. At the second meeting you are to prove that the seventy 
weeks (Dan. 9:24-27) began 457 B. C. and ended 33 A. D. ; 
that Christ is the anointed prince, referred to here, who was 
killed in the middle of the seventieth week. Time divided be- 
tween us as before ; 

5. At the third meeting you are expected to prove that 
Rome fills the prophecy in Dan. 11th; that the Turk became 
king of the north and that the last verse refers to him when he 
is to leave Europe and go to Palestine. Time divided as 

6.' That about 2,000 circulars be printed for distribution 
on the Northside and in Lake View at least three weeks before 
the first meeting, these circulars containing information with 
regard to subjects, the place and the time of the discussion 
that every one who wishes to hear us shall have an oppor- 
tunity ; 

7. That a collection be taken at each meeting to cover the 
expenses. If the collections are not large enough, the losing 
party is to pay the balance. 

As soon as you accept these reasonable conditions as stated 
above, I am willing to hand the deed of my property to your 
lawyer to hold in escrow, until a committee of seven persons 
has decided that you have won in the discussion. I can do no 
better. A subject of so great import could not be treated 
properly at only one meeting, it would be "monkey-business," 


multiplied by 999. Let us take time and produce arguments 
so that the most ignorant can understand us. If you are 
planning for some journey, let us wait till you come back. 
If you have the whole truth, you have nothing to fear from 
me, and at the same time you can earn $1,250.00 per hour. 
What will you give me if I win? People would scorn you 
now, if you let such an opportunity slip by. 

The $1000.00 were promised only for the meeting held 
October 1st. You should have watched your chances then. 
Be satisfied with the house this time. You may use any kind 
of helps to support your views. I await your answer before 
the 18th. 

Morten son's answer : 

Yours truly, 

Aaron Nyman. 

Chicago, January 14, 1912. 

Mr. Aaron Nyman, 

Chicago, 111. 
Honored Countryman : — 

Your letter of the 12th inst. was received last night, and 
I hurry to answer it immediately, hoping we can arrange for 
the discussion to be held Sunday, next, while I have time. 

In the letter I see that you refuse to have your own views 
also examined, and you fail to notice that I refute your opinion 
as you deny ours. First you put yourself down as party of 
the negative side, and then you ask, if I ever heard, that the 
negative side opens the discussion. In this manner I under- 
stand you intend to twist the fact that you have begun the 
attack, and the assailant ought, according to custom, go as a 
hero in the front of battle and not be afraid to expose his ar- 
mor for the weapons of the enemy from the very beginning. 

You seem to take for granted, that I have limited the dis- 


cussiou to only one meeting, but you notice in my letter that 
I only mentioned the day ; afterwards we can arrange for two 
or three meetings, as we see fit. 

If I should accept your proposition and live up to it strictly, 
then I would have an hour to prove our position, but only ten 
minutes to demolish your views, for if that was undefined as 
it is in your letters I could not get at it, before you had 

We are willing to submit our doctrine to careful scrutiny; 
but justice demands that yours should be scrutinized just as 
carefully, especially as you consider it so much better than 
ours. If you give an opportunity, I am going to show how 
well it fits in, and when both views are thoroughly examined, 
the discussion will be more interesting and decisive. 

I do not deny your ' right to secure your house to your 
family, but I claim also the right to set up reasonable con- 
ditions if you want to have a discussion with me, according 
to which the truth will be put in its right light. 

The offer you made late last fall anyone could make with- 
out running any risk, as the decision of the question in the 
absence of competent judges or other obligations practically 
was in your own hands. 

If the other person does not dare to put the $1000.00 in 
escrow, we may arrange it so that the house serves the same 
purpose in the discussion of the 11th chapter also. 

But if your views are to be examined as carefully as ours, 
they must be correctly stated in accordance with the examples 
I gave in my last letter, so we may have something tangible 
against which to direct our arguments. 

I have spoken to several people, whom you have instructed 
according to your views and left them believing they have 
come over to your side ; but they have openly told me, that they 


believe your opinion is wrong, and that is what I desire to 
show at the discussion ; but I want more than ten minutes to 
do that. 

I am willing to have three meetings and include Dan. 11th 
chapter. I agree also to have the meetings in some large 
hall and meet the expenses according to your suggestion. But 
as the question is going to be decided by a committee and not 
by the large audience, I consider it better to hold the discussion 
in our hall, which probably will be open free of cost, then the 
collection could be used to pay for the advertising. 

I wish to have the meetings next Sunday, one in the fore- 
noon, one in the afternoon, and one in the evening; because I 
have time then. 

You receive this letter early tomorrow, Monday, and if 
you accept these propositions and write me immediately, I will 
have your answer Tuesday morning. Tuesday afternoon we 
may meet at the office of Attorney Olson to arrange for the 
papers with regard to the property and in the evening we 
prepare the announcemnts to be printed oh Wednesday. Then 
we have Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evening to adver- 
tize and select the committee. In this way the matter can be 
attended to speedily. 

You need not fear to put your house in escrow. When 
you promised that, I wish naturally to show what I can dq 
with it, if I get a proper chance. I have carefully examiner] 
your position and our own, and I have already the polished 
stones, by which I expect to win a decisive victory and get tne 
house. And if I win I have a right to do with it as I please, 
and the probability is that I give it back to you as a present. 

Hoping to hear from you by return mail, I am, 


S. Mortenson. 


Nyman's answer : 

Chicago, January 16, 1912. 
Bro. S. Mortenson : — 

May the Spirit of truth lead us. Your letter of the 14th 
inst. was received first today, Tuesday. You say that you 
notice I want to evade having my side of the controversy 
examined. How can you say that? I have published ten 
thousand circulars in the English and Swedish languages to 
show my position to the whole world, if possible. 

I will now tell you, how I look upon this matter. The 
Adventists have for a long time tried to show, that Rome fills 
the prophecy in the eighth and eleventh chapters of Daniel. 
The ninth you have used more as a supplement to the eighth. 
Now, I wager my house, if you can prove before the public 
and seven judges, that this is a fact. If I shall open the 
discussion, I have to show first your doctrine and then pro- 
duce my arguments against it. I cannot say one word the first 
hour against anything you have said, only refer to the doctrine 
from your books. If you stand behind the writings of the 
Adventists on this question it can be done. You can build a 
house upon the foundation, that looks good at present to a 
class of people which does not understand the foundation. I 
am going to prove that the very foundation is shaky. If I 
succeed, all that is built thereon crumbles to the ground. 

Now I consider that according to the challenge in my 
circular you are to prove your position first, and if I cannot 
refute your arguments, you win. If I had promised in the 
circular to prove my position first, then it had been my duty 
to commence. I challenge you to prove your doctrine, and if 
I cannot refute your ideas', you have won. Suppose you could 
refute my arguments, that would not prove that your views 
are correct. If my side were ever so wrong, and you show 
this to the people, you were not entitled to the house because 


of that. The circular demands that your doctrine is unshake- 
able; when you have done that I am going to show the op- 
posite. If I do not succeed, everyone will see that you have 
gained the victory, and the house belongs to you. My family 
will get shelter and food in spite of the loss. 

The only difference between us now is as to who shall 
commence the debate, and according to the provisions in my 
circular the burden of proof rests upon you first, before my 
promise is binding. The condition to prove goes before the 
promise to win. You have to prove first. That is my view of 
the matter. 

I propose, therefore, that we select seven persons, you two, 
I two ; these four choose three. We give them my circular and 
the letters passed between us, and accept their judgment as 
to who is going to begin. Since this is done I presume we 
can agree as to the other rules for the procedure. My first 
letter has something about that. 

It is rumored from all quarters that many people wish to 
hear us both. There is no time for preparation till next Sun- 
day. Tomorrow, Wednesday, I am called in as a witness be- 
fore the Municipal Court. Besides, I have a cold at present 
so I dare hardly go out; but there is no fear on my part. Let 
me know if my proposition is acceptable. 

Yours truly, 
Aaron Nyman. 
No answer from Mortenson to this letter. 
Nyman writes again : 

Chicago, January 29, 1912. 
Bro. Mortenson, 

As you have not answered my letter of the ICth inst., I 
wish to write you again. I do not exepct that you should take 
part in any discussion when your time is occupied. Neither 


will you expect me to come when it is impossible. We ought 
to treat each others in a brotherly way and first agree upon, 
when and where the debate is to be held. To print circulars 
and invite people to a debate in your hall is impracticable, as 
it does not seat one-third of the people who want to listen. I 
want the debate to be announced three weeks ahead, so that 
people who are desirous of hearing us may know when it is 
coming off. When I received your last letter (on Tuesday) 
I had such a cold that I could not go out, but got so much 
better that I could attend the session of the court as a witness 
on Thursday and Friday, so you see there was not much time 

If we are to have the meetings in your hall, 213 Oak St., 
there is no need of circulars, but only to announce the meeting 
to let them know who are earnestly interested. Now, I am 
more than willing to place my house in the hands of a lawyer, 
and I do not want you to give it back if you win. Instead you 
ought to give it to your school outside of the city. I mean 
what I say. I also agree to speak first, but then I wish to have 
four meetings, as we must take it slowly and easy. There is 
no objection to having the meetings in your hall, but we should 
not send out any announcements, as the hall is too small. In 
the meantime I want to have a definite answer, yes or no, if 
you wish to take part in a debate, so I know what to answer 
those who ask me. 

If the pillars of our faith do not endure an investigation, 
it is about time that we should find out what is wrong; so 
says Mrs. White in her "Gospel Worker" (page 127), and you 
believe, of course, what she says. And what I want to show 
is, that your pillars do not stand for a careful examination. 

Yours truly, 

Aaron Nyman. 


Mortenson's answer : 

Worcester, Mass., March 18, 1913. 
Mr. Aaron Nyman, 

Chicago, 111. 
Honored Countryman : — 

Your letter of January 29th is at hand and I have noticed 
what you say with reference to the discussion, that I proposed, 
as well as other things.- 

In regard to the future I cannot promise anything, for 
though I desire very much to demolish your arguments, I must 
mind my mork, for which I scarcely have enough time and 

If you had been a dangerous opponent, the situation would 
have been different ; but as I find that your arguments and your 
propaganda on -the whole are quite innocent, it matters very 
little. Yet, if my time and strength will allow me to meet you 
in a debate, I will notify you to that effect. 

In case of debate or not, the press stands to my disposal, 
and there I can more effectively and before a larger audience 
refute your arguments and answer your denials that are of 
smaller importance. 

It might be of some advantage to you to learn something of 
Canright's experience. He prophecied the destruction of the 
Seventh-day Adventists ; but they have more than doubled, 
since he began to prophecy. You prophecy in the same direction 
as he. The Lord seemingly has punished him, for he has lost 
one eye and part of the cheek; his mouth is twisted to one side 
and his tongue is diseased. This was related to me by a bro. 
Hansen, who met him last summer. Perchance this is a punish- 
ment for all the hard words his lying mouth has spoken against 
the truth. 

Your offer of the house I consider of no value, as I have 
later found out, that even if it was put in escrow, you could 


not lose it; for if the matter were brought before court, it 
would be considered as gambling, and that is prohibited by 
law, -as you probably know already. 

You may be displeased that I call you a countryman and 
not brother; but it seems .to me that your unbiblical methods 
give me reason to doubt the brotherhood that formerly existed 
between us. 

Yours truly, 

S. Mortenson. 

Nyman's answer : 

Chicago, April 17, 1912. 
Bro. Mortenson: — 

Oh, that God was permitted to lead you ! 

"The fining pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold : 
but the Lord trieth the hearts." (Prov. 17:3.) 

Your letter of March 18th is received. You should not talk 
■so much of your ability to smash my arguments against "the 
whole truth." Mortenson, come and show up my errors, and 
then you can write that you have done it. Come and do some- 
thing, and others will talk about what you have done, and that 
is a_ greater honor for you. If you only dared to go against 
me, you certainly would find the time. 

You don't consider me a dangerous opponent, but it is 
easy for you to break up my propaganda. So much the better 
for you and greater shame for me. You are welcome ! You 
feel also safe because you have the press to show your position 
in this controversy; but when no one else is allowed to use 
the same press, it is of no aid to him who wants to find the 
truth. If you do not dare to have a debate with me, let me 
ask you, since my propaganda is so easy to dispose of, if you 
want to take up a brotherly discussion of your doctrines, based 
upon the 8th, 9th, and 11th chapters of Dan. in "Tidens Tec- 
ken"? I am willing to pay the paper a reasonable price, if 


necessary. If the paper does not allow this, we think that you 
and the managers of the paper are like cowardly soldiers who 
shoot tallowprops in times of peace; but who hide behind 
barricades when there are real sharpshooters in sight. 

You think it would be to my adwantage to learn something 
from Canright's experience. "He prophecied the destruction 
of the Seventh-day Adventists, but they have more than 
doubled since he began to prophecy. The Lord seemingly has 
punished him," etc. I am willing to learn from all who have 
the truth, but if Canright has lied I do not want to learn from 
him. You base your articles on prophecy and there is no truth 
in them, but I do not think that you lie intentionally, but you 
are blind, because you believe in Mrs. White's errors. You 
have gone so far as to say the angel Gabriel has symbolized 
Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome in Daniel's eighth chapter. 
It is impossible for you to show that Rome fills the prophecy 
there, and much less that the angel said Rome, as it is not 
written in Dan. 8. 

Be honest and retract your error. 

That the Adventists have doubled in number since Canright 
prophecied their destruction does not prove that their doctrines 
are correct, unless it first be proved that only the orthodox have 
success, then we will admit it. 

The Catholics have had an increase in America alone of 
4,038,812 in ten years, or 403,801 members a year. They have 
in three months increased more in this country than the Ad- 
ventists have done in sixty-eight years in the whole world. 
Mortenson should cease his attacks upon them for error, if 
it is addition in membership that is to decide whether the 
doctrine is from God. 

Regarding the house I beg to say, that it is not gambling 
to give away a thing. You have, of course, intended to scare 
me with the law. I prefer to give it through the gospel for 


evangelical purposes as soon as you publicly refuted my pro- 
paganda on Daniel's 8th, 9th, and 11th chapters. 

Show me, Mr. Mortenson, if I ever changed my mind when 
making such a promise. But when I see the word of God 
instead of error, then I change quickly, for I am converted to 
God and not to dry errors. 

Take to your aid as many of your colleagues as you wish. 
Come and let us have a debate as before God to find the 
truth. When you have destroyed my propaganda, then you 
will get the house without any trouble for the school. This 
is the best I can do. 

You think I am vexed with you, but that is not so; it is 
the doctrine I am after. You have both grit and gumption in 
you, if you only could get your eyes open with regard to your 
errors in the prophecy. 

I am not in the least hurt, because you do not call me 
brother. You write so to others who have left "the truth." 
If God was allowed to open your eyes, it would soon be 
"brother" Nyman again. But it hurts my soul that you prefer 
to remain in this darkness. 

Aaron Nyman. 

No letter has since been received from Elder Mortenson. 

We are now going to begin the study of the prophecies. 
But in order to make the reader understand them thoroughly 
it is important to call attention first to the foundation of the 

The foundation of their message is built upon prophetic 
time. If they can prove that their chronology is in harmony 
with the Bible, history and science, then they are right. There 
is no question here of what they have thought for many years, 
or what they think today; the question is whether their chron- 


ology was based upon facts, then they have the same facts 
today, and at the same time I only show my great ignorance, 
as Elder Mortenson says. 

(Study Diagram No. 1.) 

The foundation is found in Dan. 8 : 14, which reads as 
follows, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then 
shall the sanctuary be cleansed." 

This is the hub in the wheel, around which all their pro- 
phetic doctrines are centered. They admit it themselves, for 
Mrs. White has said so, and every Adventist knows it is so. 
There is no wonder then that they do all they possibly can to 
retain the hub, for who can drive with a wheel without a 

Wm. Miller was the founder of this interpretation. He 
thought that the 2,300 days were as many years. Now we 
read in Dan. 9 : 24, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy 
people and upon thy holy city," etc. A week in Daniel's chron- 
ology is equal to seven years. Seventy weeks were seventy 
times seven, or 490 years. This is correct. In verse 25 the 
angel says, "Know therefore and understand, that from the . 
going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerus- 
alem unto the Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and 
three score and two weeks : the street shall be built again, and 
the wall, even in troublous times." 

Miller thought now, that this Messiah, or anointed prince, 
was Christ, who was to be cut off after the three score and 
two weeks (verse 26). Then the question arose, "Where shall 
the 490 years begin ?" If the time shall fit in with the anointed 
one and he is Christ, then the time must be counted from the. 


seventh year of the Persian king Artaxerxes, which was B. C. 

If the commandment of the restoration of Jerusalem had 
gone forth then, it is clear that the seventy weeks should begin 
there. Furthermore, Miller believed that there was no other 
line from which to cut off time than the 2,300 days ; he there- 
fore commenced the two numbers — 2,300 and 490 — at the same 
year, B. C. 457 (see diagram). He took the number 2,300 as 
a line of time and the 490 years as a measure. First he cut 
off seven weeks (forty-nine years), then sixty-two weeks (434 
years), together 483 years. When he began the 490 years in 
B. C. 457 and cut off sixty-nine weeks or 483 years, that brings 
us to the year A. D.' 26. There still remains a week of seven 
years of the 490 years. 

In verse twenty-seven the pronoun "he" occurs, meaning 
the same prince as in verse twenty-six. Miller thought this 
was Christ, who in his death upon the cross should in the 
midst of the seventieth week cause the sacrifice and the obla- 
tion to cease. Jesus preached three years and a half. Then 
the forty-nine years were brought to an end — A. D. 33. But 
there are still remaining 1810 years of the 2,300 days. These 
1810 years bring us up to A. D. 1843. Notice here that our 
chronology begins with the birth of Jesus, not with his death. 
But the 1810 years are counted from A. D. 33. Therefore, if 
we are to get it right, we must add the thirty-three years to 
1810; then we get 1843, counted from his birth. 

The sanctuary was desolate during the 2,300 days, and 
after that time the sanctuary shall be restored again. 

The 457 years B. C. and A. D. 1843 make 2,300 years. 
Miller thought that the earth was the sanctuary, which should 
be cleansed through fire, according to 2 Pet. 3 : 10, 12, and 
that this should take place at the second coming of Christ. 
Justice should be done to the sanctuary at the end of the 2,300 


days. He was therefore compelled to fix the time of Christ's 
coming to A. D. 1843. One might be willing to agree with the 
misled Adventists and say, just think how well these things 
harmonize ! And yet, it is all wrong. 

The year 1843 passed by, but Jesus did not return. Miller 
had preached with great assurance, that he should come that 
year. Now he was compelled to admit, that his calculations 
were wrong. 

The difficulty was easily disposed of for a little while. We 
read in a footnote of the Swedish edition of Mrs. White's book 
"Early Writings" (pages 323, 324), "It is easily seen, that they 
made a mistake in this calculation, as it required 457 complete 
years and 1843 complete years to make 2,300 years. But as a 
part -of the year 457 already had passed, when the Jews did 
return to Jerusalem, the 2,300 years did not end before just 
as much of the year 1844 had gone by. The Jews did not go 
up to Jerusalem before the fifth month, and it is believed, that 
they did not begin to build the city before the seventh month 
(Jewish chronology) of the year B. C. 457. 2,300 years from 
the seventh month of 457 should take us to the seventh month 
of 1844. According to the Jewish chronology the year com- 
menced March 21st. Seven months from that time will bring 
us to October. Therefore the 2,300 days ended in October, 
A. D. 1844." This view is still held by the Adventists. 

"It is believed, that they did not begin to build the city 
before the seventh month." (See above.) 

The seventy weeks shall be counted from the going forth 
of the commandment to restore and to build up Jerusalem, 
according to the angel Gabriel. We should then have a certain 
time and not assume a time, which cannot be proved, as the 
Adventists have done. When we are going to discuss the 
seventy weeks, we will show that no commandment went forth 
to restore Jerusalem in the year B. C. 457, according to Ezra 


seventh chapter. We will then prove, that their assumption 
is a mistake, and upon this false assumption they have founded 
their interpretation of the prophecies. There is not one word 
in Ezra seventh chapter about a message to build up Jerusalem 
in the year B. C. 457. 

The mistake the adventists have made in their interpretation 
rests upon the year B. C. 457. They are aiming to prove, 
that the 2,300 days in Dan. ; 8 : 14 should begin there, and that 
the seventy weeks in Dan. 9 : 24 begin at the same time. This 
year is just as necessary for them as the wheels under a cart, 
if it is to be used. It is easy to prove, that these two periods 
did not begin B. C. 457, and that being done, it is proved that 
their interpretation is built upon sand. The. arguments of the 
Adventists rest upon assumptions and assertions without a 
tenable proof, as we shall see later. 

We ought to thank God for his mercy on our times of 
ignorance. But the Adventists are not so ignorant in arith- 
metic. If they only dared to study their doctrine, they would 
have found this error. But as I have said before : They dare 
not change what Mrs. White has revealed, as long as they per- 
sist in believing, that she is an inspired prophetess. 

If it had been a difficult computation, as powers, Newton's 
binominal system, irrational and imaginary quantities, log- 
arithms, etc., no one should wonder if they made miserable 
blunders. Calculations of such a nature require a long time 
of study and research, but here we deal only with the two first 
rules of arithmetic. 

Three persons have told me, that an Adventist professor 
said at one of their meetings, that figures do lie sometimes, 
and proved it by saying that a figure is lying if it is put in a 
wrong place. They thought he was after me, because I had 
said that figures tell no lies. But it makes no difference. He 
is a poor professor of arithmetic. Their message is built upon 


chronology, and we are going to show that he is unworthy of 
the title of professor, as far as chronology is concerned. 

Does a figure lie when it gets in a wrong place? By no 
means. The figure has its value and it represents this value, 
wherever it is placed. It speaks the full truth and reveals the 
falsehood — that it has been misplaced. It is the figure that 
reveals the error, when it is put in the wrong place. If it is 
lying to reveal an error, then I do not wonder that they call 
me a liar, when I place their wrong figures in the place, where 
they ought to be. 

The 22nd day of October, 1844, passed by as did 1843 ; but 
no Saviour came. Another mistake ! Miller acknowledged 
his mistake and abandoned his views. Others took upon them- 
selves to propagate his doctrine. "They said that the time was 
correct, but the action was mistaken," thereby meaning, that 
Jesus did come at that time, but in this way that he only 
changed his place from the holy place in the heavenly sanctu- 
ary to the most holy place, where he became our high priest, 
received a kingdom from his Father and had a marriage, as 
we have indicated in a previous chapter. 

We are now going to prove by unchangeable facts from the 
Bible, history and science : 

1. That the 2,300 days in Dan. 8:14 are ordinary solar 
days, namely six years, four months, and twenty days. 

2. That they did not begin B. C. 457, and did not end 
A. D. 1844. 

3. That the seventy weeks in Dan. 9 : 24 are years ; but 
that they did not begin B. C. 457 and did not end A. D. 33. 

4. That the anointed prince in Dan. 9 : 25 is not Christ. 

5. That the anointed one who was killed after the sixty- 
ninth week was not Christ. 

G. That one cannot cut anything off from the 2,300 days, 
as the Adventists have done and are still doing. 


7. That the prince who in the midst of the seventieth week 
caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease is not Christ. 

8. That the sanctuary which was destroyed during the 
2,300 days was the same sanctuary to which justice should be 
done after the 2,300 days, and that this sanctuary was not in 
heaven but upon the earth. 

9. That Jesus did not officiate in the holy place of the 
heavenly sanctuary from his ascension to 1844, and that he did 
not ride in a carriage within the veil and became then our high 
priest; but that he became our high priest when he ascended 
into heaven forty days after his resurrection. 

10. That the time 2,300 days, even if this period had been 
years, did not begin Octoher 21, B. C. 457, and did not end 
October 22, 1844. 

The prophetic doctrine of the Adventists is like a chain 
with many links. Fasten the chain to the ceiling and put a 
weight at the other end. Whichever link is cut off, the chain 
will fall to the floor. So with their message. It hangs upon 
so many weak links that whenever one is shown to be false 
the whole doctrine falls to the ground. 


The Eighth Chapter of Daniel's Book 

The power, which in this chapter is signified by the little horn, 

which arose from the divided kingdom of Greece, is Rome, 

according to the Adventists ; the 2,300 days are so many 

years, beginning B. C. 457, and ending A. D. 1844. We 

assert that the horn signified the Syrian king Anti- 

ochus Epiphanes, and that the days are six years, 

four months, and tzventy days, beginning in the 

year B. C. 170, and ending B. C. 164. 

We are now going to take up the study of the eighth chap- 
ter of Daniel, the real foundation of their message. , 

A man was building a very large brickhouse in a city not 
far from Chicago. When he had come to the second story, 
the building inspector came to see if the foundation was laid 
according to the regulations. He did not care how beautiful 
the house was on the outside. He went directly to the cellar 
to find out, if the foundation was solid enough to carry all the 
bricks that were going to be laid upon it, but he noticed that 
the foundation was too weak. He left the cellar, notified the 
workingmen and placed several placards on the house warning 
people not to enter. In the night the house fell. 

So we are going to show that the foundation for the Ad- 
ventist doctrine is weak, and that the house will fall sooner 
or later. 

Let us now study impartially with a view of finding the 
truth. Read slowly and ponder what you are reading and you 
will find the truth. 

In this chapter Daniel speaks of a vision which appeared to 


him while he was by the river of Ulai. He first saw standing 
before the river, a ram having two horns, and the two horns 
were high. He saw the ram pushing westward, and northward 
and southward, and no beast could stand before him; nobody 
could deliver out of his hand, but he did according to his will, 
and became great (verses 2-i). The explanation of the angel 
comes in verse twenty, "The ram which thou sawest having 
two horns are the kings of Media and Persia." 

The first thing Daniel saw in his vision was the time when 
Medo-Persia enlarged the kingdom westward, northward and 

Afterwards he saw a goat coming from the west; the goat 
had a notable horn between the eyes. And he came to the ram 
that had two horns, the one he had seen standing before the 
river, and ran against him in a great fury. The goat came 
close to the ram and, smiting the ram, broke his two horns, 
so. there was no power in the ram to stand before him. Then 
he cast him down to the ground and stamped upon him ; and 
there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand 
(verses 5-7). The explanation of the angel is in verse twenty- 
one, "And the rough goat is the king of Grecia; and the great 
horn that is between his eyes is the first king." All historians 
agree that Alexander the Great was the first king of Greece, 
born at Pella, B. C. 356. He reigned twelve years and eight 

The goat (Alexander) undertook many great things. And 
when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it 
came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven 
(verse 8). He died at Babylon, B. C. 323. 

The explanation of the angel. 

"Four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not 
in his power" (not equal to him in power). (Verse 22.) 


The division of Greece and the -, four rulers were: 

Lysimachus, Thracia in Asia Minor, B. C. 301—281. 

Cassander, Grecian Macedonia, B. C. 301 — 146. 

Seleucus, Syria, B. C. 312—65. 

Ptolemy, Egypt B. C. 323—30. 

This division took place after the battle at Ipsus, B. C. 301. 
The Egyptian kingdom dates from 323, and the Syrian from 
B. C. 312. 

"And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which 
waxed exceeding great toward the south, and toward the 
east, and toward the pleasant land" (verse 9). 

Now comes the important question, who is the little horn, 
spoken of in the ninth verse? 

The Seventh-day Adventists say it is a symbol of Rome, 
and we say it represents the Syriair king Antiochus IV Epi- 
phanes. No one has to our knowledge proposed any third 
power. If it is Rome, then the qualifications of the prophecy 
must fit Rome. If it is Antiochus Epiphanes, the qualifications 
of the prophecy must correspond with his history. 

If the Adventists cannot fit in Rome here, their message 
is, as far as the prophecy is concerned, of no value. 

Where should the little horn come up? The kingdom of 
Alexander was divided into four kingdoms, and from one of 
them it was to go forth. (See the ninth verse.) 

If Rome came out from one of the four kingdoms the pro- 
phecy is alluding to Rome. We say it did not. Rome was 
founded B. C. 753. Did Antiochus Epiphanes come, up from 
one of the four? Yes. And here is the proof: Antiochus III 
the Great was born B. C. 238. He ascended the Syrian throne 
at the age of fifteen, in the year 223. He reigned thirty-six 
years, till B. C. 187. During this time his two sons were 
born, Seleucus IV and Antiochus Epiphanes. Antiochus 
III could hardly have two sons when he at the age of fifteen 


became a king; then history would have made some mention 
of it. Antiochus Epiphanes came from one of the four; not 
so Rome. The first link in the Adventist chain did not hold. 

An Adventist professor, Uriah Smith, has published a book 
of 608 pages, entitled "Daniel and the Revelation." It is 
doubtful whether any greater errors have been printed in a 
religious book. This book has become the whole truth of the 
Adventists. Very sad, indeed. 

He says, "The little horn came out from one of the horns of 
the goat. How, it may be asked, can this be true of Rome? 
It is unnecessary to remind the reader that earthly govern- 
ments are not introduced in prophecy till they become in some 
way connected with the people of God. Rome became con- 
nected with the Jews, the people of God at that time, by the 
famous Jewish league, B. C. 161. But seven years before this, 
that is, in B. C. 168, Rome had conquered Macedonia, and made 
that country part of its empire. Rome is therefore introduced 
into prophecy just as from the conquered Macedonian horn 
of the goat, it is going forth to new conquests in other direc- 
tions. It therefore appeared to the prophet, or may be properly 
spoken of in this prophecy, as coming forth from one of the 
horns of the goat." (Page 202.) 

Is the reader satisfied with these thoughts? We are not. 
It is true that the Romans are not introduced in prophecy till 
they became connected with the Jews. But we reject the 
statement, that they became introduced in prophecy at this 
time, and that it appeared to the prophet as though a new horn 
came up B. C. 168. From one of the four horns a new horn 
came out. Notice, a new horn! Rome was no new horn! 
coming out from the Macedonian horn. Rome was 585 years 
old in the year 168. The little horn should come out from 
one of the four. One of the four was the father of the little 
horn. If Rome was the son, it is apparent, that it was 585 


years old at the birth. The Macedonian horn will then be the 
father of the little horn; but the father came up after the 
battle at Ipsus, B. C. 301, and Rome came into existence B. C. 
753. Thus the son was 452 years old at the birth of its father. 
It must have been a big boy! 

If there is no difference between coming up among a people 
and coming into a people, this figure of speech could probably 
pass, but not now. 

No one can become a president of the United States, unless 
he is born here, that is come up here. Immigrants have not 
come up in this country, but have come in here. White chil- 
dren do not come from colored parents, neither do colored 
children come from white parents ; but they may come in as 
fosterchildren. In "Daniel and Revelation" Rome is sym- 
bolized by an horrible monster (page 148). On page 199 there 
is an illustration of the head of a goat. Rome comes up outside 
of the head and grows into the Macedonian horn, B. C. 168. 
Have you ever seen a horn coming up far and away from 
the head that produces it? The image of Rome is altogether 
against nature. A cow does not carry horns of a deer, nor 
does a deer carry horns of a cow. Wolves can sometimes 
get in among a flock of sheep, but never from them; just as 
little as monsters can come from goats. The link is weak here, 
their argument falls to pieces. Prophecy here corresponds 
in every detail with the history of Antiochus Epiphanes. 

When should the little horn come up? The angel Gabriel 
answers, "In the latter time of their kingdom" (of the four 
kings). (Verse 23.) When did their kingdoms begin? After 
the death of Alexander. The kingdom of Egypt began B. C. 
323, and Syria B. C. 312. The other two began after the 
battle of Ipsus, B. C. 301. When did these empires cease? 
Thrace in Asia Minor consolidated with the Macedonian horn 
B. C. 281. This horn became a Roman province B. C. 146. 


The Syrian horn became a Roman province B. C. G5, and 
Egypt B. C.,30. The four kingdoms existed from B. C. 323 
to B. C. 30. The end of their kingdoms cannot be counted be- 
fore the latter half of their existence. If we count their power 
from B. C. 301, the coming of the little horn will occur in the 
first half of their power; therefore it is correct to count their' 
origin from the death of Alexander, B. C. 323. 

The four kingdoms originated B. C. 323 and lasted to B. 
C. 30, a period of 293 years. One half of 293 is 146J4, say 147. 
Take 147 from 323 and we have half of their kingdom, which 
is the year B. C. 176. The latter time, or the end of their king- 
dom must be between B. C. 176 and 30. This is the time of 
the angel and is reliable. We have now found the time for 
the coming up of the little horn — the end or the latter half of 
their kingdoms, between B. C. 176 and 30. 


Horns are used in the Bible to describe kings who have 
empires, power and influence. Not one of the these attributes 
is applicable on the little horn, that came forth from one of the 
four. The Adventists say it signifies Rome. If they cannot 
prove this, their message is lost. 

We cling to the words of the angel, "In the latter time of 
their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a 
king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences 
shall stand up" (Verse 23). Remember the angel says "one" 
king — not a kingdom with many kings. 

Since the angel has said in verse 23, that' it is a king, he 
uses the pronoun "he" throughout. "His" power shall be 
mighty. "He" shall destroy wonderfully. "He" shall pros- 
per. "He" shall destroy many. "He" shall stand up. "He" 
shall be broken without hand. The pronoun "he" is used nine 


times in verses 24-27. Is it the kingdom that governs the 
king, or the king the kingdom? Is it the soldiers in the army 
who give the words of command, "Forward march! Atten- 
tion!" or is it the opposite? 

I am not an expert in grammar; but I know that the pro- 
noun "he" is not used when speaking of a kingdom. We don't 
say America took "him" when we mean a kingdom. Instead 
of kingdom we use the neuter pronoun "it." 

Their preachers ought to know better than to apply the pro- 
noun "he" to the Roman empire in prophecy; but what would 
become of the whole truth and our prophet, if we should in- 
sert the pronoun "it" instead of "he?" The link would break, 
and the present truth would become the opposite to truth. 

On page 204, having quoted verse" 9, he says, "Rome meets 
all the specifications of prophecy. No other power does meet 

"He shall destroy wonderfully" is made to correspond to 
the massacre in the year A. D. 70, when 1,100,000 Jews were 
killed and 97,000 taken captive. I heard with my own ears 
one of their professors make "the fierce king" apply to Titus, 
the Roman general, who caused the destruction of Jerusalem. 

The word of God is superior to the word of men, even if 
they call themselves professors. Let us therefore go to the 
Bible and the history — see also diagram No. 1. 

The words of the angel assist us in understanding the 
prophecy and in seeing, how beautifully it corresponds with 
history, when we are seeking the truth. There are three 
things in this verse, that we should note carefully. 

1. The time— Between B. C. 176 and 30. 

2. The transgressors are come to the full, the time of 
their transgressions was passed. 

3. Then a king of fierce countenance should come. (See 
diagram No. 1.) 


Who are the transgressors whose measure was full be- 
tween B. C. 176 and 30, and who was the fierce king that arose 
then? Verse 12 says, that a host was given him against the 
daily sacrifice by reason of transgression and that their meas- 
ure was full between 176 and 30. 

"Rome meets the requirements of prophecy here," the Ad- 
ventists say, "for the Romans came in contact with the Jews 
B. C. 161." 

Had these "transgressors come to the full" at B. C. 161, God 
would hardly have delayed the punishment to the year A. D. 
70, a period of 231 years. God had then held back his punish- 
ment till they were all dead. For even if we are to include 
those who lived the year B. C. 30, they would be 100 years 
old. If Titus is the fierce king who is filling the prophecy here, 
he must be born before B. C. 161. But this Titus was born 
December 30, the year A. D. 40, in Rome, and could not fill 
the requirements of this prophecy 201 years before he was 
born, even if we should take the last year of this period, B. C. 
30, it is still forty years before his birth. 

At the end of their kingdom, between 176 and 30, Antiochus 
Epiphanes came as a scourge over those Jews. This we are 
going to show to the full satisfaction of all, who desire to 
know the truth. Antiochus Epiphanes ascended the Syrian 
throne succeeding his brother, Seleucus IV, in the year 175 
or 176. 


"It waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward 
the east, and toward the pleasant land" (verse 9). Did Rome 
grow in these directions since it came in contact with the Jews ? 
No. (See diagram No. 2.) 

They use a very large picture of a goathead at their meet- 


ings, when they talk on this subject. The horn (Rome) 
comes from somewhere away from the head and connects with 
the Macedonian horn the year B. C. 168. It goes to Syria B. 
C. 65, Judea 63 and Egypt B. C. 30. Rome has grown as the 
picture shows but not in the same order and the way the 
prophecy says it was to grow. It should grow "toward the 
south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land" 
lastly. In the last edition of Smith's book, the horn is grow- 
ing in the direction of Egypt first ; but Rome grew towards 
Syria, towards the east, first. 

But now they must follow the Bible, when they write on 
this subject. Uriah Smith says therefore in "Daniel and the 
Revelation" (page 203), "The little horn waxed great toward 
the south. Egypt was made a province of the Roman empire 
B. C. 30. Then toward the east. Rome conquered Syria B. C. 
65, and made it a province. It waxed toward the pleasant land, 
which the Romans made a province B. C. 63." 

Have you ever heard of a professor who handles the facts 
so carelessly ? Their preachers are still just as blind after such 
an exegesis. It should grow toward the south first, it is said 
on page 203. Egypt became a Roman province the year B. C. 
30. When Rome took Egypt at the year 30, and that was her 
first province; then we ask, How was it possible for Rome to 
go backward to Syria B. C. 65, when she had taken Egypt 
B. C. 30? It is just as impossible for Rome to go back 35 
years from B. C. 30 to 65, as it is for a child that was born 
yesterday to go and lift the Titanic which went to the bottom 
some time ago. No one can go back a second in his career, 
much less thirty-five years. 

When one of their professors had left them, he paid me a 
visit, and as I showed him this, he said he had never thought 
of how inconsistent it is. Their doctrine is altogether lifeless, 
if they state the facts, as they are in the Bible; but in going 


around the truth in such a reckless manner, they have blinded 
the whole denomination on this point. 

Are you willing, Adventists, to admit the truth here, or are 
you going to appoint a committee that is skillful in arithmetic 
in order to prove, that Rome could go back from B. C. 30 to 
65. If you can not do that, admit first as last that your whole 
message falls upon this word alone from the angel . 

We want all to see, how they are able to distort a very 
plain fact. Let us use an allegory so all may see the deception. 

Suppose that the mayor of New Nork gives to his secretary 
three letters with distinct orders to go first to the mayor of 
Philadelphia, Penn. There you shall deliver the letter on the 
12th. Afterwards you go to the mayor of Buffalo with a let- 
ter ; there you must be the 14th. Then you go to the mayor of 
Boston the 16th and start for home afterwards. Carry this 
out to the letter and give me a written report of your journey. 
The secretary promises to attend to this order punctually. He 
begins his journey and goes first to Boston, delivering the 
letter on the 12th ; then he goes to Buffalo the 14th and to 
Philadelphia the 16th. He was ordered to go to Philadelphia 
first. Therefore he says in his report that he was in Philadel- 
phia the 16th, in Buffalo the 14th and in Boston the 12th. He 
has been in all three places, but the report is false, for he has 
not travelled as he said in the report. He has written opposite 
to the way he travelled. If he was in Philadelphia first and 
that was on the 16th, it is just as impossible for him to be in 
Buffalo the 14th, as it is for Rome, since she had taken Egypt 
in B. C. 30 to go back thirty-five years and take Syria B. C. 65. 

It is not so easy to destroy the order of history. See your 
mistake in your book Dan. and Rev., page 203. 

Rome did not grow as the prophecy indicated, and there- 
fore Rome is not the power referred to here. Rome subdued 


Egypt last; but the prophecy said, that the little horn was to 
grow toward the south, that is Egypt, first. 

Diagram No. 2 is so plain, that any one can understand it. 

A learned man once said, that this diagram is so simple, 
that the plainest washwoman can understand it, while it is 
a deadly poison to the message of the Adventists. Mrs. 
White's vision and her great light from God's throne are of 
no avail here. 

A few years ago, when a professor led tent meetings in 
Chicago, the hearers were allowed to ask questions after he 
had finished. One evening I asked a question concerning 
Daniel's 11th chapter. He promised to answer my question 
the following evening; but I knew on beforehand, that I was 
not going to get any answer. If he had answered correctly, 
he had torn down his whole message. He said the following 
evening, that he was going to take up this subject later on. 
When he spoke on Dan. 8, I asked if I was permitted to put a 
question to him; I was not permitted. He had hung the 
picture with the goathead, where Rome took her provinces 
against the Biblical order. He was no hypocrite, or he would 
not have shown the picture. The question I wished to ask 
was this, "Did the prophet say, that the little horn shall grow 
toward the east, toward the south and toward the south?" 

And he must have answered no. His crazy sermon, one 
of the most foolish I ever have heard, had fallen to the 
ground and the whole message to boot. 

I visited him in his home, and we had a brotherly conver- 
sation for nearly an hour ; and then he promised me to have 
a discussion on the subject, allowing me to take my friends 
with me and he could take his ; we should thus get an oppor- 
tunity to weigh each other's arguments. He promised to no- 
tify me in three or four weeks when the discussion should 
come off, but it is now, up to this writing, more than two 


years ago and he has not kept his promise, though he has been 
reminded of it. Last year (1912) I heard him speak again, 
that time on Dan. 11. Afterwards I sent him a registered let- 
ter and asked, if he wanted to have a brotherly discussion 
on Dan. 11 before a certain day; but no answer was received. 

In 1911 he mentioned, how an Adventist pastor had had a 
debate with another minister about a Biblical question. Give 
me a line from the Bible, he said to his opponent, that will 
settle the question. When the meeting was over, Mrs. Signe 
Johnson, 2035 Pensacola Ave., asked him to give only one line 
from the Bible, that Jesus went within the veil in the heavenly 
sanctuary in A. D. 1844. He said he was going to see her 
about it and repeated his promise three times, and though the 
tent was only two blocks from her home, he never came. If 
she had promised him some money for the work, he would not 
have failed to be on hand. A man that can break his promises 
so easily has no place in the pulpit. If I wanted to be per- 
sonal, I could mention his name; but we are only after his 
wrong opinions. 

We have shown that Antiochus Epiphanes came forth from 
one of the four horns, and that he made his appearance at the 
right time. Now we are going to prove, that he grew in the 
direction the prophecy states the horn was to grow. Syria was 
toward the north. Antiochus Epiphanes went first to Egypt, 
captured the whole land with the exception of Alexandria. 
Egypt was toward the south and fills the requirement of the 
prophecy. Antiochus Epiphanes was in Egypt three or four 
times ; this we are going to prove thoroughly when we come 
to the chapter 11. I will only mention the leading facts here, 
(Josephus XII, chap. V). In 170 he made the Egyptian king 
Ptolemy VI (who was his nephew) a prisoner and brought 
Egypt to the verge of ruin. (Int. Cy. Vol. 2, p. 258.) 

"A. Epiphanes gained several victories towards the south 


and the east" (Rollin's history, Vol. XIX, page 369). He 
went toward the east. Parthia and Armenia lay toward the 
east. (McClintock & Strong's Cyclop., Vol. I, pages 271, 
212). The Maccabees is the best history, according to our 
Bible interpreters, for the study of the maneuvers of A. Epi- 
phanes. In 1 Mace. 3 : 13, 14 it says that he went to Persia 
(east), taxed the country and gathered the money together. 
He appointed Lysias prince over the whole kingdom. Lastly 
the little horn was to wax toward the pleasant land. And when 
the prophetess says so, then it is true. 

A book of 264 pages, published by J. G. Matteson, under 
the beautiful title "The Prophecies of Jesus," handles these 
prophecies in a way that deserves censure. On page 396 we 
read, that the Catholics do not like to have this prophecy ap- 
plied to them, and therefore they have applied it on the Syrian 
king Antiochus Epiphanes. This is not true. The angel Ga- 
briel said that it should come forth between B. C. 176 and 30. 
If, there had been any Catholics at the time of Antiochus Epi- 
phanes, there had been some reason in the statement of Matte- 
son. But now we know that the Catholic church arose quite 
a long time after Christ and did not exist between B. C. 176-30. 
The prophecy cannot be applied to Catholic Rome before it 
had come into existence. If there shall be any reference made 
to Rome at all, it must be to the pagan Rome. 

S. Mortenson has used the same argument. 

Suppose that Mortenson was to be arrested (1913) sus- 
pected of murder. The judge is asking Mortenson's accusers, 
when the crime was committed. About five hundred years 
ago, it is answered. Did Mortenson have to fix this crime on 
somebody who lived five hundred years ago to prove his inno- 
cence ? 

You tell lies about the Catholics when you say that they 
apply the little horn on Antiochus Epiphanes to free them- 


selves. You who say it is right to keep the law, you discredit 
yourselves when you bring false witness against the Catholics. 
Lying ought not to be tolerated by those who have the whole 

He stands by the Catholics, they have often said. I stand 
by the truth, no matter where it comes from. If the Catholics 
have applied the little horn to Antiochus Epiphanes, they are 
right there, at least. 

Matteson says, "He did not wax exceeding great in com- 
parison with Persia and Greece." 

"His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power," 
other translations say, "not to be compared with the former in 
might" (verse 24). Rome became mightier than any other 

It became a world power, and therefore Rome does not fill 
the requirements of the prophecy here. 

On the same page Matteson says, that Antiochus Epiphanes 
did not make any conquests toward the south, and toward the 
east, and toward the pleasant land, for he did not enlarge his 

This is not true. All historians are united against this 

He continues, "Antiochus did not enlarge his kingdom to- 
ward the south. He made several attacks in Egypt but was 
never able to become master of the land. Antiochus made an 
attack and harassed Jerusalem, but finally he was compelled 
to retire in digrace and leave the country" (ibid, pages 397, 

It is either the height of ignorance of historical facts or 
deceitfulness to publish such erroneous statements. I believe 
it is caused by ignorance. If Matteson was so ignorant in 
history, since one ought to have corrected his mistakes after 
so long time, but if they correct their mistakes they kill their 


message, for it is built on suppositions, speculations and cor- 
rupted historical facts. How can ye be so blind Adventists ! 

When people have not studied history reading- that book, 
they believe it is true ; and if anyone who knows better should 
oppose them, they will not listen to reason, but go from house 
to house, from city to city and sell the book with the assurance 
that they are proclaiming the whole truth and that Jesus is the 
author of these big errors. 

Is it not a shame to go straight against well known and 
proven facts, or in other words to falsify history? I think 

It is reported of Matteson that he was so industrious to 
work for the Lord, that he died prematurely. Can it be said 
of one who is zealous for erroneous doctrines that he is work- 
ing for God ? Matteson was undoubtedly a well meaning man, 
but he worked for the propagation of the false interpretations 
of the Adventists which he believed were true. The best of 
them do the same thing to-day. Others see undoubtedly how 
shaky their system is, otherwise they would have accepted my 
offers to prove their doctrines ; but you see it may mean bread 
and butter for them. 


All historians say that he went there first in B. C. 170. In 
Maccabees 1 : 21 it is recorded that he came there in 143d year 
of their chronology. The Syrian chronology is dated from 
B. C. 312. 143 from 312 leaves our year B. C. 169. There is 
only a difference of one year; such discrepancies occur often, 
depending upon the part of the year from which the calcula- 
tion is made. 

I have in my possession an ancient book, in which the 
author says he was the eyewitness of the deeds of Antiochus 


Epiphanus at the time he was in Jerusalem, and that it was 
B. C. 170. 

The ninth verse contains a description of the way the little 
horn was going to grow. In verses 10-12 we have a descrip- 
tion of his deeds. Observe this carefully and keep in memory. 

"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" (verse 10). The host is the people of 
God (Exod. 7:4). The stars probably refer to the people of 
God who kept the law and lived according to its precepts. 
Some believe that they refer to the governing classes in the 
kingdom. Perhaps to both. 

Jerusalem was left in the hands of the raging soldiery for 
three days. During those days 80,000 Jews were murdered, 
40,000 were taken captive, and 40,000 women and children 
were sold. Some historians say that 80,Q00 were sold. This 
statement harmonizes with 2 Mace. 5 : 14. It is heartrending 
to read of the horrors perpetrated in Jerusalem at this time. 
(And. hist., page 393; Rollins, Vol. 19, page 357; Josephus, 
Vol. 12, chap. 5:2; Mace. chap. 5.) 

The reader may look up the description in the books of 
Maccabees. But as the Apochrypha are left out of our Bible, 
we will mention some of their statements. 

Among other abominations Antiochus committed sacrilege. 
He entered the sanctuary boldly, removed the golden altar, the 
candlestick and what belonged to it, the table of shew-bread, 
cups, bowls, the golden mortar, the veil, the crowns, the golden 
ornament on the temple and destroyed it all. He took silver 
and gold, costly vessels and hidden treasures, as many as he 
found, and brought them to his land. And he caused innocent 
blood to flow at the sanctuary. (1 Mace. 1.) 

Yes, even against the prince of hosts he undertook great 


things ; he took from him the daily sacrifice and broke down his 
holy temple (verse 11). 

Some time afterwards A. Epiphanes sent his general, Apol- 
lonius to Jerusalem with an army of 22,000 men to devastate 
the city. He intended to extirpate the inhabitants and fill the 
land with another people. Having studied history and the 8, 
9, 11 and 12 chapters, we have found that Apollonius came to 
Jerusalem in 167. (1 Mace. 1 : 57.) Canon Farrar of the Ang- 
lican church expresses the same opinion in his book on Daniel. 
The Antiquities by Josephus have it "in June, 167." When 
Apollonius came to Jerusalem, he asked permission to enter 
the city promising to cause no damage, but this was an artifice 
(1 Mace. 1: 31). 

Having entered the city he was quiet until the Sabbath, 
when he commenced the carnage. There was a society of pious 
Jews called Essenes who served God in earnest. They re- 
quired one year on probation before admitting any one to full 
membership. If a candidate was approved he had to submit to 
baptism by immersion, thereby indicating that he renounced all 
domination of sin and defilement and desired to live wholly for 
God. These Jews had a paragraph in their by-laws which 
forbade the lifting of a hand against an enemy on the Sabbath- 
day but rather die. This may have been the cause, why Apol- 
lonius deferred the attack till the Sabbath. 

When the Sabbath came, he issued an order to kill every 
man who was found. Not a single man within his reach was 
saved ; the city was covered with bodies of the dead and in the 
streets the blood was flowing in torrents. The women and 
children were sold as slaves. The morning and evening sacri- 
fice was abolished. Not one of the worshippers of the true 
God dared to go to the temple for worship. Blood was shed in 
the very sanctuary which was polluted in every way. After- 
wards a part of the city was plundered and burnt, and upon 


the ruins of David's castle they built a fortress which was 
strengthened by strong walls and towers. Then he set up his 
idol Jupiter Capitolinus, the Grecian Zeus. (Rollins hist., Vol. 
19, pages 360, 361; Josephus, Vol. 2, chap. 7). 

The sanctuary was desolate, the holy days became days of 
sorrow ; the Sabbath nothing but wailing and all their glory 
was passed. Not satisfied to bring sacrifices to his idol, he 
built altars and temples, instituted idolatry, offered the flesh 
of swine and other unclean animals and forbade circumcision. 
Those who did not heed the commandments of Antiochus were 
killed. He also ordered them to announce in all the cities of 
Judah, that every man should burn incense and offer sacrifice 
in his home. All were to have the same service. The Sab- 
bath was abolished. The books of the divine law were burnt, 
and all those who had in their possession the books of the cov- 
enant should be killed. The women, who let circumcise their 
male children were put to death and the children were hanged. 
(1 Mace, chapter 1.) 

Who is the Prince of princes? In "Daniel and the Revela- 
tion" U. Smith says on page 202, "The Prince of princes here 
means, beyond controversy, Jesus Christ. But Antiochus died 
one hundred and sixty-four years before our Lord was born. 
The prophecy can not, therefore, apply to him." 

Let us not forget the time, when the malicious king should 
appear: at the end of their kingdom, between B. C. 176 and 
30. It was he who should take away from the Prince of princes 
his daily sacrifice at this time. We ask then the Adventists to 
give us a correct answer to the question, how any power could 
take away from Jesus his daily sacrifice before Jesus was born. 

Rome came in contact with the Jews B. C. 161. They 
could not take away from Jesus his daily sacrifice then. More- 
over, we have never read anywhere that Jesus had any daily 
sacrifice when he was here. "Titus fills this prophecy," some 


of their most learned men have said. 

Titus was born December 30, in the year A. D. 40. How 
could he cause the daily sacrifice of Jesus to cease 161 years 
before Jesus was born and 201 years before he himself was 
born? When Titus captured Jerusalem A. D. 70, Jesus had 
been with his Father thirty-six years. The sacrificial system 
was brought to an end thirty-six years before by Jesus him- 
self. This power should also destroy his holy place. Had 
Jesus any sanctuary that was overthrown between B. C. 176 
and 30? I have asked openly in meetings, if any one knew, 
whether Jesus had any sanctuary or any sacrifice during his 
life on earth; but no one has been able to show this to me, 
neither could he have any on earth before he was born. 

"It easy to prove that the little horn is Rome," U. Smith 
says. "This little horn must be understood to symbolize 
Rome in its entire history, including its two phases, pagan and 
papal," he says on page 203. 

The views of Uriah Smith have become the whole truth of 
the Adventists, but they don't prove anything. Opinions and 
notions are no evidence. 

The Lord of hosts is God himself, according tojer. 15: 
16. And in Amos 6 and 7 chap, the God of hosts is mentioned 
in five places. God is also called Prince of princes (Dan. 8: 
11). God had a daily sacrifice in the sanctuary in Jerusalem. 
And thou shalt say unto them, "This is the offering made by 
fire which ye shall offer unto the Lord ; two lambs of the first 
year without spot day by day, for a continual burnt offering. 
The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other 
lamb shalt thou offer at even." 
(Numbers 28: 3, 4.) 

Here is now the Prince of princes who had both a sanct- 
uary and daily sacrifice in Jerusalem. These were taken from 
God, when Apollonius, the general of Antiochus came to the 


city in B. C. 167. The sanctuary was destroyed, the altar cast 
down, and the sacrifice put away for three and one-half years. 

What was the cause of this punishment meted out to the 
Jews? Transgression of God's law. (Verse 10.) 

When the transgressors were come to the full, the Jews 
were punished, and in the latter time of their kingdom, be- 
tween B. C. 176 and 30, the transgressors (the Jews) had filled 
the measure. (Verse 23.) 

The reader will easily see that this has no reference what- 
ever to papal Rome which came up long after the death of 
Christ. The transgressors in this prophecy had come to the 
full measure of sin before the time of Christ. Those who suf- 
fered martyrdom by Catholic Rome did not live in transgres- 
sions. They were put to death, because they professed the 
name of Jesus and refused to accept the heresies of Rome. 

S. Mortenson has in "Signs of the Time'' (Tidens Tecken) 
for January 28, 1913, made us understand, that the prophecy 
cannot apply to Antiochus Epiphanes, as his persecutions of 
the Jews were insignificant against those of Rome, only 40,000 
against 55 millions. "All this fills in a remarkable degree 
the prophecy of Daniel 8 : 10-12 and verses 23-25, where the 
same power is likened to a king of fierce countenance." 

Mortenson and his colleagues seem to have lost their power 
of seeing and thinking when writing of the prophecies. The 
word of God in Dan. 8 chapter shows plainly, that the people 
were punished for their transgressions, and the evil king' came 
over them as a scourge executing the judgment; that this king 
appeared in the latter time of the divided kingdom of Alex- 
ander (verse 23) between B. C. 176 and 30. 

How will Mortenson prove, that the many millions of mar- 
tyrs who were put to death by the Catholic Rome lived in trans- 
gressions, as the scripture says, and that these martyrs had 
filled their measure of sin in the latter part of the divided 


kingdom, according to the statement of the angel Gabriel? 
Who does not know that the martyrs under the church of 
Rome were not killed because of their transgressions, and 
that this church was organized several hundred years after 
Christ, not in the latter part of the divided kingdom of Greece? 

Mortenson may, if he so desires, select the most competent 
committee with Mrs. White as chairman and they are still un- 
able to extricate him from the trap into which he has fallen. 
He has a large company and understands the truth, but some 
of those who have "left the truth" have also found the way 
out from the trap. But if S. Mortenson does not bid farewell 
to Mrs. White as a prophetess and asks God for light to see 
the way out, he will remain in error and keep others in the 
same bondage. 

If Mortenson had taken my friendly advice that we should 
as friends study the subject together, it had been better for 
him. I was no dangerous opponent. It was so easy for him 
to smash my propaganda (?). 

Catholic Rome is a religious power and has not yet had a 
king. Political powers have kings, not so the religious. Fur- 
thermore, a religious power is never signified in the scripture 
by a horn. 

The last straw an Adventist has, when he cannot defend 
his position in regard to the eighth chapter of Daniel, is to 
say that the horn was waxing exceeding great (vers 9), but 
that does not apply to Antiochus. Please notice, it does not 
say that he was to grow exceeding great in himself, but that 
he waxed exceeding great toward the south, and toward the 
east, and toward the pleasant land. The best translations ren- 
der the meaning in verse 24 like this, "And his power shall be 
mighty, but not as great as the former in strength." 

As the Catholic Rome has never had a king, the Adven- 
tists must apply this verse to the empire Rome. But it says in 


verse 24, that this king should not equal the former in power, 
that is Greece. If the king referred to is Rome, their chain 
breaks again because Rome became more powerful than 
Greece ever was. This is one of the reasons why Mortenson 
rejects the later and more reliable translations. In our author- 
ized version it is recorded (Rev. 1: 10), that John was in the 
spirit on the Lord's day, Sunday. If Mortenson was to have 
a debate with any one concerning what day is the Lord's day, 
he would use any translation that supported his particular 
view in this respect and prove that the authorized version con- 
tained a serious mistake. An Adventist said lately to me, that 
the' new translations ought to be burned ; not that the word of 
God deserves this kind of treatment, he added, but the transla- 
tion was erroneous,- because it did not give any support to "the 
present truth." 

Any one who is not totally blind will immediately see that 
Rome, neither the papal or pagan, does not fill the require- 
ments of this prophecy, because of the following facts, 

1. Rome did not arise from any of the four horns of the 
divided Kingdom of Greece, which the angel said should be 
the case. Antiochus Epiphanes came from one of them, the 

2. Rome did not grow in the directions indicated by the 
angel. A. Epiphanes grew in those directions. 

3. What was the cause of the punishment spoken of in 
verses 22 and 23? The transgressions of the Jews were full. 

4. When did the Romans get any power to take away the 
daily sacrifice and cast down the place of the sanctuary be- 
tween B. C. 176 and 30 for the transgressions of the Jews. 
Rome never did this ; but it corresponds exactly with the his- 
tory of A. Epiphanes. He actually cast down the sanctuary 
at Jerusalem and took away from God the daily sacrifice in 
B. C. 167 for a time of three years and a half. 


5. If Jesus is the prince of the host (Dan. 8: 11), Rome 
should take away from him his daily sacrifice and cast down 
his sanctuary long before the birth of Jesus. This is impos- 
sible. Rome did not even do it after his birth. Jesus had 
neither sanctuary nor sacrifice while he was on the earth. He 
abolished by his death the sacrificial system, so Rome had no 
hand in that. 

6. Had the people who were killed by the Roman hier- 
archy lived in transgressions, so the prophecy applies to them? 
No. The measure of their transgressions was full between B. 
C. 176 and 30, at a time when papal Rome did not exist. A 
person or a power cannot do anything, before it has com- 
menced to exist. 

7. This power was not to be as great as the former. Was 
• not the power of Rome superior to that of Greece? Yes, Rome 

exceeded Greece by far in worldwide influence. 

8. Has papal Rome ever had a fierce king? No. 

The death knell is given to the prophetic interpretation of 
the Adventists by the angel himself, when he says, that the 
little horn should come up in the latter time of the divided 
kingdom of Greece and that it should be a fierce king. 

The only thing in this speech which does apply to papal 
Rome is the latter part of the 12th verse, it is stated he shall 
"cast down the truth to the ground." But as that should be 
done between B. C. 176 and 30, this requirement is not fulfilled, 
for the Catholic Rome was not yet in existence. 

One has only to read the books of the Maccabees to find 
that Antiochus is the right man clothed with power, who casts 
down the truth to the ground and prospered in his under- 

It is clear from the context that it was owing to their 
sins that Antiochus got the power to destroy them. Also from 
Mace. 2: 17,18. 


The acts of the king -who is referred to in verses 10-12 did 
not begin before 175 or 176 and could not go beyond the year 
B. C. 30, according to the words of the angel. The fierce king 
is the only actor in the deeds recorded in these three verses. 
These facts are a deadly poison to their whole message (See 
diagram No. 1.) 

Have we heard anything of the 2,300 days yet? No. His 
deeds are the cause that they are mentioned at all and are there- 
fore coming first. 

We read in the 13th verse, "Then I heard one saint speak- 
ing, and another saint said to 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?" 

It was the transgression of the Jews which caused the 
desolation among them. See verse 14, "And he said unto me, 
Unto two thousand three hundred days; then shall the sanct- 
uary be cleansed." 

The writer ventures to make this positive assertion, The 
little horn, whom the angel calls a king of fierce countenance, 
is the one who performs the deeds thereby giving a reasonable 
cause for the question, how long they were to continue and to 
the answer, two thousand three hundred days. The king is 
before his actions ; the actions before the question ; the question 
before the answer 2,300 days. 


Neither the power (the king), nor his deeds, the question 
and the answer can be before B. C. 176, the time appointed by 
the angel. Is he not blind who cannot see this? 

The Seventh Day Adventists say, that the 2,300 days are 
so many years which began B. C. 457 and ended A. D. 1844. 


If they cannot prove this, their whole message falls flat and 
everything built thereon. 

We are now going to show, how utterly weak this founda- 
tion is. 

I have in my possession a book written in Jerusalem, when 
Antiochus was there, and also another containing the chron- 
ology of Daniel. Both these books and the revised transla- 
tions are in harmony with Daniel's prophecy. A week is seven 
years. A week of evening and mornings is a calendar week 
of seven days. A day stands for a year. A day of evening 
and morning is a common solar day of twenty-four hours. A 
time = a year of 360 days. This was their chronology and 
not as the Adventists and Russell have twisted the prophetic 
time. "Let us study the context," they say, "We must accept 
the chronology of i the ancients, when we are discussing the 
question of time." But we cannot change their way of calcu- 
lating time to suit our own fancy. 

In the fourth chapter of Daniel mention is made of the 
Council of the Most High with regard to the Babylonian king, 
Nebuchadnezzar that he should dwell among the beasts of the 
field and eat grass as oxen. He remained in this condition for 
seven years. If prophetic time is meant in one place it is so 
in all the other. Then a day of this time is equal to one year, 
therefore the king was insane seven times 360 days or 2,520 
years. Pastor Russell takes this time as a symbol of the hu- 
miliation of the Jews, beginning B. C. 606, when they were 
brought into captivity, and 2,520 years added to this date carry 
us forward to 1914, when he says the times of the heathen are 
completed. In Dan. 4 : 26 it is recorded, that the king at the 
end of twelve months walked in the palace of the kingdom. 
Why not say that this is prophetic time? Daniel in three whole 
weeks was mourning. He ate no pleasant bread ; neither came 
meat nor wine in his mouth, neither did he anoint himself with 


oil, till the three whole weeks were fulfilled (Dan. 10: 3, 4). 
Why not insist that this is prophetic time? Three weeks = 
twenty-one years. Daniel is getting rather lean in that time. 
"The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and 
twenty days." (Verse 13.) If these translators should have 
it according to their interpretation it ought to read three weeks 
of evenings and mornings. Twenty-one days of evenings and 
mornings. But when people don't understand their chronology 
they have let it remain as easy as it is. Look up Dan. 9 : 24, 
"Seventy weeks are determined (cut off) upon thy people and 
upon thy holy city." The chronology in Daniel is the follow- 
ing: a week = 7 days. Seventy . weeks times seven = 490 
years. 2,300 days of evenings and mornings are just as many 
solar days. That equals six years, four months^ and twenty 
days. In Trenton, New Jersey, I saw a very old Bible and it 
says 2,300 days, according to evenings and mornings. It 
agrees with the revised versions. The Jews began the new 
day in the evening. 

Some translations have caused the Adventists and Russell- 
ites to commit this blunder by giving the word day (instead of 
evening and morning), and a day means a year. But I have 
quotations from earliest sources corresponding with the latest 
versions, and if the prophecy is studied in this light we find a 
perfect harmony all around ; and it is a pleasure to find the 
truth and give it to others. 

To assist the reader in getting a clear conception of the im- 
portant point, upon which the Adventists have founded their 
message, let us use an illustration to throw a stronger light 
upon the question. 


Let us suppose that a person had a vision in A. D. 1580. 
He saw in this vision civil wars, riots and famine in a land. 


When he awakes an angel stands by his side and says to him, 
"O son of man, the land in this vision is America. At the 
end of the administration of a president, whose name is 
Washburn, when the labor unions have reached their zenith, a 
malicious and fierce man of great wealth shall come who shall 
make every effort to overthrow the labor unions. This mali- 
cious man shall arise at the end of the administration of the 
president." We have then to wait for the president by that 
name and the end of his administration, before we can expect 
the malicious rich man who intends to overthrow the labor 
unions. In the year 2002 Washburn is elected president. We 
cannot look for the malicious capitalist before the first half of 
Washburn's administration has passed. Between 2004 and 
2006 the man comes ; through his great influence and cunning 
he causes a great financial panic and distress throughout the 
land, resulting in lock-outs and scarcity of work. The man 
who had the vision asks the angel, "How long shall be the 
vision of the bank failures, the closing of the factories, the 
labor disturbances and the famine in the land ?" The angel an- 
swers, "Two hundred and fifty days, then shall America reach 
her natural condition again." 


Here arises a very grave question, the answer of which 
will either smash my arguments to pieces or annihilate the 
Adventist interpretation of Daniel's prophecy. One of the 
two is inevitable. This is the question, "Are the 250 days of 
famine and misery going to begin before or after the appear- 
ance of the malicious man of affairs?" We assert positively 
that the 250 days of misery are a direct consequence of the 
transactions of that man; he is the cause of the panic. The 
Adventists say that the 250 days of famine begin in 1708, or 


296 years before the man appears on the stage. If this is 
correct, my propaganda is false, as Mr. Mortenson says. 

The Adventists insist that Rome is the power which came 
in contact with the Jews B. C. 161 and that the 2,300 evenings 
and mornings in Dan. 8 : 14 are so many years and that Jesus 
was to enter the heavenly sanctuary at the end of these years. 

Suppose that they are right. Rome is the power which 
came in contact with .the Jews B. C. 161, that the 2,300 even- 
ings and mornings are years. Then it is Rome which did per- 
form the deeds in verses 10-12, thereby causing the 2,300 days 
to be mentioned. But then Rome cannot have come in contact 
with the Jews in B. C. 457, or 296 years before it commenced 
to exist, just as the riots of 250 days, caused by the transac- 
tions of the malicious man, should have commenced in 1708, 
or 296 years before the appearing of the man who caused 

If Rome is the power and the 2,300 days are years, at the 
• end of which Jesus was going to enter the heavenly sanctuary, 
they cannot begin their 2,300 days before B. C. 161. They 
must begin at 161, subtract the 161 years of Old Testament 
time from 2,300, then we get 2,139 years left. It is 1914 now, 
take 1914 from 2,139 and we have a balance of 225 years left, 
if Rome is the power and the 2,300 days are years. 

Now they count their years from B. C. 457, but insist that 
Rome is the power in question and count from B. C. 161. 
If we subtract 161 from 457 we get the deeds of Rome 296 
years before Rome came in contact with the Jews. It is just 
as easy to prove that a child is 296 years old when the parents 
are born. And one might just as well try to prove that they 
cut a part off from a web in 457, that was woven in B. C. 161. 
They cut from it 296 years before it was woven. And this is 
the main pillar for their message to the world. 

The foundation of their doctrine which is that the 2,300 


days are years, beginning B. C. 457 and ending A. D. 1844, 
is hereby proved to be false. The proofs are not based on be- 
liefs, visions or dreams, but on the words of the angel Gabriel 
and upon scientific calculations, which no power under the 
heavens can tear asunder. And you Adventist preachers 
ought to stand in the pillory before your ignorant people and 
be ashamed of yourselves, because you cannot see that the 
deeds of a man cannot precede the man himself and let a su- 
perstitious woman lead you. Ask God to anoint your eyes, 
before it is too late. That would be pleasing in God's eyes; 
but to expel preachers and warn against all those, who, owing 
to the unsound doctrines, cannot co-operate with you, is to 
employ the same tactics as the pharisees did in the times of 
Christ. It is an abomination in God's eyes. 

Mrs. White saw Jesus riding in a carriage within the veil 
in 1844, at the end of the 2,300 years. But if Rome is the 
power and the 2,300 evenings and mornings are years, then 
Mrs. White will have to wait yet 225 years according to your 
own doctrine, if your calculations were correct. And Jesus 
and his doctrine will be a dishonor for himself. 

That the 2,300 days could not begin before the appearance 
of the little horn, whether the horn is Rome or Antiochus Epi- 
phanes, I saw immediately after reading Nyquist's book. 
After this discovery I could not sleep in three nights, or three 
days. Many Adventists have read that book; but they cannot 
see anything but error in it, though it contains truth enough 
to open their eyes if they had any desire for the truth. 

This is the question I intended to ask their pastor, if I had 
not been refused the privilege both by him and his congrega- 
tion, "Was Rome in any contact with the Medo-Persian em- 
pire in B. C. 457, 296 years before it in any way became con- 
nected with the people of God and did it take away from the 


Prince of princes his daily sacrifice and cast down the sanctuary 
and the host? 

Can you see, Adventists, that this question takes the very 
life out of your message? You wonder, I suppose, how long 
God is going to let me live, who tries to tear to pieces the irre- 
futable arguments you have. In 1885 I was married and the 
following year my eldest daughter was born. She could have 
been born before we had our wedding, but not 279 years before 
her father. If Rome is the power they claim, it is the father of 
the 2,300 days of evenings and mornings ; but as the father 
appears first B. C. 161, the 2,30'0 days cannot begin before that 
time. Will you agree to this, Adventists? 

When should the sanctuary be cleansed? After the 2,300 

Was it not the same sanctuary that was cast down under 
the 2,300 days which should be cleansed after those days? It 
seems so from the context. In "Daniel and Prophecy" it is" 
stated on page 204, "And the place of his sanctuary, or wor- 
ship, the City of Rome, was cast down." 

It was the sanctuary of the Prince of princes that was cast 
down and not a heathen city. The same sanctuary, which was 
cast down in the beginning should be cleansed at the end of 
the 2,300 days. If Rome is the sanctuary what cleansing took 
place in Rome 1844? Let the Adventists answer. Their gen- 
eral answer is, He did not mean it should be so understood. 
It must be a mistake in the proofreading. But no, this is no 
typographical error, it is one of the sad mistakes of the author. 

The 2,300 days are a certain time during the power of the 
little horn. If the power is Rome and the days are years, it is 
up to the Adventists to show what fierce king lived in the 
Roman empire from B. C. 161, who was to be 2,300 years old; 
as there is no change spoken of. That king has yet 225 years 
to live. 


They try to show, that the 2,300 days began before the king 
who took away from the Prince of princes his daily sacrifice 
etc. Then the question would have been, "How long shall be 
the vision of the ram with the two horns, the goat with the big 
horn between his eyes, etc. ?" But the question is this, "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?" This time does not precede 
the fierce king who did these things to the sacrifice, the sanc- 
tuary and the host. I hope some elder will see it; otherwise 
there may be some old woman who can. 

What power was it that grew even to the host of heaven 
and stamped upon them ? The little horn, a fierce king. What 
power was it that magnified himself even to the prince of 
host and took away from him the daily sacrifice? The same 
king. What power was it that cast down the place of the 
sanctuary ? The same king. Who was it that cast the truth to 
the ground by reason of transgression? The little horn, the 
same king. 

Notice here that this is all included in the question. We 
see, therefore, that the 2,300 days are a certain time under the 
reign of the fierce king. If it had not been one but several 
kings, there would be room for a variety of opinions. 

In a careful study of Dan. 8, when one adheres to the pre- 
diction of the angel, one cannot find a single reference to or 
symbol of Rome; but every statement in the prophecy is ap- 
plicable to Antiochus Epiphanes both with reference to time 
and place. 

After 2,300 days the sanctuary should be cleansed. Judas 
Maccabeus took Jerusalem and built a new altar. The first 
sacrifice was offered December 25, B. C. 164 (1 Mace. 4: 52.) 
The sanctuary was then established and cleansed from the 
previous desecration, Countaing backward from December 


25, 164, to the same date 170 is six years. From December 
25, 170, to August 25 of the same year are four months'. 
From August 25 to August 5 are twenty days. The Adven- 
tists say that this time is too short ; but we can show that there 
are still seven months and five days left of the year 170. 

Judas with the remnant of Israel decided to hold an eight 
days' celebration every year from December 25. They gave to 
this celebration the name of "The Festival of the New Altar," 
which was observed with great joy and thanksgiving. (1 Mace. 
4: 52-61.) This festival Jesus refers to in John 10: 22, "And 
it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was 

There remains another item of importance in the 25th 
verse, "but he shall be broken without hand." The Adventists 
are trying to prove that Rome, the least, shall be crushed at the 
second coming of Christ. He (Rome?) was broken at the 
second coming of Christ ( !) between B. C. 176 and 30. 
Antiochus Epiphanes fits in admirably here. While he was in 
Ekbatana, a city in Media, he received word that Judas Macca- 
beus had defeated his army in Palestine, cast out his idol, torn 
down his altar and restored the old worship. This news caused 
him to rage. In anger he betook himself to Jerusalem, with the 
intention of making this place a burialground for the whole 
Jewish nation, as he said. He had scarcely pronounced these 
horrible words, before he was stricken with excruciating pains ; 
but still he was breathing hatred and murder against the Jews 
till his disease became so severe that he had to be carried on a 
stretcher. His flesh rotted away, the odor of his wounds be- 
came finally so obnoxious that he was a burden for his whole 

At last when all hope of relief was gone he regretted that 
he, a mortal being, had considered himself equal with God. 
His death was hideous, in a strange land B. C. 164. (And, hist., 


page 294; Rollins, Vol. 19, page 266; Jos. Vol. 12, chapter 9; 2 
Mace, chapter 9.) 

Also Dan. 8: 25, "he shall be broken without hand," tells 
the history. He who cannot see the daylight, when the sun is 
shining from a clear sky, is blind; and he who cannot see, in 
studying Dan. 8, that Antiochus Epiphanes' life and history 
fill all the requirements in this chapter, is totally blind. It is 
impossible to get a single paragraph in the whole chapter to 
apply to the history of Rome. 

Our Saviour said, that a blind cannot lead a blind ; and that 
is true. But now the blind are displeased, because they can- 
not lead those who see. 

We believe the words of Jesus. 

Antiochus Epiphanes fills the requirements in the eighth 
chapter, and when we come to the eleventh it will be clearer 

I have sent several questions to the paper of the Swedish 
Seventh-day Adventists, "Tidens Tecken" (Signs of the 
Time) in College View, Neb. In order to secure an answer I 
had them sent through a friend in Minneapolis, so the editor 
should not suspect they were from me when he saw the post- 
stamp "Chicago" on the envelope; then they would probably 
not be answered. The editor answered some, but the most im- 
portant received no answer. 

One of them was, "What was the object with the 2,300 days 
in Dan. 8: 14? 

Answer, It is a certain time which God has set for his 

Is this correct ? No. 

It was a certain time of punishment that God had decided 
over the Jewish nation, whose transgressors had filled their 
measure of sin between B. C. 176 and 30, while, at the same 
time, it was a certain time under the reign of the little horn, 


a fierce king. This is the explanation of the angel Gabriel; 
but what is he in comparison with Mrs. White, who saw when 
Jesus rode within the second veil in a carriage the year 1844? 

We will now touch upon another important question in the 
eighth chapter of Daniel, which is dumbfounding the Adven- 
tists as it is destructive to their system. No excuses here, 

When the angel Gabriel was asked to make Daniel under- 
stand the vision, he said that the vision had reference to the 
time of the end (verse 17). "Behold, I will make thee know 
what shall be in the last end of the indignation : for at the time 
appointed the end shall be." (Verse 19.) "And the vision of 
the evening and the morning which was told is true : wherefore 
shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days." 
(Verse 26.) 

When the vision belongs to the time of the end, it is im- 
portant to know, when the time of the end is, if we are to un- 
derstand the vision. The whole vision refers to the time of 
the end. The vision concerning the evenings and mornings 
was a certain period, the latter part of the vision, the angel 
therefore makes mention of that last. (Verse 26.) 

There is a difference of about 2,336 years in the exposition 
of the Adventists and my own as to the beginning of the time 
of the end. We have therefore a large field for research. 

They say that the time of the end began in A. D. 1798, and 
ended in 1844. In "Daniel and Revelation," pages 343 and 
344 we read, "This application of prophecy calls for a conflict 
to spring up between Egypt and France, and Turkey and 
France, in 1798, which year, as we have seen, marked the be- 
ginning of the time of the end. "We have already produced 
some evidence that the time of the end commenced in 1798." 

"The book was closed and sealed up till that time. Many 


shall study it, and knowledge shall be great." (Daniel and 
Rev., pages 343, 344.) 

"The time of the end was the time during which the Spirit 
of God was to break the seal." 

"Forty-six years before, in the year 1798, the time of the 
end commenced, the book was opened, many studied, knowl- 
edge was great." 

Here is another link in the chain; if it does break, their 
message is buried in the grave, the right place for such 

We hold the opinion that the time of the end began with 
Medo-Persia between B. C. 538 and 525. Daniel had this 
vision B. C. 538. In the end of the kingdom of Greece the 
little horn was to appear, afterwards the 2,300 evenings and 
mornings. This time began between B. C. 176 and 30, as we 
have seen before. 176 from 538 leaves us 362 years; it was 
a long time in the future, but the beginning of the vision was 
not here ; it was the last part of the vision. 

Let us illustrate. Suppose that the reader has a vision. 
In the vision you see a naval battle, where twenty-five ships 
are sunk, afterwards you see a battle on land. The white flag 
is hoisted, one of the armies lays down the arms. At last you 
see a king being crowned. An angel tells you that this vision 
has reference to the time of the of France as a republic. You 
write down your vision and after some time the events take 
place exactly as you had seen them in the vision. The first thing 
you saw was the battle at sea, the last was the coronation of 
the king. Then the vision fills the time from the first battle 
to the king's coronation, but does not extend beyond the time 
of the coronation. It may be a long while before it is fulfilled; 
but the book says definitely what was going to take place in 
the vision. 

When the vision is being fulfilled, and that pertains to the 


time of the end of France as a republic, then must the time 
of the end of France as a republic be when the vision is ful- 

As Gabriel said to Daniel, that the vision pertains to the 
time of the end, then the time of the end is the time, when 
the vision is being fulfilled, and the time of the end begins 
where the vision begins. What prophet can refute this ? 

What was it Daniel first saw in his vision? A ram with 
two horns standing before the river. And the ram was pushing 
westward, and northward, and southward, so that no beast 
might stand before him, neither was there any that could 
deliver out of his hand. He did according to his will, and he 
became great. (Dan. 8: 3, 4.) The angel said that the ram 
was a symbol of Medo-Persia. 

The first thing Daniel saw in his vision was Medo-Persia, 
when it was enlarging its empire in the directions the ram was 
pushing ahead, before it began warfare against Greece. The 
vision pertains to the time of the end. Then Medo-Persia be- 
longs to the time of the end. The vision began with Medo- 
Persia about B. C. 538 and not in A. D. 1798. But if the Ad- 
ventists can prove that Medo-Persia existed A. D. 1798, as 
Daniel saw in the vision, then I will have no more to say. 

The next thing he saw in his vision was a goat that came 
from the west. He approached the ram with the two horns 
and ran against him in the fury of his power, smiting the ram 
and breaking his two horns, and there was none that could 
deliver the ram out of his hand. (Verses 6, 7.) "The rough 
goat is the king of Grecia : and the great horn that is between 
his eyes is the first king." (Verse 21.) Who was the first 
king of Grecia? Everybody knows it was Alexander the 

The war of Alexander against Medo-Persia is in the vision, 
the vision is the time of the end. Then the time of the end 


is where Alexander is who was the cause of' the war. The 
time of the end begins in 1798, according to the Adventists. 
Then we have a right to demand the proof for the assertion 
that Alexander had a war with Medo-Persia after A. D. 1798 ; 
for he was in the vision and "the time of the end shall be the 
vision." Alexander died at Babylon B. C. 323. He was in the 
beginning of the time of the end, but had been in his grave 
2,121 years when their time of the end commenced. 

Has the reader ever seen such a miserable "present truth"? 
That is the way it looks when people try to believe without 
knowledge. They thought that the vision applied to the second 
coming of Christ A. D. 1844, when it applied to the Jews, 
whose transgressors had filled their measure of sin at the end 
of the four kingdoms, between B. C. 176 and 30. 

A person needs no learning to see how blind these poor 
people are. Medo-Persia, Greece, the division of Greece, the 
little horn and all belong to the time of the end. If the time 
of the end was in 1798, then these things must occur after 
A. D. 1798. But Alexander seized Persia by the battle of 
Arbela, B. C. 331. The Medo-Persian empire had lost its 
power 2,129 years before 1798, and the ram was first in the 
vision and he belonged to the time of the end. Then we feel 
quite certain that the time of the end began in the Medo- 
Persian empire and the theories of the Adventists are proved 
to be false. 

The vision was in the time of the end and contained the 
following facts : 

1. Medo-Persia, when it was enlarging its domains. 

2. The king of Greece seizes Medo-Persia. 

3. The death of Alexander. 

4. Greece divided into four parts. 

5. A little horn arises from one of the four. 

G. This little horn came up at the end of their kingdoms, 


when the transgressors, the Jews, had filled their measure of 
sin, between B. C. 176 and 30. 

7. This horn the angel says is a fierce and malicious king. 
Only one. 

8. The little horn was to grow southward, eastward, and 
toward the pleasant land, Palestine. 

9. What destruction this horn was to cause is seen in 
verses 10-12. 

10. A question how long this period of destruction was to 

11. The answer two thousand three hundred evenings and 
mornings, which according to the accepted chronology of 
Daniel's book is so many solar days, equivalent to six years, 
four months and twenty days. 

12. Antiochus came to Jerusalem in B. C. 170 and died 
in 164, probably in February, B. C. 163. The sanctuary was 
cleansed in 164 when sacrifice and divine service were restored. 

13. He should increase in power but not attain the same 
greatness as the previous conqueror. 

14. He should be destroyed without hand, i, e. not suffer 
a violent death. 

Owing to the fact that the 2,300 days that came up after 
the fierce king already had begun, they are first mentioned in 
the tenth paragraph. 

The Adventists let the time of the end begin in 1798 and 
close in 1844, covering a period of forty-six years. We can- 
not begin to apply the time of the end in the Medo-Persian 
kingdom, before the ram commenced to push in various direc- 
tions, thereby symbolizing the kingdoms Medo-Persia seized 
gradually before the war with Alexander, but the vision oc- 
cupies 215 years, from 538 to the death of Alexander 323. 
Then we have to add half the time of the divided kingdom of 
Alexander. His divided empire lasted from B. C. 323 to 30. 


a period of 293 years. One-half of this is 147 years. We 
have then 215 years of Medo-Persian supremacy (538 to 323) 
plus 147, making 362 years, and so we have come to the 
middle of the kingdoms of the four princes after Alexander. 
The little horn should come up at the end of these kingdoms. 
362 from 538 brings us down to B. C. 176. Rome came in 
contact with the Jews B. C. 161. 161 from 176 is fifteen years, 
which added to 362 makes 377 years. The vision has already 
taken up a period of 377 years, if Rome is the little horn and 
began in Medo-Persia B. C. 538, and the Adventists have only 
a period of forty-six years, from A. D. 1798 to 1844. Better 
you give up. 

All that Daniel saw in his vision was fulfilled between 538 
and 164, when the sanctuary was cleansed. Will you admit, 
Adventists, that the vision began in the Medo-Persian empire 
and that your theory is false ? 

Anyone who has studied these doctrines carefully and can- 
not see that Antiochus Epiphanes fills the requirements of 
this prophecy is mentally deficient and is incapable of sane 


Every Seventh-day Adventist knows that if these two years 
are found to be incorrect "the present truth" is doomed. 

Suppose that the 2,300 days began in B. C. 457 and ended 
A. D. 1844, and that the sanctuary should be cleansed at the 
latter time. This happened when Jesus changed his place from 
the holy to the most holy place. Is there any foundation in the 
Bible for such a view? No. It is merely speculations outside 
of the Bible and human reason. If this is true, Jesus was in 
the holy place, since he arose to heaven in A. D. 34 to 1844, 


a period of 1810 years. During this long period he officiated 
as a priest. Their 2,300 years began in 457. What sanctuary 
was cast down B. C. 457? That was the year when Ezra re- 
ceived his order to go to Jerusalem to beautify the temple and 
restore the divine worship. No sanctuary was cast down. 

But then it is stated that Titus fills the requirements of the 
prophecy, for he destroyed the temple in the year A. D. 70. 

Was there any sanctuary and sacrificial system at that time ? 

In Dan. 8 : 11 we read, that the little horn deprived the 
Prince of princes of his daily sacrifice, and the place of his 
sanctuary was cast down. This sanctuary should be cleansed 
after the 2,300 days. This was in 1844 according to the Ad- 
ventists. But was it the heavenly sanctuary which was cast 
down by the little horn in 457? Titus destroyed the temple 
in A. D. 70. If he is filling the prophecy, the Adventists will 
have to count the 2,300 plus 70 which makes 2,370 years. Let 
us then subtract 1914 years and there remain yet 456 years, 
before Jesus is going to change his place in the heavenly 
sanctuary, if Titus fills the requirements of Dan. 8 : 11. 

It is certainly a shame for a denomination to adhere to 
doctrines they do not understand, but follow blindly, led by 
the fantacies of a woman. 

The consequence of this doctrine, that Jesus was priest till 
1844, will be a disturbance of the whole plan of redemption, 
and the Epistle to the Hebrews will contain erroneous state- 

"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins 
for ever, sat down on the right hand of God." (Heb. 10 : 12.) 

If Christ shall remain for 1810 years in the holy place, 
then God must also remain in the holy place for 1810 years, 
as Jesus is going to be on his right hand. 

When Jesus died on the cross he said, "It is finished." The 
veil in the temple was rent in twain, man had through the 


mediatorial death of Christ obtained access to the most holy 
place. Why should Christ now begin to officiate in the outer 
sanctuary? The Adventists have removed the atonement from 
the cross to 1844. 

"Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own 
blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained 
eternal redemption for us." (Heb. 9 : 12.) 

He has entered once for all — not once in A. D. 34 and an- 
other time in 1844. 

When did Jesus obtain eternal redemption? When he died 
on the cross. Thus sins of mankind were paid for on the 
cross. When the last sacrificial lamb was slain and had offered 
himself once for all, the sacrifices and the office of the priest- 
hood in the first sanctuary were at an end. That Jesus "was in 
the holy place in 1810 years is an unscriptural invention of 
Mrs. White. 

"We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand 
of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens." (Heb. 8 : 1.) 

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews believed in his 
time, that they had an high priest, not a priest in the holy 
place till 1844, and then becoming a high priest that year. 
Such representations are not found in the Bible, but only in 
the imagination of Mrs. White, because she thought that the 
end of the world was at hand, as the angel had said that the 
vision pertained to the time of the end. The throne of the 
Majesty in heaven was therefore, according to their doctrine, 
in the holy place until 1844. 

We are exhorted to "come boldly unto the throne of grace, 
that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of 
need." (Heb. 4:16.) 

Where was the throne of grace in the earthly sanctuary? 
In the holiest of all. If the earthly is a symbol of the heavenly, 
no prayer was answered during the time Jesus officiated in the 


holy place; for they go to the throne of grace, and there is 
none to answer them. We are going to pray to God, someone 
says, and not to Jesus, therefore the prayers ascended to God 
who was in the holy of holies. God then becomes a hight priest 
in the holy of holies, but God calls Jesus an high priest in Heb. 
5 : 10. We have therefore two high priests. 

The author of the Hebrews wrote in his day, 'We have 
an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which 
entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is 
for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after 
the order of Melchisedec." (Heb. 6:19, 20.) 

The Adventists cannot read these verses as they are written 
in the Bible, because they would then destroy their "present 
truth." In order to make them harmonize with their views they 
will have to read them in this way, 'We Adventists have an 
anchor of the soul, which we think is sure and steadfast and 
which entered that which was outside of the veil from A. D. 
34 to 1844. But after 1844 it entereth into that within the 
veil, for then our high priest rode into the holy of holies in a 
carriage. Thus saith Mrs. White. She is our prophetess and 
absolutely reliable in everything she says." If they change 
Heb. 6 : 19, 20 to read in this way it will fit their doctrines 
perfectly; but then the Bible must be set aside. 

The transfer of Jesus from the holy to the holy of holies 
is as necessary for their message as' two legs are for a racer. 

The Epistle of the Hebrews is to. the Adventists as light as 
a bird compared to an elephant. The fancies of Mrs. White 
must be retained, even if the Bible must be distorted. 


Every reader who has used his brain when he has read the 
various expositions of the prophecy in the eighth chapter has 
found that the difference between us is depending upon one 


single question — are the 2,300 days before or after the little 
horn? If they are before, then the Adventists are right, and 
I have displayed my inability to think and reason. But if the 
little horn is before the 2,300 clays, then we have proved the 
blindness of the Adventists, while at the same time their pro- 
phetic message has been found to be the greatest error the 
world has received from a fanatical people. One of us is on 
the wrong road. It is just as impossible for them to prove that 
the 2,300 days began before the little horn, as it is to prove 
that Cain was 296 years old when God breathed into Adam's 
nostrils the breath of life. The 2,300 days were mentioned 
because of the deeds of the little horn, and as his deeds were 
not done before B. C. 176, the 2,300 days cannot commence 
before this year. There is no hiding place anywhere for 
the Adevntists. 


The last verse of Daniel's eighth chapter reads, "And I 
Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, 
and did the king's business ; and I was astonished at the vision, 
but none understood it." 

Now they say that Daniel did not get an, explanation of the 
vision in the eighth chapter, but it is given in the ninth. Here 
is cornerstone number two which is added to number one, 
which was ignorance. It was only Daniel who saw the vision 
since he became sick. Afterwards he rose up and attended to 
his duties, but he was astonished at the vision. It is not said 
that Daniel did not understand the vision, but "none under- 
stood it." Is it meant that no one understood the vision or the 
reason why he got sick so suddenly ? Gabriel was commanded 
to explain the vision to Daniel. He was prostrated upon the 


ground in a fainting spell. The angel called him and began 
his explanation from verse twenty to twenty-five. The last 
part of the vision is the 2,300 days, the dramatic point in the 
history of the Jews when their measure of sin was full. They 
begin with the vision of the daily sacrifice, of the sanctuary and 
of the host being trodden under foot (verse 13). The only 
thing that was of especial value to Daniel in the vision was the 
2,300 days during the time his people were being punished ; 
therefore the angel adds in the twenty-sixth verse, "And the 
vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: 
wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many 
days." Daniel had this vision in B. C. 538, and it was ful- 
filled between B. C. 170 and 164. It was a period of 374 years, 
a long time for Daniel. Since the angel had raised up Daniel, 
when he lay with his face toward the earth, it does not say 
that he was sick before he received the explanation of this 

The angel was commanded to explain the vision to Daniel, 
and if he had been sick before the vision was explained we 
may rest assured that the angel had strengthened him and not 
come back with his business only half finished. It had been 
disappointing to the angel to return and have to relate, that 
Daniel was so sick that he (the angel) could not explain the 
vision of the 2,300 evenings and mornings to him. 

It is unfortunate for the Adventists to say that Daniel re- 
ceived an explanation of the vision in the ninth chapter. One 
may read the ninth chapter ever so often, but one cannot find 
a word there indicating that Daniel asked for an explanation 
of the vision in the eighth chapter, or that any explanation was 
given. This position is wrong. 

Daniel found by reading the prophet Jeremiah's twenty- 
fifth chapter, that the Babylonian captivity should have a 
duration of seventy years. Two years left. That was the 


reason he turned to God in prayer. The prayer may be read 
from the fourth to the nineteenth verses. And then tell me in 
which verse it is said that Daniel asked for an explanation of 
the vision of the evenings and the mornings in the eighth 
chapter. When Daniel was praying, the angel Gabriel came 
to him and said, that when Daniel commenced his prayer a 
commandment was given and the angel had come to give him 
understanding. The angel did not ' say that Daniel should 
believe blindly without understanding. We let the Adventists 
do that. 

How did Daniel commence his prayer? Adventist preach- 
ers go so far as to say that he prayed for an explanation of the 
vision concerning the evenings and mornings ; but that is not 
true. Did he ask for an explanation of the vision concerning 
the evenings and mornings in the eighth chapter, when he had 
had one before? No. He is asking with a humble spirit for 
three things, viz., that God should have mercy on the people, 
Jerusalem and the devastated sanctuary (verses 16-18). If 
Daniel now had received an interpretation of the vision, and 
according to the Adventists it is that Jesus entered the holy 
of holies in the heavenly sanctuary in 1844, though Daniel had 
the vision in B. C. 538, then he had to wait two thousand three 
hundred and eighty-two years before he received an answer to 
his prayer. Was this a proper answer to Daniel's prayer that 
the Lord should have compassion on the city which was devas- 
tated and on the temple and on the sanctuary that was cast 
down ? It seems to us that Daniel ought to be more interested 
in these things than in the Adventist fable of Jesus changing 
his place in 1844. It is hardly probable that God would play 
such a miserable joke on his devout servant Daniel. 

We could wish to continue the study of Daniel's ninth, 
chapter, but after we have considered the eleventh, we shall 
be more prepared to understand the ninth. We shall sub- 


sequently take up the seventy weeks as a special subject. Let 
it suffice here to point out a few paragraphs to show how the 
Adventists display their ignorance concerning the time. 

We will admit, for the sake of argument, that their con- 
tention, that Daniel did not receive an explanation concerning 
the days, is correct ; will that help them out in their dilemma ? 
Not in the least. 

"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon 
thy holy city" (verse 24). 

Now they say that there is no other line upon which to 
determine or cut off time than the 2,300 days. But we state 
with absolute certainty that there is only one line upon which 
to cut off time. As soon as they try to cut off time from any 
other line, they cut the head off from their theory. 

There is only one clock that determines time. This clock 
is the revolution of the earth around the sun. The earth 
rotates around its axis in twenty-four hours, and revolves 
around the sun in one year. We say that the sun rises and the 
sun sets. We must set our clocks after the sunrise and the 
sunset or after the noonhour. There is no other way of de- 
termining time, prophetic or otherwise. There is no other line 
upon which time can be determined or cut off than the ordinary 
time that arises from this cause. 

Adventists, you must confess that you have committed a 
great mistake in your calculations. All true science is in har- 
mony with God himself. This evidence against their conten- 
tions is enough to knock their system out of commission. When 
the reader hears them saying that there is no other line from 
which to cut off the seventy weeks than the 2,300 days, tell 
them it is not true. There is no other line than the general 
line of time. 

Is it the weight that you are weighing, or are you weighing 
with the weight? You answer that it is the weight, with 


which one is weighing. Correct! You buy a pound of coffee. 
The salesman puts the beans in a bag, places the bag on one 
of the scales and the pound weight on the other. The weight 
is heavier and turns the scales to that side. The clerk then 
takes a file and files off enough from the pound weight till the 
scales balance evenly. Is he doing right now ? No. It is the 
weight that determines, how much coffee there is in the bag 
and must not be changed, he must add more beans till he has 
an equal amount on both sides. 

Is it the measure that is to be measured, or do you not 
measure with it ? You use the measure to determine the size 
of something. Correct! You have no more right to cut off 
from the measure than to file anything from the weight. You 
use the measure for measuring and it must not be tampered 

We ask now, if the 2,300 days are to be measured or if they 
are a measure with which to measure? They are a certain 
measure and it is immaterial whether they represent days or 
years, they must not be cut off. 

The seventy weeks are another measure. The Adventists 
say that there is no other line from which to cut off the 490 
years than the 2,300 days. But they are a certain measure, 
and you cannot take anything from a measure, because you 
have them for a standard of measuring. As soon as they 
change fixed measures they get in trouble. 

It requires no learning to see that this is right. If a person 
goes to a drygoods store to buy a piece of cloth of a certain 
length, should the salesman lay the yardstick on the cloth and 
then cut off a piece of the yardstick? No. He cuts off the 
cloth. He must not diminish his yardstick. 

The Adventists commence the 2,300 days in B. C. 457, and 
use this period as a new time line; afterwards they take the 
490 years as a measure and cut off this measure from the 


2,300 days. But you say, "Do they not cut off the same amount 
from the general time also ?" You say in your books and ser- 
mons that there is no other line to cut off from than the 2,300 
days. Science condemns this, even if you do not understand it. 

Do not forget that your message is built upon chronology, 
and you can just as little go around the laws of mathematics 
and astronomy as you can go around the multiplication table, 
when you are going to multiply two numbers. 

That they have been guilty of propagating such nonsense 
for seventy years under the name of the "whole truth" is 
sufficient to show that they are blind. 

Both of these propositions, to measure time on any other 
line than the astronomical, and cut off a certain measure, are 
damaging to their implicated system, which they dare not sub- 
mit to a careful investigation. When the angel came to Daniel, 
he said he was come to give him understanding. But when 
the young men come to their schools, they must believe blindly 
these stupid doctrines without understanding. It would be 
better to tie all deceitful doctrines to a millstone and sink them 
in the depth of the sea. All thinking men will say, amen. 

Is there not a single preacher or professor in the whole 
denomination who knows that time cannot be cut off except 
from the general time line, and that you cannot cut anything 
off from a definite measure? 

When they get into such narrow straits as these they gen- 
erally quote this passage, "The natural man receiveth not the 
things of the Spirit; for they are foolishness unto him," etc. 

A person has no need of spiritual intuition to understand 
the plainest rules in arithmetic. Atheists are just as capable 
of understanding these things as the most spiritual child of 

Next time you are going to preach, my brother Adventist 
pastor, do not forget that the weight is to weigh with and the 


measure to measure with. And you have no right to cut off 
the measure. In questions of time there is no line to measure 
time on but the general time line which arises from the move- 
ment of the earth around the sun. 

Their message is crumbling to dust without a single re- 
ference to the Bible or to history. 

Suppose again, that one of their preachers who is thor- 
oughly converted to Mrs. White and her errors, received a 
visit from the angel Gabriel. The preacher says, "There is no 
other line from which to cut off the 490 years except the pro- 
phetic period, the 2,300 clays." The angel should say, "You 
cannot cut off anything from a certain measure, it is against 
science, both in heaven and on earth. "Who are you?" the 
preacher would say. "I am Gabriel from heaven." Their 
papers would soon contain a warning against Gabriel who 
does not believe "the present truth." 

Our own lifetime is cut off from the general time line. 
Abraham Lincoln was born in 1809 and died in 1865. It is im- 
possible to cut any part off from his life and say that he first 
lived the fifty and then a long time afterwards he lived the 
remaining six. No, we cannot cut off anything from a certain 
measure. I warn you, preachers, since you are acquainted 
with these facts, to discontinue the preaching of your erroneous 
doctrine. It is far better to let the old heresy perish, for it will 
be torn up with its roots when all things are tested in fire. Let 
us wait now and see on what side the truth lies, in your doc- 
trine, or in the arguments here brought forth. 

True knowledge of God and real piety will always win 
out. The day will certainly come, when the Adventists will be 
independent enough to hold the spoon themselves, and not 
need anybody else to feed them. My bitter enemies may- yet 
become my friends. 


The Eleventh Chapter of Daniel's Book 

This chapter deals with the wars between the kings in the 

Smith (Egypt) and the kings in the North (Syria). The 

little horn in Dan. 8 : 14 is the same king spoken of in 

chapter 11 : 21 to the end of the chapter. The Adven- 

tists may well be sorry for their blindness in 

explaining the prophecy. 

The eighth and eleventh chapters of Daniel refer to the 
same things. It is only a different method in dealing with the 
problem. The eleventh chapter is quite easy to explain. The 
angel Gabriel opens the history for us with the same clearness 
as if we were to study the history of the United States from 
its first president, George Washington, and then follow pre- 
sident after president without losing the historical order and 
the successive dates. If you know the history of the United 
States, there is no difficulty in teaching others; even a ten 
years old child will understand you. Daniel's eleventh chapter 
is just as plain when you know the history. And it is no credit 
to the Adventists and Russellites that they have made such 
astounding blunders. There is no excuse for these errors in a 
subject that offers so small difficulties. 

But when a person is fighting for his own party interests, 
truth is pushed aside and error takes the place in order to make 
all ends meet. If they had been led by the Spirit of truth, 
who leads to the truth, they had not made such astounding 
mistakes. It is Rome that must be made to fit in here. If 
Rome does not meet the requirements here, their system has 
lost its foundation. We are going to prove now that it is just 


as impossible to get Rome to fill the prophecy in the eleventh 
chapter as it was in the eighth. If Rome is the little horn in 
Daniel's eighth chapter, then Rome must fill the prophecy in 
the eleventh chapter. If Antiochus Epiphanes is the power in 
the eighth chapter he is the same power in the eleventh. That 
the latter statement is correct we are now undertaking to prove. 

The second verse says that three kings shall come up in 
Persia, and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; by his 
strength of his riches he shall stir up against the realm of 
Grecia. All historians agree that the fourth king is Xerxes I, 
and it is so. But between Cyrus and Xerxes are three kings. 
Here is the order : Cyrus, from 538 to 529 ; Cambyses, from 
529 to 522 ; Smerdis, from 522 to 521 ; Darius Hystaspes, from 
521 to 485 ; Xerxes, from 485 to B. C. 464. 

"Smerdis, the younger son of Cyrus, was put to death 
secretly by the order of his brother Cambyses who was jealous 
of him. The governor of the palace having a brother of 
striking resemblance of the murdered prince, set him up as the 
true Smerdis, and on the death of Cambyses had him pro- 
claimed king. Some of the Persian nobles soon suspected the 
cheat, and were certain of it when they found that the false 
Smerdis had no ears. Seven nobles then entered the palace 
and killed the pretender after he had reigned seven months." 

Prophecy therefore does not take any notice of him. 

Xerxes had a fighting army of nearly 2,500,000 men, when 
he went against Greece, and 4,207 ships of different kinds. 
While marching through the provinces his army was increased 
by both men and women till it numbered more than 6,000,000. 
Seven days and seven nights were required to cross the bridge 
over the Hellespont. 

In verses three and four we are told, that a mighty king 
was to arise who should rule with great dominion and do 
according to his will. But as soon as he has come up, his king- 


dom shall be broken and be divided, but not between any de- 
scendants of his. Here we find the same story as in the eighth 
chapter. The angel showed us there that the king was Alexan- 
der the Great, and that his empire was divided in four king- 
doms, so it is unnecessary to repeat it here. 

Study now diagram No. 4 and you will find, that the pro- 
phecy harmonizes with history in the eleventh chapter. 

The prophecy leaves out the two and begins with (verse 5) 
the king of the south, and then the king of the north to the 
end of the chapter. The king of the south (Egypt) was Ptol- 
emy I Soter, 323—285. 

The king, of the north (Syria) was Seleucus I, 312—280. 

In verse six it is stated that the kings were going to join 
together; for the kings daughter of the south should come to 
the king of the north to make an agreement. 

Ptolemy II of Egypt and Antiochus II of Syria engaged in 
a bitter war. Antiochus desired peace, because he had troubles 
from the east. The two kings made peace on the condition 
that Antiochus should divorce his wife Laodice and marry 
Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy. This was done and his 
children were disinherited. "But she shall not retain the power 
of the arm; neither shall he stand nor his arm: but she shall 
be given up, and they that brought her, and he that begat her, 
and he that strengthened her in these times." (Verse 6.) 
Ptolemy II died B. C. 247. Antiochus recalled then his former 
wife Laodice with her children. Laodice felt so humiliated by 
this conduct toward her, that she poisoned her husband An- 
tiochus II, and Berenice and her son. 

Verses seven and eight make mention of Bernice's brother 
Ptolemy III. He raised a large army and invaded Syria to 
avenge the death of his sister. His success was great (verse 
8). He brought with him as spoils of war $34,400,000 in 
silver and a great quantity of gold and 2,500 pieces of statuary, 


which Cambyses had taken in Egypt, B. C. 525. Ptolemy III 
reigned between B. C. 247 and 222. Afterwards he left the 
king of the north in peace for some years. "So the king of the 
north shall come into his kingdom, and shall return into his 
own land" (verse 9). 

Note. — The English Bible reads, "The king of the south," 
which evidently is an error in the translation. 

Seleucus II of Syria gathered a large fleet and set out for 
Egypt, but the navy was destroyed by a storm and he himself 
had a narrow escape. He reigned from B. C. 246 to 226. 

"But his two sons shall be stirred up and shall assemble a 
multitude of great forces" (verse 10). The two sons of 
Seleucus II were Seleucus III and Antiochus III (the Great). 
Seleucus III ascended the throne of his father B. C. 226 and 
reigned only three years till 223. Antiochus III helped him in 
the battle. In verse eleven reference is made to Ptolemy IV, 
222 — 205. He should come forth in anger_ and fight against 
the king of the north, and the latter should raise a great army, 
but his forces should be given into the hands of the king of 
the south. 

Antiochus III the Great, ascended the Syrian throne B. C. 
223. It was he who had the war with Ptolemy IV of Egypt. 
Antiochus was defeated and his army fell into the hands of the 
enemy as the prophecy had foretold. 

Ptolemy IV, proud of his success, as is indicated in the 
twelfth verse, did not act in a manner becoming a king. He 
wanted to enter the holy of holies of the temple in Jerusalem. 
The Jews prevented him, and he left, enraged against the 
Jews, taking a cruel revenge upon their countrymen in Alex- 
andria, where he put to death between forty and fifty thousand 
Jews. He commenced his reign by murdering his mother Ber- 
nice, his brother Magas, his uncle Lysimachus, and ended the 
carnage with the murder of his own wife Arsione. 


Verse thirteen, "The king of the north shall return and 
shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall 
certainly come after certain years with a great army and with 
much riches." This king is Antiochus III the Great. 

The Adventists are right from the beginning of the chapter 
as far as the thirteenth verse. In the fourteenth they begin 
their misrepresentations in order to get Rome to fill the re- 
quirements of prophecy. 

"And in those times there shall many stand up against the 
king of the south : also the robbers of thy people shall exalt 
themselves to establish the vision, but they shall fall" (v. 14). 

Ptolemy IV, who died in B. C. 205, had a son who was 
born in 210, therefore five years old when he ascended the 
throne B. C. 205—181. 

The first enemies who attacked the young king were the 
king of the north, Antiochus III, Philip of Macedonia, also 
the traitors Agathodes and Scopas, "robbers of thy own 

In " Daniel and Revelation" Uriah Smith says on page 
290, "A new power is now introduced — .'the robbers of thy 
people'. . . . Henceforth the name of Rome stands upon the 
historic page." 

This war was after B. C. 205 and Rome arose B. C. 753. 
Rome had accordingly been upon the historic page 548 years. 

Gabriel spoke to Daniel and said that robbers of thy own 
people shall exalt themselves. Then the question presents 
itself, "Was it the Jews or the Romans who were Daniel's 
people?" We know it was the Jews. It was apostate Jews 
who supported the cause of the king of Egypt. The prophecy 
says, "They shall fall." When Antiochus III got possession 
of the land, he drove out or put to death all who sided with the 
Egyptian king. 

Antiochus of Syria and Philip of Macedonia now deter- 


mined to bring Egypt under their dominion. The Romans 
came to the assistance of the young king. In this way we 
may find a slight occasion to speak of the Romans here, but 
Rome never came in as the king of the north, nor the south, 
as we will see. 

A certain general by the name of Scopas, a native of Rome, 
but now in the service of Egypt, was permitted to return to 
his country where he gathered an army and proceeded against 
Antiochus. At the head of this army he penetrated into 
Palestine and Ccelo-Syria, laying the whole country under 
the sovereignty of Egypt. Antiochus III and general Scopas 
met in battle; Scopas was defeated and fled to Sidon, where 
he was surrounded by Antiochus, who built entrenchments 
around the city. Three of the most efficient generals of Egypt 
with selected troops were sent to assist their brave general and 
his people, but they had, as Daniel says in verse fifteen, "no 
strength to withstand." The city was suffering from famine 
and Scopas at last was forced to capitulate. Starved and 
half naked the troops were permitted to leave the city. The 
Adventists are correct in their interpretation of this passage, 
but they commence their mistakes in the sixteenth verse and 
do not know what they are speaking about in the remaining 
twenty-nine verses. The foundation here is false, and their 
leaders ought to know better. 

Verse 16, "But he that cometh against him shall do accord- 
ing to his- own will, and none shall stand before him : and he 
shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be 

Here we have the pronoun "he" four times and "him" 
twice in one verse. The Adventists say it has reference to 
Rome, but the laws of grammar forbid us to use "he" about a 
kingdom. If it is Rome, we wish to know who is "he" that 
is mentioned in the verse. 


In "Daniel and Revelation" we read the following on page 
202, "Although Egypt could not stand before Antiochus, the 
king of the north, Antiochus could not stand before the 
Romans, who now came against him. No kingdoms were 
longer able to resist this rising power. Syria was conquered, 
and added to the Roman empire, when Pompey, B. C. 65, de- 
prived Antiochus Asiaticus of his possessions, and reduced 
Syria to a Roman province." 

Here U. Smith makes a tremendous leap over nineteen 
Syrian kings (see diagram No. 4) and speaks of Antiochus 
at the same time as the Roman conquest of Syria, B. C. 65. 
What part had Antiochus in this? He died B. C. 187, 122 
years before Syria fell into the hands of the Romans. 

In the seventeenth verse the pronoun "he" occurs again, 
and Smith explains, that "he" who gave away his daughter 
is an Egyptian king, Ptolemy XI Auletes, who ascended the 
throne of Egypt B. C. 80, and died in the year B. C. 51. 

Accordingly it was "he," Auletes, in verse 16, who went 
against Antiochus III. This is the necessary consequence, if 
Auletes is to fill the prophecy in the seventeenth verse. This 
is impossible to prove. Antiochus died in B. C. 187 and 
Auletes, who became king in Egypt B. C. 80, could not go 
against him with the strength of his whole kingdom one hun- 
dred seven years before he became a king. Ptolemy XI was 
not yet born. How will you now twist the plain facts, Adven- 
tists ? 

Verse 17, "He shall also set his face to enter with the 
strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; 
thus shall he do : and he shall give him the daughter of 
women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, 
neither be for him." 

The Adventists say, that he who shall advance with the 
strength of his whole kingdom was Ptolemy XI Auletes, who 


reigned between B. C. 80 — 51; and that he gave his daughter 
to Julius Caesar, the Roman general. Then this question is 
pertinent, "Was there any war between Caesar and Auletes?" 
History says no ; Auletes had no war with Caesar. Did 
Auletes give his daughter to Caesar? No. 

Auletes had made a provision in his will that his eldest son 
and his daughter, Cleopatra, should reign jointly, and when 
they became old marry together. Because they were young, 
they were placed under guardianship of the Romans. The 
Roman general Pompey was appointed as their guardian. 

War having not long after broken out between Pompey and 
Caesar. Pompey, having been defeated, fled into Egypt, and 
Caesar immediately followed him thither; but before his arrival 
Pompey was basely murdered by Ptolemy XII, and Egypt was 
in a commotion from internal disturbances, Ptolemy and 
Cleopatra having become hostile to each other. Caesar there- - 
fore assumed the guardianship, which had been given to 
Pompey, an action which so enraged the Egyptians that they 
took up arms against Caesar. He landed at Alexandria his 
small force, 800 horsemen and an army of 3,200, stating he was 
acting in conformity to the will of Ptolemy, who had placed 
his children under the guardianship of the Roman senate. 
Caesar now decreed that Ptolemy and Cleopatra should dis- 
band their armies and appear before him to have their case 

The matter was finally brought before him, and advocates 
appointed to plead for their respective parties. Cleopatra, one 
of the most beautiful women of history, was born B. C. 69, and 
it was now B. C. 48. 

Believing that beauty would prevail more upon her judge 
than any advocate she made use of the following strategem : 
To reach his presence undetected she laid herself to her full 
length in a bundle of clothes, tied with a strap, and had a 


servant to carry herself to the Roman general, saying that the 
bundle contained a present for him. Opening this bundle 
Caesar saw before him the beautiful Cleopatra who at this 
time was twenty-one years old. Caesar made her his concubine 
and had with her a son called Caesarion. 

Caesar decreed that Auletes XII and Cleopatra should 
occupy the throne jointly. The ministers of state and the 
people who were opposed to her restoration feared for the 
result of the decree, and began to excite hostility against 
Caesar. An army of 20,000 men was raised to drive Caesar 
from Alexandria. A severe battle followed, and Caesar sent 
for more troops. The final battle was fought near the river 
Nile where Caesar won an easy victory. Ptolemy tried to 
escape but was drowned in the Nile. 

Cleopatra had a younger brother, born B. C. 59. The 
battle was fought in 48 ; he was then eleven years old. 
Ptolemy XIII was married to his sister Cleopatra and raised 
to the Egyptian throne. He was a reigning consort to B. C. 
43, only five years, and was murdered at her instigation in his 
sixteenth year. 

Can the reader believe that the prophecy in the seventeenth 
verse applies to Ptolemy XI Auletes and Caesar, as the Ad- 
ventists claim? 

Did Auletes go against Caesar with the whole strength of 
his kingdom? No. Auletes had been dead three years before 
Caesar came to Alexandria. Did Auletes make peace with 
Caesar? No. There was no need of any, as there had been 
no war between them. Did Auletes give his daughter Cleo- 
patra to Caesar to confirm the treaty? No. Cleopatra gave 
herself to Caesar to gain her point in the dispute with her 
brother in B. C. 48, but the father had then been dead three 
years. Here the Adventists have committed such an astonish- 
ing blunder as to say that a dead king goes against another 


with' the full strength of his kingdom, makes peace and gives 
his daughter in marriage to his adversary, etc. On this dead 
king their message goes to pieces, and when the right man 
comes in here, their message is thoroughly overthrown. A 
message cannot have any poorer foundation than a dead king, 
and yet they say it is built on Christ. 

In verses 16, 17, 18, and 19 the author uses the pronoun 
"he." If it is Auletes in one verse it refers to him in the 
others, as no other person to whom "he" can refer is intro- 
duced. In the eighteenth verse Prof. U. Smith has put in 
Caesar as an antecedent to the pronoun. No one, not even a 
professor, has any right to take such liberty. But the Ad- 
ventists are satisfied, that he who is a professor cannot make 
any mistakes. Having put in Caesar as the antecedent for the 
following pronoun in verses 18 and 19, and Augustus Caesar 
in the twentieth verse, they have been able to read Rome into 
the eleventh chapter of this book. 

We will now enter the correct persons in these verses, 
even if the correct interpretation should kill the doctrine of the 
Adventists. We have no sympathy with their erroneous views, 
but we feel for the poor people whom they have deluded. 

There is no change of the king in the north from verse 
15 to 20. We therefore ask the reader to go back 126 yars, 
from B. C. 65 to 191. (See diagram No. 4.) After Antiochus 
III had allowed Scopas to leave Sidon and return home, he 
conquers Ccelo-Syria and Palestine, and is well received in 
Jerusalem. All power is apparently in his hands, as the six- 
teenth verse indicates. Antiochus was intent upon raising 
Syria to its former glory. In order not to be harassed by Egypt 
while exploring Asia Minor, he made a. treaty with the young 
tributary Egyptian king Ptolemy V and gave him one of his 
daughters, Cleopatra I, in matrimony. As they were too 
young to marry, Antiochus promised to return to them Ccelo- 


Syria and Palestine as a wedding gift when they were married. 
In the year 193, when Ptolemy V was seventeen years old, he 
was married to Cleopatra, the eldest daughter of Antiochus, 
and the latter also returned Coelo-Syria and Palestine according 
to his promise. When Ptolemy was prepared to go to war with 
Syria he was poisoned by his subjects. 

Antiochus III is the king who fills all the requirements of 
the prophecy in verse 17. He was proceeding with the 
strength of his whole kingdom, made peace with the Egyptian 
king Ptolemy V and gave him one of his daughters in matri- 
mony. Thereafter he was to turn his face to the isles and take 
many ; but a prince shall make an end of his reproaches and let 
them turn upon himself (verse 18). 

Antiochus sent an army under the command of his two 
sons to Sardis, while he himself sailed to the Aegian Sea, 
taking many islands as. Rhodes, Samos, Eubea, Colopon, etc. 

There are historians who say, that Antiochus did not keep 
his promise; but when Antiochus Epiphanes became king of 
Syria he reconquered Coelo-Syria and Palestine from Ptolemy 
VI, which proves that these provinces were in the hands of the 

He had first a battle with a Roman consul, Glabrio, at 
Thermopylae. Antiochus was defeated. "His daughter shall 
not stand on his side," the prophet says. 

It was intended that Cleopatra should act as his spy at the 
Egyptian court, but now she followed the Roman ambassador 
and congratulated the Romans upon their victory over her 
father at Thermopylae. This was B. C. 191. 

A year later he had another battle with a Roman consul, 
E. Scipio, at the mountain Sipylus in Asia Minor. Scipio 
gave him much good advice while they were negotiating the 
peace treaty ; but Antiochus was, as the prophecy states, scorn- 
ful, and his reproach was turned upon himself. When peace 


could not be obtained, they took up arms, and Antiochus was 
defeated with a loss of 50,000 men. He now made peace with 
Scipio, and was compelled to pay $15,915,000 and give twenty 
men as hostages who were brought to Rome. Among them 
was his youngest son Antiochus, afterwards known in history 
under the surname Epiphanes (the glorious). (Rollin, Vol. 
19, page 330; And. Hist., page 375; Int. Cy., Vol.. I, page 

"Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own 
land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found" (v. 19). 

This indemnity should be paid in installments of $881,000 
annually. Antiochus III knew it was no easy matter to raise 
this amount. He should turn his face toward his own land, 
but he was to stumble and fall. He tried to rob the temple of 
Belus in Elymais (Susiana), a province of Persia. The 
priests received him kindly, but the people killed both him 
and his soldiers. (And. Hist., page 292; Rollins, Vol. 19, 
page 328; 2 Mace. 1 : 13-16; Int. Cy., Vol. I, page 30.) 

From the thirteenth to the twentieth verse it is Antiochus 
the Great who fills the prophecy in every respect. 

"Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the 
glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be de- 
stroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle" (verse 20). 

As the adventists have no other ground for their inter- 
pretation, their case is weak in every instance. 

Augustus Caesar succeeded Julius Caesar as imperator of the 
Roman forces, and he was indeed a raiser of taxes, they say, 
because he gave out an edict that the whole world should be 
taxed at the time of the birth of Christ. If they only can 
get the name of Jesus in, people think it is true. 

It does not say in this verse, that he who took possession 
of the throne was a taxgatherer himself, but that he should 
send one. 


Adventists, you should not try to prove anything from the 
17th verse, before you have proved, that Auletes did the works 
spoken of in verses 16, 17, 18 and 19, after he was dead. On 
the throne of Antiochus III was elevated his eldest son, 
Seleucus IV, B. C. 187, and he reigned to B. C. 175. (Int. 
Cy., Vol. XIII, page 327.) 

He is called one who "raises taxes." His whole time was 
occupied in raising the money his father had pledged himself 
to pay to the Romans. 

Heliodorus is the taxgatherer who was sent by the king 
to Jerusalem to take the money that was in the temple. But 
God performed a miracle, so they did not get the money. 
(Read 2 Mace, chapter 3.) The king should be destroyed, 
but not in anger, nor in battle, according to Daniel. Heli- 
odorus poisoned his king in order to get possession of the 

"And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom 
they shall not give the honor of the kingdom: but he shall 
come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries" 
(verse 21). 

This verse they apply to Tiberius Caesar. 

Was not the honor of the kingdom given to him? Did he 
come peaceably, and did he obtain the kingdom by flatteries? 

Uriah Smith quotes the following from the Encyclopedia 
Americana, "Tiberius Caesar behaved with great prudence and 
ability, concluding a war with the Germans in such a manner 
as to merit triumph. After the defeat of Varus and his legions 
he was sent to check the progress of the victorious Germans, 
and acted in that war with equal spirit and prudence. On the 
death of Augustus, he succeeded, without opposition, to the 
sovereignty of the empire; which, however, with characteris- 
tic dissimulation, he affected to decline, until repeatedly solic- 
ited by the servile senate." 


"Dissimulation on his part, flattery on the part of the servile 
senate, and a possession of the kingdom without opposition." 
("Daniel and Revelation," page 302.) 

Now we ask, did Tiberius come in peaceably? Did he 
obtain the kingdom by flattery? Tiberius was born B. C. 42 
and was at this time (A. D. 14) fifty-six years old. He did 
not desire to assume so great responsibility, therefore he de- 
clined the throne ; but repeatedly solicited by the servile senate, 
he accepted the kingdom without opposition. 

But the Adventists have no difficulty in pressing him into 
this verse, which states, that he should come peaceably, and 
succeed to the sovereignty of the kingdom without opposition. 
Tiberius obtained the kingdom by flatteries, they say, when 
the senate begged him and flattered him, before he accepted 
their offer. But this is the way people reason, who have cer- 
tain side interests to defend. 

The vile person in Dan. 11 : 21 is the same person, who is 
represented in the eighth chapter by the little horn and is 
called by the angel Gabriel (in the 23rd verse), a fierce king. 

In the place of Seleucus IV shall stand up a vile man, 
who shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by 

Who obtained his place ? His brother Antiochus Epiphanes. 
He was a vile man. He gave to himself the name Epiphanes 
which means brilliant, glorious. He ought sooner to be called 
Epimanes, which means foolish or furious, a name that, ac- 
cording to Rollin, was given him by many. Epiphanes had 
been in Rome as a hostage since 190 and this was 175, there- 
fore in fifteen years. He ran away from Rome and came 
altogether unexpectedly to Syria. The kingdom was not in- 
tended for him, neither through right of birth or by choice; 
for Seleucus had a son who was heir apparent. 

Heliodorus who had murdered Seleucus was at the head 


of a strong faction. Another party worked for Ptolemy VI, 
who advanced his claims on account of his mother. Eumeus, 
the king of Pergamus, and his brother Attalus, put Antiochus 
Epiphanes on the throne. He pushed aside three aspirants 
to the throne. 

"And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from 
before him, and shall be broken: yea, also the prince of the - 
covenant" (verse 22). 

What armies overpowered the armies of Tiberius, but were 
flooded by him (Tiberius) and broken? And who is the prince 
that was crushed by Tiberius? The fact that Tiberius lived 
licentiously and became a contemptible regent does not fill the 
qualifications of the prophecy. There were no armies which 
pressed him hardly and were repulsed or broken up by him. 
He was suffocated under the pillows in his own bed. And 
"the prince of the covenant unquestionably refers to Jesus 
Christ," says U. Smith. 

What covenant had Christ with Tiberius? One searches 
Daniel's ninth chapter in order to prove something like this 
at the death of Christ ; but they have not yet understood the 
seventy weeks. That is the reason they make such blunders 
in all directions. 

"And after the league made with him he shall work de- 
ceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with 
a small people" (verse 23). 

When did Tiberius have a covenant or a league with Christ ; 
and when did he go against Christ with a small people ? 

The Egyptian king Ptolemy VI and Heliodorus had de- 
creed to take possession of the Syrian throne. So they came 
with overflowing armies against Antiochus Epiphanes, but he 
got the king of Pergamus, Eumeus, and his brother Attalus on 
his side. With the assistance of their armies he overpowered 
Ptolemy and Heliodorus and their plans were defeated. And 


the prince with whom he had a covenant or to whom he was 
related was Ptolemy VI. Syria and Egypt were in league with 
each other, since Antiochus the Great had given his daughter 
in matrimony to Ptolemy V. Ptolemy VI was Cleopatra's 
son. Antiochus Epiphanes was his uncle, therefore related to 
him. But Tiberius was in no wise related to Christ. 

Our foundation is sure, and therefore it is easy to build. 
The Adventists build upon a dead king, and they cannot make 
a stone to fit in their building. Won't you look a little more 
closely, Adventists ? 

Antiochus Epiphanes made war first with Ptolemy VI 
owing to a dispute concerning Ccelo-Syria. This territory was, 
as we have seen, a wedding gift to Ptolemy V when he was 
married to Cleopatra in B. C. 193. According to the laws of 
nature he should have treated his nephew in a different man- 
ner ; but he was hardened to natural feelings. Rollin says, that, 
though he had decided to go to war, he simulated friendship 
toward the king of Egypt. The coronation of the king took 
place in Memphis. Pretending that he had nothing but friendly 
feelings for him, he sent his general Apollonius with a retinue 
to attend the ceremonies. Shortly afterward, he marched to 
Egypt, under pretext to defend his nephew, with a small army 
compared to the one he was gathering. A battle was fought 
at Pelucium where Antiochus won the victory. Listen to the 
words of the prophet, "He shall enter peaceably even upon the 
fattest places of the province" (verse 24). 

And also that he should work deceitfully, which is a correct 
description of his actions. 

The king of Egypt had no time to prepare for war. An- 
tiochus made an invasion of the country and "became strong 
with a small people." 

"He did things which his fathers had not done. He gave 


away too much and gave the soldiers larger wages than any 
one had done before him." (Mace. 3 : 30.) 

Antiochus remained in Tyre over the winter. There he 
made up his plans against the fortified places and prepared 
for a fresh attack. As soon as the weather permitted he ad- 
vanced both on land and sea. The king of Egypt had also 
raised a large army; "but he shall not stand" (verse 25). An- 
tiochus gained a great victory, and penetrated to the very heart 
of the country. 

He could have put every enemy to death, but instead he 
rode up and down among his soldiers exhorting them to save 
the people. 

Through this action he won the hearts of the Egyptians, 
so that large numbers came and paid him homage. This con- 
tributed in no small degree to the overthrow of the Egyptian 
king and gave the enemies an opportunity to "overflow" the 

The battle occurred in B. C. 170. The king of Egypt was 
made a prisoner and his country ruined. (Int. Cy., Vol. 12, 
page 258.) 

It would be too tedious a process to show all the aberra- 
tions of the Adventists in the eleventh chapter of Daniel, and 
at the same time, useless. But we will give them some atten- 
tion in our study. 

Uriah Smith says in "Daniel and Revelation" (page 306), 
"Having taken us down through the secular events of the 
empire to the end of the seventy weeks, the prophet, in verse 
23, takes us back to the time when the Romans became directly 
connected with the people of God by the Jewish league, B .C. 

They teach that the seventy weeks ended in A. D. 34. 
Afterwards the prophet goes back through a period of time 
to B. C. 161. Such an explanation to suit their own views! 


Let us illustrate. You live in Chicago and take the train 
for New York. When the conductor has taken you to Buffalo, 
he returns to Detroit, Mich., and goes back on the road the 
same way. 

By jumping back like this they succeed in making certain 
people fill the prophecy time and again. Julius Caesar fills 
verse 20 and Tiberius Caesar verse 21. The twenty-second 
verse is referring to Tiberius. Then he was killed by suffoca- 
tion. Smith applies verse 23 to him, that he was the one who 
acted deceitfully and went against Christ with a small num- 
ber. In verse 24 they have no one to put in the place, but say 
Rome, when "he" is the pronoun in that verse. 

In verse 25 Smith goes back to B. C. 161 again. The death 
of Augustus, Smith sees mentioned in the twentieth verse; 
but he gets him alive again in the twenty-fifth verse, which is 
made to refer to the war between Antonius and Augustus. 
This battle was fought B. C. 31. On page 312 Smith says, 
"From B. C. 31, a prophetic time, or 360 years, would bring 
us to A. D. 330. And it becomes a noteworthy fact that the 
seat of the empire was removed from Rome to Constantinople 
by Constantine the Great in that very year." 

According to this interpretation, we have now proceeded in 
our study to 330 A. D. ; but so he makes verses 26, 27 and 28 
refer to Antonius, Augustus and Cleopatra, who lived before 
Christ. Have you ever seen such a study before? 

This power should device plans against the holy covenant. 
"The holy covenant," says Smith on page 315, "is doubtless 
the covenant which God has maintained with his people" ; and 
on page 318, "The covenant, that is the Holy Scriptures, the 
books of the covenant." 

Which is it now? It is neither. 

"Yea, they that feed on the portion of his meat shall destroy 
him" (verse 26). Antiochus with his people remained some 


time in Egypt and the both kings ate at the same table seem- 
ingly in perfect harmony. But the Lord says, "That both 
these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak 
lies at one table," etc. (verse 27). 

"Then shall he return into his land with great riches; and 
his heart shall be against the holy covenant ; and he shall do 
exploits, and return to his own land" (verse 28). 

Antiochus, seeing that he was in possession took with him 
all that he wished, thereby enriching himself and the soldiers. 

"And Antiochus took the fortified cities of Egypt and took 
from there many riches." (1 Mace. 1:20.) 

While he was in Egypt a false rumor had been circulated in 
Palestine that he was dead. This vexed him a great deal. On 
his way home he paid a visit to Jerusalem and what he did 
there has already been stated. "And he shall do exploits, and 
return to his own land." From Jerusalem he returned to 

"At the time appointed he shall return, and come home 
toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, of as the 
latter" (verse 29). 

When the Egyptians saw that Ptolemy VI was entirely in 
the hands of Antiochus and that he ruled that land as he 
pleased, they gave him up as lost. Therefore they put his 
younger brother Ptolemy Fyscon upon the throne. When 
Antiochus was aware of this he prepared himself for a third 
attack against Egypt in order to reinstate Ptolemy VI on the 

He conquered the Alexandrians in a sea-battle near Pelusi- 
um. Then he marched against Alexandria in order to besiege 
the city, for it had not yet fallen into his hands. Here he 
met with powerful resistance and thought it would be easier 
to gain his object by inciting both the brothers to an internal 
war when he could conquer both. But the brothers made peace 


with each other, and prepared for a new attack by Antiochus 
which they anticipated. Antiochus aware of this plan decided 
to go against them with all his forces. He sent his navy to 
Cyprus in order to protect his possessions on the island. He 
placed himself at the head of a great army intent upon con- 
quering all Egypt. He subdued the whole country wherever 
he went and penetrated as far as Memphis. This was "at the 
time of the end," mentioned in verse 40, a fact only hinted 
at in the twenty-ninth verse. Afterwards he went to Alexan- 
dria to besiege the city. Ships from Chittim shall come against 
him, the prophet says in verse 30. Ptolemy Fyscon and his 
sister Cleopatra sent ambassadors to Rome asking for help 
against Antiochus. And as he was ready to besiege Alexandria, 
the Roman messengers arrived in Macedonian ships. Mace- 
donia is called Chittim. (See 1 Mace. 8:5.) 

They met Antiochus nearly one mile from Alexandria. 
Pompilius handed him the decree of the senate. Having 
perused the document hastily he promised soon to give them 
his answer. But Pompilius drew a circle around him in the 
sand saying, "Give the senate a definite answer before you 
step out of this circle." Astonished at such a determined 
answer he promised to comply with the dictum of the senate. 
The prophet had said it "should not be as the former time." 
He should be grieved and direct his indignation against the 
holy covenant. And having returned he should have intel- 
ligence with them that forsake the holy covenant. (Verse 30.) 

Adventist preachers make much ado when they tell that 
Pompilius made a circle around Antiochus that Rome is the 
stronger and fills the prophecy. But if they only made the 
slightest use of their brains they would see without difficulty 
that it is the king in the south and the king in the north who 
fill the requirements here, and that Antiochus was the king in 
the north and Ptolemy the king in the south at this time. 


Rome could not be the king in the south now, for Rome did 
not occupy Egypt before B. C. 30. We are not at the close 
of the prophecy yet, we have arrived to the thirty-first verse, 
and the chapter consists of forty-five verses. 

"And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute 
the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacri- 
fice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate" 
(verse 31). When the Egyptian crown was twisted out of 
his hand, he went home to Syria, but sent an army of 22,000 
men under general Apollonius with order to destroy Jerusalem. 
In our study of Daniel's eighth chapter we have shown how 
this was done. 

The historians are not agreed as to what year Apollonius 
was in Jerusalem. They say 167, 168 and 169. By careful 
comparisons we have come to the conclusion that the words 
of the angel correspond perfectly with . June, 167, which 
opinion is held by such an authority as Dr. Farrar. It is also 
proved that Antiochus died in B. C. 164 or in the second month 
of 163. 

It seems to be reasonably sure that he visited Jerusalem 
the first time in 170, because he took possession of Egypt that 
year and marched from there to Jerusalem. He should take 
away the daily sacrifice in the middle of the seventieth week. 
This week is seven years. And therefore we can readily ex- 
plain the prophecy of the seventy weeks when we^are going to 
take up that study and Daniel's twelfth chapter. The year 
167 corresponds exactly with the time given by the angel, and 
he knew better than anyone else what he was speaking about. 

In verses 31-35 there is a record of the last persecution of 
Antiochus against the Jews, which was lasting to the time of 
the end, a certain time, when the prophecy had been fulfilled. 
The vision was sealed, or in other words at an end, it did not 
go any farther. 

210 astounding Errors 

When Antiochus came to Antiock he issued an edict that 
all nations under his domain should lay aside the religions of 
their fathers, with their ceremonies, and worship his god. 
This decree was in first hand directed against the Jews, whose 
religion and nationality he had decided to eradicate from the 
earth. He therefore sent out representatives to all parts of the 
kingdom in order to carry out this command and teach them 
how his god was to be worshiped. The heathens received the 
new order of things without objection. The Samaritans sent 
him a petition in which they declared they were not Jews and 
desired to have an image of the Roman god, Jupiter, set up on 
their mountain Garizim. They were graciously received, their 
wish granted, and an order given that they should not be 
molested in any way. 

Not only the Samaritans fell away from the true God, but 
also many Jews forgot Jehovah, partly to escape persecution, 
partly for material gain, as well as for many other reasons. 
(See verse 32. Rollin, Vol. 19, page 361; Josephus, Vol. 12, 
chap. 5; 1; 1 Mace. 2:16.) 

"But the people that do know their God shall be strong, 
and do exploits" (verse 32). 

Both history and the Maccabees show that there were 
some in Israel at this time who adhered to God and lived 
according to his word. Among those was the priest Mattathias, 
who lived on the mountain Modin, and his five sons, as many 
others, who rather sacrificed their lives than break the pre- 
cepts of Jehovah. 

'And they that understand among the people shall instruct 
many; yet, they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by cap- 
tivity, and by spoil, many days" (verse 33). 

The best explanations of this verse is found in the books of 
the Maccabees. (See 2 Mace. 6:18-31, and chapter 7.) In 
this chapter we find how a mother with her seven sons were 


murdered. The king tried to compel the eldest boy to eat pork, 
which was forbidden by Jehovah; but the boy said he would 
rather die. The king was enraged and ordered that pans and 
kettles should be put over the fire. These kettles he had 
brought with him from Persia, a proof that he had grown 
southward, eastward and toward the pleasant land. First he 
cut out the boy's tongue, afterwards he severed his hands and 
feet. The mother and the six brothers were witnesses to this 
cruel deed. In this condition he was dragged to the fire to 
be boiled in the kettle. All the other sons were killed in the 
same manner, and at last the poor mother was put to death. 
It seems to me she would have died from witnessing her seven v 
sons being killed, one after the other. 

"Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a 
little help : but many shall cleave to them with flatteries" 
(verse 34). 

We read of this persecution in 1 Mace. chap. 2. A small 
victory was won by Mattathias and his friends. They gathered 
a large flock of pious people; many backsliders joined them; 
but several of them were slain by the zealous Jews. They 
marched through the land of Israel breaking down the altars 
of the heathens, circumcised the boys, and defended themselves 
bravely against their enemies and the king. 

"And some of them of understanding shall fall" (verse 35). 

Both leaders and teachers, among those the priests, suffered 
martyrdom in the persecution of the king. A cleansing was 
needed among the Jews at this time. The transgressors had 
reached, their limit, their day of judgment had come and 
punishment was imminent. What the Lord had predicted was 
fulfilled at the appointed time. 

The prophet having described the persecution of the Jews 
in verses 30-35, returns to the description of what the king 
should do personally in verses 36-39. This was literally done 


by Antiochus. "And the king shall do according to his will." 
Antiochus always acted according to his own will, except when 
he by circumstances was compelled to submit to the will of 
others. "He shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above 
every god." He called himself god (Theos). When a ruler 
goes so far as to forbid anyone at the penalty of death to 
worship any other god than the one he determines, he has 
raised himself up against the true God. (And. Hist., page 
239; Josephus, Vol. 12, chap. 5; 1 Mace. 1:43-67.) In the 
books of the Maccabees he is called the impious, the blas- 
phemer. "He shall prosper till the indignation be accom- 
plished: for that that is determined shall be done" (verse 36). 
When the transgressors had been punished, the sanctuary 
restored, and Antiochus dead, that was determined to be done. 
This is the whole truth. 

"Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the 
desire of women, nor regard any gods : for he shall magnify 
himself above all" (verse 37). 

Concerning these gods people have had wrong notions. 
Olympius (an adjective modifying the great almighty deity 
Zeus of the Greeks) was one of the gods of his fathers. And 
Tammuz Adonis was a Syrian goddess. None of these he 
should regard. "But in his estate shall he honor the God of 
forces : and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor 
with gold," etc. (verse 38). This deity was Jupiter Capitol- 
inus whom he had imported from Rome and placed in a temple 
in Antioch and bedecked it with gold, and silver, and with 
precious stones, and pleasant things, as it was foretold in the 
thirty-eighth verse. 

"Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange 
god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory : and 
he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land 
for gain" (verse 39). 


Trusting in this imported idol, he thought he could do what 
he pleased. 

Those who acknowledged his god he placed in authority 
over others; and it was not only the backslidden Jews who 
accepted his god, but also the prominent men in his kingdom. 
He gave them provinces over which they ruled with almost 
unlimited power. 

From verses 30 to 39 the deeds of Antiochus are described, 
since he had been compelled by the Romans to leave Egypt in 

We have already paid attention to the fortieth verse, but 
the prophet gives a brief review before he introduces the last 
deeds and death of the king of the north . 

In the thirty-ninth verse mention is made of the king in 
the north. The king of the south is introduced in the follow- 
ing verse, "And at the time of the end shall the king of the 
south push at him : and the king of the north shall come against 
him like a whirlwind with chariots, and with horsemen, and 
with many ships ; and he shall enter into the countries, and 
shall overflow and pass over." 

It has already been pointed out when the time of the end 
commenced; but as the vision of the time is the foundation 
of the Adventists' doctrine, we will turn our attention to the 
subject again in order to prove, how easily this can be ex- 
plained if one adheres strictly to the word of God . 

In "Daniel and Revelation" the Adventist author many 
times referred to in this connection, applies this verse to "a 
conflict that had sprung up between Egypt and France and 
Turkey and France in 1798, which year, as we have seen, 
marked the beginning of the time of the end." (Page 343.) 

It is inconceivable how a man who has the title of professor 
before his name can arrive at such conclusions. 

Medo-Persia became a great power about B. C, 538 when 


Belshazzar had his nightly feast and the invisible hand wrote 
on the wall. He was killed the same night. (Dan. 5:30.) 
Darius of Media succeeded him on the throne. (Dan. 5:31.) 

It is worthy of notice that, according to history, Belshazzar 
was never king in Babylonia. Nabonadius was the last king 
of Babylon, Belshazzar was his son and appointed co-regent 
by his father. While Cyrus made an attack on Babylon, 
Nabonadius was locked in Borsippa. Belshazzar ruled at that 
time as a king, but had not the title of king, as long as his 
father lived. We read in the book of Daniel, "In the first 
year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, Daniel had a dream and 
visions" (chap. 7:1). In the third year of the same king 
he had a vision (chap. 8:1). King Belshazzar made a great 
feast to a thousand of his lords and princes and wives and his 
concubines (chap. 5:1, 2). 

Nabonadius was king between B. C. 555 — 538. Belshazzar 
had this impious feast in 538, when Daniel had received the 
explanation of the seventy weeks. 

As Belshazzar never was king over- Babylon and no one 
can say when his father made him his co-regent, it is im- 
possible to state when Daniel had these visions. Uriah Smith 
says that Belshazzar ascended the throne in 555, but that was 
his father. The administration of the father has been mixed 
up with that of his son. 

We have consulted several historians on this point and find 
that they all agree in the opinion that Nabonadius was the 
last king of Babylon and had taken his son as a co-regent. In 
McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, which has only the 
biblical chronology, we read under the article Belshazzar, "In 
1854 Sir Henry Rawlinson deciphered the inscriptions of some 
cylinders found in the ruins of Urn-Kir (the ancient U'r of the 
Chaldees). From these inscriptions it appears that the eldest 
son of Nabonnedus (Barosus calls him Nabonadius) was called 


Bel-shar-ezar, and admitted by his father to a share in the 
government." It is impossible to prove by these testimonies 
that he was king in Babylon, though it is possible that he had 
the title and for some time exercised royal power, while his 
father was surrounded by the troops of Cyrus in Borsippa. 

There is another matter that requires a more thorough 
examination in Dan. 5 : 31, "And Darius, the Median, took the 
kingdom, being about threescore and two years old. This 
statement does not hold good before historical research which 
proves that Cyrus captured the Babylonian empire. Even U. 
Smith admits this on page 63, but on page 128 he states, that 
Darius was king in Babylon between 538 and 536. This is 
the same as saying that Cyrus took the Babylonian kingdom 
and afterwards put Darius up on the throne. Cyrus was king 
in Babylon to his death, and the historians are agreed that it 
was Cyrus, who captured Babylon. (See Int. Cy., Vol. II, 
page 86.) 

Cyrus subdued Media in B. C. 558. Persia was now the 
leading power. That Cyrus took Babylonia is apparent from 
various sources. Nabonadius, the last king of Babylon, fled 
to Borsippa, where he was shut in for three months, but then 
he gave himself up to Cyrus who treated him well. Cyrus' 
general Gobryas took Babylon and killed Belshazzar at the 
night of the great feast. Three months later Cyrus arrived 
at the city. Darius is a Persian name, and some have made 
the suggestion that Gobryas may possibly have ruled as a 
governor under that name, as 538 to '536 is too short a time 
for the rule of any of the kings known to history by the name 
of Darius. Darius I was not crowned king before 521, seven- 
teen years later. Darius the Median is unknown to the his- 

In the aforementioned book, in which. these things were 
written down, almost under the eyes of Antiochus Epiphanes, 


when he began his evil deeds in Jerusalem, it is stated that 
the book of Daniel was written 158 years after the death of 
Alexander the Great in the year B. C. 323. 

The book should according to this statement have been 
written B. C. 165. 

If Daniel had written the book himself he would in all 
probability have known the chronology. This is reason enough 
that he has not written the book that bears his name. 

As far as we can judge from the book Daniel has made 
notes of his dreams and visions. The editor of the work as 
we now have it has added certain expressions, as for instance : 
"So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius." (6:28.) 
'And over these three presidents, of whom Daniel was first." 
(6: 2.) "Then commanded 'Belshazzar, and they clothed Dan- 
iel with scarlet." (5:29.) "Now when Daniel knew." (6: 
10.) "In the first year of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, Daniel 
had a dream." (7: 1.) In his own narratives Daniel uses the 
expression, "I saw." 

The book is just as valuable, even if some other author has 
collected the manuscripts and published them. It is only the 
chronology that is misleading. 

In "The Signs of the Time" of Nov. 10, 1912, S. Mor- 
tenson writes something of the 2,300 days again. He says, 
"The first year of Darius is the same as the third of Belshaz- 
zar and the same as the vision in chapter eighth was given, 
namely B. C. 538." 

Speaking of the rebuilding of Jerusalem he says, "The next 
commandment was given by Artaxerxes who gave the order 
in writing commanding him to see it that it was obeyed. He 
went to Jerusalem and arrived there in the fifth month of the 
seventh year of the king's reign. (See Ezra 7th and 8th chap- 
ters.) This was in B. C. 457. The seventy weeks are the first 
part of the 2,300 days." 


Is it exacting too much when we ask Mr. Mortenson to 
show us in what verse of Ezra 7th and 8th chapters Ezra re- 
ceived the commandment to build up Jerusalem in B. C. 457, 
or that anything to that effect was done at that time? It is 
just as impossible as to show that the 2,300 days begin there. 
Either Mr. Mortenson or the angel Gabriel is mistaken here. 
The angel says that they shall begin at the end of the kingdom 
of Grecia. Between B. C. 176—30. (See diagram No. 1.) 
Mortenson says that they begin in B. C. 457. After I had left 
"the present truth" and read an outline of Nyquist, I saw im- 
mediately that the deeds of a person cannot commence B. C. 
457 when the person did not exist before B. C. 176. But though 
he has read my circular on Daniel's eighth chapter, he cannot 
see anything but the old falsehood, and yet he is the highest 
authority among the Swedish Adventists in America. If Mr. 
Mortenson had studied the matter from the Bible and the 
history instead of assuming U. Smith's book to be the whole 
truth, he would not need to stand as a misleader here also 
(and a great one too). 

While speaking about chronological errors I wish to say 
that it is impossible for me to find in Ezra's fourth chapter 
any accusation from Artaxerxes against the Jews compelling 
them to desist from the work. They wrote to king Artaxerxes 
in Persia that the Jews who came from him were building up 
the city, etc. Artaxerxes then sent an answer which was read 
before the people, afterwards they were hindered by force and 
power. So the work ceased unto the second year of the reign 
of Darius (I), B. C. 519. 

This accusation against them was issued B. C. 534 and 
Artaxerxes became king in 464, just seventy years later. This 
is the greatest mistake I have found in the chronology. One 
historian believes Xerxes is the one referred to, who was the 
father of Artaxerxes. But Xerxes took possession of the 


throne B. C. 485, or forty-nine years after 534. Cyrus was at 
that time king of Persia. 

Now they say that I do not believe the Bible when I point 
out this inconsistency in the chronology. Can you, dear reader, 
believe that Artaxerxes who became king B. C. 464, could be 
a contemporary with Cyrus and issue a decree to build up 
the city seventy years before? I can only say that you make 
a very poor use of your brain. The Bible ought before all 
other books endure criticism, and when a mistake has crept 
in there, one ought not to be more afraid to point out such a 
mistake than if it had been found in any other book. Let a 
fair and just criticism point out all errors till we finally get 
it correct.. 

I am more than grateful if I can get reliable information 
concerning these things, no matter whence they come. 

Medo-Persia existed till B. C. 331, when the king of Grecia, 
Alexander the Great, took possession of this land. 

What a person thinks or does in this world must take place 
somewhere between his birth and his death. What Medo- 
Persia did must occur between B. C. 558 and 331. Cyrus took 
Media in 558 and from that year the time of Medo-Persia is 
counted, though the vision is counted from the capture of 
Babylon, B. C. 538. 

The first thing Daniel saw in the vision was a ram which 
had two horns'. (Dan. 8:3.) "The ram which thou sawest 
having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia" (verse 
20). This is the explanation of the angel. The angel said to 
Daniel that what he saw in the vision had reference to the 
time of the end. (Verses 17-19.) The fulfillment of the vision 
began in the Medo-Persian empire; then the time of the end 
begins there and not 2,300 years after Medo-Persia had ceased 
to be a kingdom. 

A person has seen in a vision 300 years before the time of 


Abraham Lincoln that the negro slaves were going to receive 
their liberty. Our angel had said that the vision referred to 
the abolition of slavery in America, and that a president by 
the name of Lincoln was to set them free. If the vision was 
to be at the time of the end, then the time for the abolition 
of the slavery must be while Lincoln lived, and not 2,000 
years after he was dead. 

The same application is made in the eighth chapter of 
Daniel. But the vision shall be at the time of the end in 
Medo-Persia and not in A. D. 1798, more than two thousand 
years after the Medo-Persian empire had ceased to exist. 

If they would look a little closer, they would find out that 
there is no question of the time of the end for the world, but 
the time of the end for a number of sinful Jews whose trans- 
gressions had come to the full in the divided kingdom of 
Greece. (Dan. 8:23.) 

Those who are not blind will see immediately that the time 
of the end began when the vision was commencing to be ful- 
filled, and that it was in the Medo-Persian kingdom. Then 
they want to know what year it began. We cannot show any- 
thing above what the angel reveals. That is enough. 

Daniel saw how the ram was pushing westward, and north- 
ward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before 
him. That was the first thing he saw in the vision. Then the 
vision commenced when Medo-Persia extended her kingdom 
in these directions. She began with Babylon, Lydia, Asia 
Minor, etc. Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, was a bloodthirsty 
tyrant. He reigned between 529 and 522 and subdued Tyre, 
Cyprus, and lastly Egypt which was in the south. (Int. Cy., 
Vol. II, page 534.) 

The vision began, therefore, before Cambyses took pos- 
session of- Egypt which was B. C. 525, but cannot go further 
back than to 538. The difference between these two numbers 


is thirteen years. Under thirteen years the ram was pushing 
in different directions, as Daniel tells us. The time of the end 
began, therefore, in the Medo-Persian empire between 538 
and 525. This is the explanation given by the angel Gabriel. 
Which one is more reliable : the angel or the Adventists ? . 

There were ten kings from Cambyses till Medo-Persia is 
taken by Alexander the Great. The time was 191 years, from 
B. C. 522 to 331. 

Darius III Codomannus was the last of the Persian kings. 
He became king B. C. 336. In the spring of 334 he had his 
first battle with Alexander by the river Granicus. Another 
at Issus in Cilicia in November, 333. The third and last battle 
was fought in October, 331, at Arbela. Alexander then 
crushed both horns of the ram. Daniel saw this in a vision; 
the vision was sealed till the time of the end. This part of the 
vision, when Alexander took Medo-Persia, was not sealed 
after it had been fulfilled. No. It is not necessary to be a 
philosopher to see that the time of the end is where Alexander 
is, and that it commenced in Medo-Persia when she extended 
her kingdom in the directions the ram was pushing. And if 
was over two hundred years before she was overthrown by 

All that Daniel saw in the vision is mentioned under this 
term: "The time of the end." This time was passed when the 
whole vision had been fulfilled. The last part of the vision 
was the 2,300 days. (Dan. 8:14.) We have clearly shown 
in Dan. 8 when Alexander died. His kingdom was divided 
in four parts. From one of them should come up a little horn 
(a fierce king), and that this horn (king) was Antiochus 
Epiphanes. The same power (king) is also called the king 
in the north in the eleventh chapter. And from verse 21 to the 
end of the chapter there is no change of kings, neither in the 
north (Syria), nor in the south (Egypt). The former king 


is Antiochus Epiphanes, the latter is Ptolemy VI who was the 
nephew of Antiochus. 

If the Adventists had studied these things in the light of 
the Bible and history instead of blindly believing in Uriah 
Smith's false expositions, they never would have come in 
such a darkness and error. In the fortieth verse Napoleon 
Bonaparte is made king in the north ; then France is the king- 
dom in the north instead of Syria, which is in harmony with 
the explanation of the angel and is proved to be true according 
to the map. One may move the king and the people from one 
kingdom to another, but to move the country itself does not 
work so easily. Adventists ! Do you not see, how poorly your 
views correspond with the real facts ? 

If Napoleon was the king -in the north in verse 40, then he 
is the same king all through that chapter, because the pronoun 
is the same. Verse 41 says, "He (Napoleon) shall enter." 
Verse 42, "He (Napoleon) shall stretch forth." Verse 43, 
"He (Napoleon) shall have power." Verse 44, "But tidings 
out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him (Napo- 
lepn) : therefore shall he (Napoleon) go forth with great 
fury." "Verse 45, "And he (Napoleon) shall plant tabernacles." 
— Pastor Russell has at least retained the same person to the 
end of the chapter. 

Take your Bible and read from the fortieth verse to the 
end of the chapter, and see if there is any change of the king 
in the north in those verses, when the same pronoun is repeated 
in them all. How professor Uriah Smith could be so ignorant 
of the laws of the English language, that he first lets the 
pronoun "he" refer to Rome, then got Napoleon to be the 
king in the north, and so let the pronoun "he," referring to 
Napoleon, represent Turkey, surpasses my understanding. In 
this way Turkey is supposed to represent the king in the north 
in the forty-fifth verse. This verse speaks of the same king 


who is mentioned in the fortieth verse, whom the Adventists 
say is Napoleon. "He shall plant the tabernacles of his palace 
between the seas in the glorious holy mountain ; yet he shall 
come to his end, and none shall help him." This shall be the 
fate of the Turk shortly before the second coming of Christ, 
the Adventists say, when they in their zeal interpret the pro- 
phecies they do not understand. 

Uriah Smith says in his exposition of Dan. 11th chapter, 
"Time will soon determine this matter; and it may be but a 
few months," -etc. 

In "Daniel and Revelation" we have the exposition of Smith 
concerning these prophecies. The edition I have was published 
1887, twenty-five years ago. The forty-fifth verse they be- 
lieve applies to the Turk when he is going to be driven out of 
Europe and go to Jerusalem. That this verse was fulfilled 
B. C. 164-3, 2,051 years before Smith's book was published, 
is now to be proved. 

As there was no change of kings, neither in Syria nor 
Egypt, from the twenty-first verse to the end of the chapter, 
we are satisfied with the explanation of the Bible and history, 
and having in this manner found the truth, we are content. 

The king of the south (Ptolemy VI, the nephew of An- 
tiochus) shall push at him, the king of the north (Antiochus 
his uncle). "The king of the north shall come against him like 
a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with 
many ships, and he shall enter into the countries, and shall 
overflow and pass over. And he shall enter also into the 
glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown, but 
these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom and Moab, and 
the chief of the children of Ammon." (Verses 40, 41.) Does 
Antiochus fill the requirements of the prophecy here? If an 
Adventist were to answer, he. would say, "No, it refers to 
Rome," though it is as impossible for him to prove that Rome 


is the king in the north as to take down the sky. In verses 
30-35 is shown, how this prophecy was fulfilled when Anti- 
ochus had his wars with Egypt and took possession of the land. 
He had now Persia, Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine and Armenia. 
The tribes that were free, living on the borderline of Palestine, 
were as bitter enemies to the Jews as he was himself. That 
may have been a reason why he did not attack them. 

Antiochus took with him great riches from Egypt. The 
second time he was there he enriched* both himself and the 
soldiers. In 1 Mace. 1 : 20 we read, "And Antiochus captured 
the forts in Egypt and took away with him many things." He 
did the same in Jerusalem. From the temple he took 1800 
centner silver with him to Antioch.' (2 Mace. 5:21.) 

Verses 44 and 45, "But tidings out of the east and out of 
the north shall trouble him : therefore he shall go forth with 
great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many. And 
he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas 
in the glorious holy mountain : yet he shall come to his end, 
and none shall help him." 

Antiochus Epiphanes was in Ekbatana, the capital city of 
Media. Judas Maccabeus had made an insurrection against 
him and gained victory upon victory. Finally his treasury was 
depleted so he could not pay his soldiers ; then he traveled 
around in the provinces to plunder the temples and found 
great riches. Now he was sure he could rout the Jews and 
gathered large armies. "Then he was shocked," Rollin says, 
by rumors from the east (Persia) and from the north (Ar- 
menia). In the north Artaxias, the king of Armenia, had made 
a revolt against him, and Persia in the east had ceased to pay 
the yearly tribute. Antiochus now found himself in a dan- 
gerous dilemma. He divided his army in two parts : one he 
left to his general Lysias, with order to go and destroy the 
Jewish forces, while he placed himself at the head of the 


other army going against Armenia. He defeated Artaxias 
and when Armenia was brought to subjection, he turned his 
attention to Persia. Lysias had planned to the best of his 
ability to kill the Jews according to the command of the king; 
but it was not easily done. Lysias was defeated time and 
again by Judas Maccabeus. 

When these rumors were reported to the king he set out 
for Palestine to let the Jews feel the heavy hand of his anger. 

The prophet says, "Therefore he shall go forth with great 
fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many" (verse 44). 

When he had come to Babylon, he received fresh news 
that Lysias had lost his case, the Jews taken Jerusalem, thrown 
out his idol (the abomination of destruction), cleansed the 
temple, rebuilt the altar and restored the temple service with 
its various sacrifices. This news added to his fury. He ordered 
his driver to urge his horses as much as possible that he might 
reach Jerusalem sooner to make it a burial ground of the 
Jewish nation. But he had hardly uttered these words before 
he was seized -by a dangerous disease. His death is referred 
to in the eighth chapter, and how he was carried at last on a 
stretcher. His flesh rotted and fell off piecemeal. His body 
stank, and he became a nuisance to the whole army. Forsaken 
by God, and detested by his soldiers and others, he breathed 
his last ; and there was none to help him. 

He should plant the tabernacles of his palace between the 
seas in the glorious holy mountain. When now Antiochus 
Epiphanes, who evidently is the person spoken of in the 21st 
verse, is called the king in the north, and no other name is 
introduced to which the pronoun "he" may refer, it is im- 
possible to apply the 45th verse to. anyone else. 

He started his journey against the Jews from Ekbatana 
in Media. (2 Mace. 9:3.) Rollin says, that he went through 
Babylon. North of Media is the Caspian sea, to the south the 


Persian bay, west of Syria is Palestine and the Mediterranean 
sea. That is the sea referred to. 

A heathen by the name of Porphyry, an inveterate enemy 
to the holy writings, says that this verse must have reference 
to the expedition of Antiochus to the country on the other side 
of the Euphrates, and to his death which occurred at this 

We have now examined the eleventh chapter, verse after 
verse, and we have found the following important facts on 
which the prophecy is based : 

1. That. Daniel had no vision in this chapter. He had his 
vision before. 

2. That the mighty king spoken of in verse 3 and who 
scarcely had begun his reign before his great empire was to 
be divided into several parts, according to verse 4, is Alexan- 
der the Great, who is signified by the great horn on the fore- 
head of the goat. (Dan. 8 : 21.) 

3. That the Adventists are right, till they come to the 
14th verse. But here they make the mistake of asserting that 
the angel meant the Romans when he says that "robbers of 
thy people shall exalt themselves." The people were the Jews. 

4. That the Adventists leave the true meaning of the pro- 
phecy in the 16th verse and walk in darkness to the end of 
the chapter. 

5. The 17th verse they apply to Ptolemy XI Auletes who 
died B. C. 51, and who gave his daughter to Julius Ca?sar, a 
Roman general, the year B. C. 48, three years after his death, 
and upon this dead king they have built their prophecy in 
Daniel's eleventh chapter. But the king in the north from 
verse 13 to 20 is Antiochus III the Great who gave his daughter 
in marriage to the Egyptian king Ptolemy V in B. C. 193. 
(Verse 17.) ' 

6. That Antiochus III was succeeded by his eldest son 


Seleucus IV (verse 20), and after him came his brother An- 
tiochus Epiphanes (verse 21), and that there is no new king 
introduced till the end of the chapter. 

7. That the time of the end spoken of here began in the 
Medo-Persian empire between 538 and 525 when the prophecy 
began being fulfilled, and not in A. D. 1798, as the Adventists 
teach ; and that the explanation is destructive to their prophetic 

Please notice, Adventists, that the time given by the angel 
is the time of the end, and that this time must be when the 
vision was being fulfilled, and not in A. D. 1798. That this 
time of the end was for the sinful Jews whose transgressions 
had come to the full at the end of the divided kingdom of 
Grecia, between B. C. 176 and 30, according to the angel 
Gabriel, and that the end of the vision was the 2,300 days, a 
certain time of the furious and wicked king. (Dan. 8:23.) 
This time completed the sanctuary should be cleansed. On 
December 25, B. C. 164, the first sacrifice was offered again 
after the burnt offerings and meat offerings had been abolished 
for 1,260 evenings and mornings, three and a half years. The 
Adventists say that the time of the end is a period of forty- 
six years, from A. D. 1798 to 1844; but can you not see how 
impossible this interpretation is? Medo-Persia was the first 
country mentioned in the vision. In 538 they began to extend 
their kingdom. Alexander was in the vision. He died in 
Babylon B. C. 323. Let us subtract 323 from 538; this leaves 
215 years, and yet we have only come to the death of 
Alexander. Then we have the divided kingdom of Alexander 
and at the end of their kingdoms a fierce king should come up. 
Their kingdoms were between the death of Alexander B. C. 
323 and 30 when all the four kingdoms were subjected under 
the Roman empire. Between 323 and 30 is a period of 293 
years; the half of this number is 147 years. These 147 years 


must be added to 215, giving us a period of 362 years, which 
are covered by the vision, and still we have not come to the 
fierce king who should arise at the end of their kingdom. We 
have only come to the year B. C. 176, the middle of the time 
alloted to the four kingdoms. The vision ended in B. C. 164; 
then we must add the difference between 176 and 164 which 
is twelve to 362 and get the period of the vision to be 374 
years. The result will be the same if we subtract 164, when 
the vision ended, from 538, where it began, leaving a balance 
of 374 years. Compare this with the result the Adventists 
have reached: 1798 from 1844, or only 46 years. 

But if the Adventists can prove with the Bible, history 
and science that Alexander the Great, the first king of Greece, 
had any war with Medo-Persia after A. D. 1798, then I am 
willing to give up the contest and humbly retract "my" as- 
tounding errors. 

If the Adventists cannot do this, I hope that they, who 
boast of their honesty will stop the sale of their books on these 
subjects by which they have blinded more than a hundred 
thousand people, among those many good, upright souls, who 
in their ignorance, believe blindly without any knowledge. 

Let us see how this would look. 

8. If Napoleon fills the prophecy in the 36th verse, then 
France must be the kingdom in the north, Syria was the king- 
dom then, and now it had another name, Turkey. 

9. That Rome is not referred to in a single verse as the 
king in the north or the south. If Rome can be meant at any 
time it must be in verses 17, 18 and 19, and then it must be 
proved that the dead king Ptolemy XI had war with Caesar, 
made ' peace with him, gave him his daughter, took many 
islands, had a battle with another, turned his face toward the 
forts of his own land, stumbled and fell. 

We ask now, who has the truth here? Let us illustrate 


the 17th verse with a journey that the reader is going to take 
in my company from Chicago to Boston, via Buffalo. We 
agree perfectly on the way till we come to Buffalo, where 
you say that the train is going to switch in on another track 
and go in another direction than the one of which I think. 
We agree both that if any switching shall be done it must be 
done here, as there are no side tracks between Buffalo and 
Boston. When we arrive at Buffalo we try to find out if there 
is any other track to switch in to or not. We are then informed 
that the train will proceed in the direction I thought, and that 
there is no switching necessary. The time-table tells us what 
stations we have to pass. But you have great confidence in 
some one who does not understand the time-table and who 
has told you that you must switch in on some other track in 

I tell you, my dear friend and brother, you must not change 
track here; follow this train and you will reach Boston. I 
have heard many of the Adventists say, that Nyman is a 
heretic, I do not trust him. Nothing on my part can persuade 
you to remain on the train. You leave it and take another 
which the Adventists have pointed out and so you feel safe. 
But you may be sure that the time will come when you find 
out that you are on the wrong train and that you are not going 
to the destination you wanted. I arrive safely at Boston and 
meet the friends you are looking for. I send you a letter, and 
then you have confidence in me when you see how they have 
deceived you, who did not understand the time-table. 

In order to get Rome into the 17th verse they must prove 
that the dead king Ptolemy XI did the things that are ascribed 
to him in the beginning of the paragraph, and we know that 
a dead king cannot do these things. They have left the train 
and are on a wrong track. They say that the 45th verse is 
going to be fulfilled when the Turks shall leave Europe and 


go to Palestine, then Jesus shall return. But the prophecy 
was fulfilled B. C. 164-3, when Antiochus came to and end, 
and none did help him. 

God is willing to open the eyes of all his righteous children 
and give us his Spirit. It is amazing to see what unreasonable 
things Uriah Smith has published. The Spirit of truth which 
Jesus promised his disciples they cannot claim to have. For 
those people who have sent out so much error in the world as 
the Seventh-day Adventists have done and led many people 
astray during these seventy years of their existence, saying 
it is the present truth, must sooner or later admit that they 
are sadly mistaken, and that their guide, Mrs. Ellen G. White, 
has led them far away from the truth. < 

Would it not be better to possess the truth and fight for 
it? Your prophetic doctrine will sooner or later be pulled up 
by the root. 

A vision is not sealed before it is fulfilled. Is that hard to 
understand? A father of a family makes his will and seals 
it to the end of his life. As soon as the father is dead the time 
is come for the opening of his will; it is sealed no longer. 
His heirs would in all likelihood not wait two or three thousand 
years after his death to see what part of his property was 
coming to them; it is more probable that they would find out 
the facts as soon as possible. 

All of the eleventh chapter refers to the time of the end, 
and the time of the end is when all these things are being 
fulfilled, which was several hundred years before Christ. 

I will advise my Adventist friends to give up the conten- 
tion now, instead of later on, 


Twelfth Chapter of the Book of Daniel 

This chapter is an appendix to the eleventh chapter and shozvs 

the distress that came over Daniel's people {"thy people") 

the Jews; how Michael, one of the chief princes came 

to the aid of the righteous Jews, etc. 

I will first call the reader's attention to some extracts from 
the exposition of the twelfth chapter of Uriah Smith's book 
"Daniel and Revelation." 

His exposition of this chapter is the most marvelous con- 
glomeration of fancies a person can think of. When he is 
going to prove, or thinks he has proved anything, his argu- 
mentation rests on such windy premises as these : "The time 
of trouble of Dan. 12 : 1, is, according to the view we take, 
still future." — "Or it might have been expressed in words like 
these." — Under verse 4 he says, "The 'words' and 'book' here 
spoken of doubtless refers to." — "Many shall be purified and 
made white, and tried doubtless describes a process," etc. — 
"This period is doubtless given to show." — "From the same 
point, undoubtedly." On so tottering a foundation is he build- 
ing his expositions of the Lord's prophecies, but nevertheless, 
the Adventists have accepted his suppositions as their un- 
shakable truth, though none of them understands their real 

Listen to the beginning of Smith's commentary on this 
chapter : "The time when the king of the north shall plant the 
tabernacles of his palace in the glorious holy mountain ; or, 
in other words, when the Turk, driven from Europe, shall 
hastily make Jerusalem his temporary seat of government." 


We ask you again to study Daniel's eleventh chapter and 
try to prove, that the Egyptian king Ptolemy XI Auletes fills 
the requirements of the prophecy in the 17th verse. If you 
cannot do this, Rome is excluded from the eleventh chapter, 
and the Turk from the last verse. Who can prove that Auletes, 
who died B. C. 51, could have a war, give his daughter in 
marriage to Caesar in the year B. C. 48 ; i. e. three years after 
his death? A dead person cannot do anything on earth, even 
if he was a king during his lifetime. See the remarks on the 
previous chapter. 

Smith goes on: "Michael is Christ. Michael is called (in 
Jude 9) the archangel. This means the chief angel, or the 
head over the angels." 

It is true Michael is the chief angel ; but where is it written 
that he is the Christ, or the head over the other angels? 
Michael is called one of the chief princes in Dan. 10 : 13 — not 
the chief. 

Concerning Matth. 24 : 21 where the great tribulation is 
mentioned, Smith says,. "This tribulation, fulfilled in the op- 
pression and slaughter of the church by the papal power, is 
already past." 

What blindness ! 

The passage refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. "Then 
they which were in Judaea fled into the mountains. Let him 
which is on the housetop not come down. And woe unto them 
that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days ! 
But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on 
the Sabbath day: for then shall be great tribulation." (Verses 
16-21.) The word "then" refers to what should follow the 
events spoken of from the 14th verse, and that they should 
flee in the days that were to be shortened. (Verse 22.) 

This tribulation was fulfilled on the Jews in A. D. 70 ; and 


not against the church by papal Rbme, which arose several 
hundred years afterwards. 

Luke 21 : 22, 23 makes mention of the same days of ven- 
geance : "For these be days of vengeance. For there shall be 
great distress in the land, and wrath upon, this people." Which 
people? We assert that the days of vengeance were intended 
for the Jews A. D. 70, when Titus murdered 1,100,000 Jews, 
and this distress cannot apply to any persecution against the 
church by the papal Rome which did not yet exist. 

Smith adds that the tribulation spoken of by Matthew was 
visited upon the church, but the tribulation in Daniel 12 : 1 
was to come over all people. 

This application is wrong in both places, for the angel who 
spoke to Daniel said that the tribulation should come over the 
children of "thy" people. Daniel's people were the Jews. And 
we know that in the year 70 the distress came over the Jews. 
Adventists, will you admit that your professor is mistaken? 

Coming to the fourth verse, Smith says, "The time of the 
end, as has already been shown, commenced in 1798. As the 
book was closed up and sealed to that time .... and after that 
time knowledge shall be increased." 

Smith makes the assertion that the vision in Dan. 8 : 14 
shall be to the time of the end, that this time began A. D. 
1798 and ended A. D. 1844, a period of forty-six years from 
the beginning of the end. It is true that the vision should be 
at the time of the end, but that this time commenced 1798 and 
ended 1844, is an astounding error. 

The fulfillment of the vision began in the Medo-Persian 
empire about B. C. 538. Alexander the Great, the first king 
of Greece, was in the vision, He died B. C. 323. Subtract 
323 from 538 and. we have already a period of 215 years at 
the death of Alexander. Then we have his divided kingdom, 
counting from his death (323) to B. C. 30, or 293 years. In 


the end of that time the little horn should come up. One-half 
of 293 is 146£, say 147 years. This time must now be added 
to 215 years. This gives us a period of 362 years, from the 
time the vision commenced to the middle of the divided king- 
dom of Alexander, which was divided by his four generals. 
But we have not yet come to the time when the little horn 
should arise, for the angel says that it should arise at the end 
of their kingdom. (Dan. 8:23.) We have shown plainly 
that the little horn in Daniel's eighth chapter is the Syrian 
king Antiochus Epiphanes, who died in B. C. 164. Our period 
was 362 years, to the middle of their kingdom. 362 from 
538 brings us down to B. C. 176. The difference between 
176 and 164 is twelve years. These twelve years must also be 
added to the former time, that was 362 years, and we get the 
whole period of the vision, a time of 374 years, from B: C. 
538 to 164. The Adventists have come to the conclusion that 
the time of the vision is forty-six years, from A. D. 1798 to 
1844. There is a difference of 2,336 years between us, when 
the vision commenced, and a difference of 328 regarding the 
length of the vision from begining till end. Who is right now? 
If the Adventists can prove by history that Medo-Persia, which 
was first in the vision, extended its empire after A. D. 1798; 
that Alexander had a war with this power and took posses- 
sion of it; that Alexander died and Greece was divided in 
four kingdoms; that the little horn came up then and did the 
works ascribed to it in Daniel's 8th chapter; all this must be 
crowded into the forty-six years, from A. D. 1798 to 1844. 
The vision was at the time of the end, and these things men- 
tioned belong to the vision. The vision began 1798 and ended 
1844, according to the Adventists. Then these things must 
take place during the forty-six years. If they have -the truth 
here, it is no wonder that they warn their innocent followers 
against my propaganda. 


"The vision could understood before 1798," says 
Uriah Smith. 

Suppose that a person has had a vision several hundred 
years ago concerning the battle at Manilla Bay between Spain 
and America. Could the Spaniards not understand this vision 
before 2,129 years since Admiral Dewey had destroyed their 
fleet? The whole world knew of it a few hours after the 

Alexander captured Medo-Persia B. C. 331 through the 
battle at Arbela. Why could not the Persians understand the 
vision at that time, but have to wait 2,129 years to A. D. 1798, 
when Miller, the father of Adventism, began to advocate his 
fanciful calculations, and till Mrs. White came and supported 
his folly with her false visions ? Can you not see yet, that the 
vision began in Medo-Persia and that the time of the end was 
where the vision was being fulfilled? This time was for the 
ungodly Jews whose transgressions were full at the end of 
the kingdom of Greece. (Dan. 8:23.) 

As the reader already has noticed, the vision began to be 
fulfilled more than 500 years before Christ and not 1798 years, 
A. D. Therefore is all their following contention on the 
twelfth chapter erroneous from beginning to end. It would 
be too tedious to go into details. The 2,300 evenings and 
mornings in Dan. 8 : 14 are so many years. One time, times 
and a half time (Dan 12: 7), they say are 1,260 years. The 
1,390 days in verse 11 are years, and the 1,335 days in verse 
12 are years. All these periods are after A. D ; 1798 and 
applied to papacy with the exception of Dan. 8 : 14, that com- 
menced B. C. 457 and ended 1844 when Jesus rode in a 
carriage within the second veil in the heavenly sanctuary and 
became our high priest first in A. D. 1844. 

Their whole theory is so nauseating and implicated that 
there is not one Adventist who understands it- The preachers 


have learned the exposition of Uriah Smith by heart; but 
they do not understand what they preach, they believe blindly 
what they have read, and you cannot find a single Adventist 
who understands these various periods. They believe blindly 
in their leaders as their preachers believe in Uriah Smith 
without knowledge of real facts. 

When such people who have believed that Rome fills the 
requirements in Daniel's eleventh chapter, happen to see that 
Rome cannot come in here, because the foundation upon which 
they have built their view -in verse 17, is a dead king who 
neither could have a war nor give his daughter in marriage 
after his death, they always come with this answer, "What 
shall we do then with Daniel's twelfth chapter?" 

A thing that you do not understand does not disprove a 
fact that you do understand. 

You know with certainty that five times seven is thirty-five. 
Multiplication is nothing else than a repeated addition. If 
you place five sevens under each other, and add them together, 
you get the same result. No way of figuring that you do not 
understand can change the fact that five times seven is thirty- 
five, which you do understand. 

Antiochus Epiphanes fills the requirements of the prophecy 
in Daniel's eleventh chapter from verse 21 to the end of the 
chapter as the king in the north, and died B. C. 164 or 163, 
just as certain as five times seven is thirty-five. The proofs 
of this statement are invincible. Then we have the key right 
before us, by the aid of which we can open the first verse 
of the twelfth chapter which reads as follows: 

"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince 
which standeth for the children of thy people : and there shall 
be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a 
nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people 


shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in 
the book." 

At what time then shall Michael, the great prince, come 
up ? At the time spoken of in the end of the eleventh chapter, 
when the king in the north who is proved to be Antiochus 
Epiphanes departed this life, B. C. 164. It is accordingly this 
time when the angel Michael shall stand up that opens up for 
us the twelfth chapter. 

The Adventists write and preach that Michael here means 
Christ, and they can hardly do anything else when they believe 
that the vision was at the time of the end of the world and 
began B. C. 1798. The vision was at the time of the end of 
the ungodly Jews, whose transgressions had come to the full 
in the end of Alexander's divided kingdom, and the vision 
began in the kingdom of Medo-Persia. 

The Bible 'says that there are many angels. Thousand 
times thousand makes a million, and ten thousand times ten 
thousand is hundred millions. The angels who are sent out to 
serve those who inherit salvation have different ranks and 
offices. There are cherubim and seraphim, Gabriel, Michael, 
and archangels. In Jude, verse 9, we see that Michael is an 
archangel, but that he having contended with the devil about 
the body of Moses, did not dare to bring against him a railing 
accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. Michael, the 
archangel, left the judgment to the Lord Jesus. 

Concerning the resurrection of the dead, Paul says in 1 
Thess. 4: 16, "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven 
with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the 
trump of God." If the archangel here is Christ, the trumpet 
of God is also Christ. Myrberg says in his translation, "He 
shall give an order with the voice of the archangel." That 
is plainer. 


It is necessary to use one's judgment on these occasions or 
it is easy to be misled. 

In John 5 : 27 we read, "And hath given him authority to 
execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man." 

The 28th verse reads, "Marvel not at this : for the hour is 
coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his 
voice." The voice of Jesus, therefore, shall raise the dead. 

Michael is an angel of war, who stands by God's children 
when they are fighting for the Lord. He is always winning, 
and loses never in battle. In Dan. 10 : 13 Michael is called 
one of the chief princes, not the chief. In the 20th verse 
Michael says that he was to fight against the prince of Persia, 
and when he had gone forth the prince of Grecia should come. 
This Michael is not with us when we are fighting for error. 

As Michael is an angel of war, and Christ is coming to 
judge and fight with righteousness, then it is perfectly fitting 
that he should give his orders with the voice of the archangel 
and with the trump of God. 

Michael was to appear for the children of Daniel's people. 
For the children of "thy people," the angel said to Daniel. 
Then there should be a time of trouble, such as never was 
since there was a nation even to that same time. And at that 
time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be 
found written in the book. The words, "thy people," gives us 
all the information we need, it was concerning the people of 
Daniel, the Jews, and not the believers at the appearing of the 

Because so many have believed that Dan. 12 : 1 applies to 
the second coming of Christ, they have mixed up the verse 
with Matth. 24:21 where Jesus speaks of the destruction of 
Jerusalem. "For then shall be great tribulation, such as was 
not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor even 
shall be." The Adventists say that one tribulation was for 


God's people and the other for the world. But where is that 
written? The great time of trouble spoken of in Dan. 12:1 
which the angel mentioned when he spoke with Daniel was 
for thy (Daniel's) people. If this verse should apply to the 
believers on Christ at his second advent and Michael was 
Christ, then the angel woiild not have said "thy" people but 
Michael's people, for the angel talked not to Michael but to 

The tribulation was greater at the destruction of Jerusalem 
by Titus in A. D. 70 when one million Jews were murdered. 

In Duke 21 : 23 the same tribulation is referred to, "For 
there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this 
people." Which people? The Jews. 

So great a tribulation had not been visited before upon the 
Jews as when Antiochus Epiphanes murdered many in Jeru- 
salem between B. C. 170 and 164. But in A. D. 70 the tribula- 
tion was still greater when Titus put to death 1,100,000 Jews. 
Jesus adds in Matth. 24 : 21 that such tribulation should never 
occur again. 

Of "thy people," Daniel's people, all those should be saved 
whose names were found in the book. In what book were 
these names written ? In the sanctuary in Jerusalem were two 
books, one for the faithful and one for the ungodly Israelites. 
These books were open before God's throne and in them their 
deeds were recorded. 

When the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes broke 
out against the Jews, there were a number of Jews who had 
their names in the book of believers, but who fell away from 
Jehovah and deserted the law of God. Others were faithful 
and kept the commandments, preferring to die than to disobey 
their God. Their names were not blotted out from the book. 
Others came under the wrath of Antiochus, as for instance 


Judas Maccabeus, and others. It was those that Michael, the 
great prince, came to assist. 

In Exodus 32nd chapter we read of the golden calf which 
Aaron had made while Moses was communing with God on 
the mount. The people confessed that they had committed a 
great sin; Moses says in verse 32, "If thou wilt forgive their 
sin . . . ; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book 
which thou hast written." But the Lord is answering Moses, 
"Whosoever hath sinned against me, him I will blot out of my 
book" (verse 33). 

David asks the L,ord that he should blot the names of the 
wicked out of the books of the living, and not write them with 
the righteous. (Ps. 69:28.) 

Dr. F. W. Farrar says that there were such books open in 
the earthly sanctuary which are a symbol of those which are 
spoken of in the heavenly. 

Mention is made of the judgment in Rev. 20. John saw 
both small and great standing before God's throne, and the 
books were opened; the dead were judged out of those things 
which were written in the books, according to their works. 

If people would consider that they are their own book 
keepers and that their deeds are recorded in heaven, according- 
to which they will be judged some day, their actions would 
probably be a little different from what they often are;. May 
we think of this truth, dear reader, before it is too late. 

From Dan. 12 : 1 we have learned that Michael is a warrior 
who should defend the children of "thy people," the Jews ; 
that it was the time spoken of at the end of the previous page 
when the king in the north who was Antiochus Epiphanes was 
ending his career, which happened in 164 or 163 ; that those 
of Daniel's people were going to be saved whose names were 
not taken out of the book of the righteous which lay open in 
the sanctuary in Jerusalem. 


If we make the slightest use of our reason in reading Dan. 
12 : 1, we see without difficulty that there is no question of 
any other people than the Jews, the people of Daniel. He was 
one of them, and prayed so earnestly for them. It is natural 
that God should let him know the destiny of the people he was 
praying for, and not the people living at the time of the end 
of the world. 

"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth 
shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and 
everlasting contempt" (verse 2). 

Before this verse many learned theologians have stopped 
and made many and various explanations, and it is not easy to 
understand together with other passages dealing with the same 
subject. But as we said before, a thing that we do not under- 
stand does not disprove what we do understand. It is possible 
that this verse is not correctly translated, or it may have a 
double meaning. The whole twelfth chapter belongs to the 
same time as the eighth and the eleventh chapters. 

Many of them that sleep in the dust shall awake — not all. 
When Jesus returns the second time all the believers shall 
arise in the first resurrection, then this verse does not fit. 
Others believe that it was fulfilled when Jesus died upon the 
cross, "And the graves were opened ; and many bodies of the 
saints which slept arose." (Matth. 27:52.) 

But those spoken of in Dan. 12 : 2 arose, some to ever- 
lasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 

In Matth. 27 : 52 there is no mention of unbelievers who 
arose at the death of Christ. 

Dan. 12 : 2 does not seem to agree with the happenings at 
the death of Christ. It does not fit the second coming of Jesus, 
for then all believers who have died in Christ shall arise ; but 
the unbelievers after the thousand years. (Rev. 20:5.) It 
does not fit after the thousand years. It is standing alone and 


does not harmonize with other passages that deal with this 
subject. The verse must in the first place fit the Jews at the 
time which is spoken of in the end of the eleventh chapter 
and at the same time that is referred to in 12 : 1. But it does 
not seem to fit anywhere, we must therefore leave it as it is 
and not try to make any application of it. The learned 
scholars who specialize in the Biblical exegesis may find its 
proper place at last. 

"And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of 
the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness, as 
the stars for ever and ever" (verse 3). 

The vision in the eighth chapter is the guiding star even in 
the twelfth chapter and began to be fulfilled several hundred 
years before Christ and not A. D. 1798. Therefore the ex- 
position given by the Adventists is erroneous, because their 
foundation is false. To follow all the avenues the Adventists 
have gone to find support for their views is both for my 
readers and myself too tiresome. I shall therefore make the 
synopsis as short as possible. 

There is no doubt that the third verse applies to the Jews 
when the vision was being fulfilled, but it may also be ap- 
plied to the second coming of Jesus, for such references are 

Antiochus sent his general with 22,000 men to Jerusalem 
B. C. 167 with order to kill every Jew. Many escaped his 
anger, however. He tried with flatteries to persuade many 
to apostate. "But the people that do know their God shall 
be strong." (Dan. 11: 32.) "And they that understand among 
the people shall instruct many." (Verse 33.) Judas Maccabeus 
with his army with which he recaptured Jerusalem instructed 
many during the time Antiochus raged against the Jews. They 
that had understanding taught them righteousness, exhorted 
them under all circumstances to obey God, and not allow 


anything to seduce them to apostacy which happened with 
many of them during this time. 

When the vision was fulfilled, and Antiochus was dead, 
then these shone as stars who had during this critical period 
of six years instructed many to righteousness, recaptured the 
holy city, and restored the true worship of Jehovah. 

"But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, 
even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and 
knowledge shall be increased" (verse 4). 

Daniel is exhorted to seal the book to the time of the end. 
The Adventists say that this time of the end is the same as 
in Daniel's eight chapter. That is absolutely correct. The 
end of the vision as well as that of the time was the 2,300 
evenings and mornings (Dan. 8:14, 26), which is clearly 
'demonstrated in our exposition of Dan. eighth chapter, and 
which ended B. C. 164 or 163 when Antiochus died and 
justice was done the sanctuary through the restoration of 
divine service. 

"Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other 
two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the 
other on that side of the bank of the river. And one of them 
said to the man clothed in linen and who stood upon the 
waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these 
wonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was 
upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand 
and his left hand unto heaven, and swore by him that liveth 
for ever, that it shall be for a time, times and a half; and 
when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the 
holy people, all these things shall be finished" (verses 5-7). 

To the question, "How long shall it be to the end of these 
wonders?" the answer is, "It shall be for a time, times and a 
half ; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power 
of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." Times is 


plural, meaning two years. The whole time, three and a half 
years. The Adventists say that this is prophetic time, i. e. 
every year of 360 days is so many years. 360 times three 
are 1,080 years, plus a half time (180 years), total 1,260 years. 
This calculation is not correct according to the chronology 
in Daniel's book. One time in his book is everywhere one 
year. Nebuchadnezzar was in the wilderness seven times, 
seven years. If now one time in Dan. 4:20 is a year, how 
can it then in 12 : 7 be 360 years ? 

Let the laws of the English language designate one year 
with the term a time. The reader goes to France seven times, 
seven ordinary years. Afterwards you go to Russia three 
and a half times, but here it means 1,260 years. Is there any 
sense in this way of speaking? But that is the way the Ad- 
ventists have to reason in order to make all ends meet. 

In one place it means a year, in another it means 360 years. 
If it is prophetic time in Dan. 12 : 7, it is also prophetic time 
in Dan. 4 : 20. Seven times, prophetic time, are Seven times 
360, making 2,520 years. 

Nebuchadnezzar could not have been in the wilderness 
that long. His hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and 
his nails like birds claws in seven years. (Dan. 4:30.) Let 
us suppose that an eagle's feather is three feet, then his hair 
was three feet in seven years. Therefore if the growth was 
uniform it would be 1,080 feet in that time. His hair and 
beard had been so long that he had tangled himself up among 
the trees. The chronology in our English Bibles is the same 
as that of former times. A time corresponds to a year, a day 
to a year, a day of an evening and a morning was twenty-four 
hours; a week seven years, a week of evenings and morn- 
ings an astronomical week of one hundred and sixty-eight 
hours. Such time as the Adventists speak of does not exist. 
They say that you must judge from the context what is best 


suited for your theory, i. e. so that the message will hang 
together, that's all. 

"At the end of twelve months he walked in the palace of 
the kingdom of Babylon." (Dan. 4:29.) Why not say that 
this also is prophetic time, viz., 360 years? He is becoming 
too old already. 

"In those days I Daniel was mourning three full weeks." 
(Dan. 10:2.) As twelve months are a year, so three weeks 
are twenty-one days. If it was prophetic time, Daniel had not 
had any "pleasant bread" for twenty-one years. "But the 
prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty 
days." (Dan. 10:13.) 

If the translators had used the expression evenings and 
mornings where rnonths, weeks and days are meant, many mis- 
takes had been precluded. 

When astronomical days of twenty-four hours are meant 
they have made it so plain that we should understand them 
literally. But in Dan. 8 : 14 they have in some translations 
rendered it evenings and mornings. 2,300 evenings and morn- 
ings are six years, four months and twenty days. 

Daniel should seal the writing to the time of the end. 
(Verse 4.) "After a time, times, and a half; and when he 
shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy 
people, all these things shall be finished" (verse 7). This time 
is three and a half ordinary years. The first time Antiochus 
was in Jerusalem (B. C. 170) he murdered 80,000 Jews, burnt 
a part of the city and brought the most valuable things with 
him to Syria. Their power was not crushed, for the remain- 
ing part of the Jews continued to exercise political power and 
supported the temple service. But in B^ C. 167, when he had 
sent Apollonius there, all their power was broken, morning 
and evening sacrifices were abolished. Antiochus gave an 
order that all his subjects should worship his god, and he who 


disobeyed this command should be put to death. On the same 
place where the Lord's altar had been standing Antiochus 
built a fortress for his idol. This idol is called in the Bible 
the abomination of desolation and was put up in the year 145 
on the fifteenth day, in the ninth month. (1 Mace. 1:57.) 
This was Syrian time. They counted their time from B. C. 
312. We must subtract 145 from 312 to get our time, which 
is B. C. 167. Dr. Farrar says that Antiochus was in Jerusalem 
in June, B. C. 167. The sacrifice was cast down, but it re- 
quired the time from June to December, which was their ninth 
month, to build the fortress for their idol. Then the abomin- 
ation of desolation stood in the holy place, and Jesus predicts 
in Matth. 24 : 15 that similar abominations should be repeated 
at the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70. 

When Apollonius made his attack upon the city on a Sab- 
bath day, Judas Maccabeus and his nine brothers escaped. 
.(2 Mace. 5:27.) 

Not long after this the king sent an old man of Antioch 
that he should force the Jews to fall away from the law of 
their fathers and keep God's law no longer. (2 Mace. 6:1.) 
They put up his idol in several places, and in December 15, 
B. C. 167, it was placed in Jerusalem. Woe to him who dared 
to worship any other god if he fell in the hands of the king! 
By studying the books of the Maccabees the reader will obtain 
a clear view of the conditions. Here is the man who cast down 
holidays and laws. 

"And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my 
Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, 
Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed 
till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made 
white, and tried : but the wicked shall do wickedly : and none 
of the wicked shall understand ; but the wise shall understand." 
(Dan. -2:8-10.) 


From the time Daniel had the vision and to the time of the 
end was a period of more than 350 years. It was a trying 
time for the Jews who did not deny their God. They were 
purified, made white, and tried. They were said to have un- 
derstanding who did understand the vision. 

The Adventists imagine that they are the wise people who 
understand the vision, though they are as ignorant of its 
true meaning as I am of the Chinese language. Knowledge 
should increase at the time of the end. The Adventists have 
published a book, showing how many inventions have been 
made these last years and that these apply to the prophecy 
in question. That our times have witnessed a marvelous growth 
in this respect no one can deny; but it is only the knowledge 
of the vision which should increase, and it was great also at 
the time, although it has been obscured in latter years. All 
we need to understand is that the time of the end is where the 
vision is fulfilled. Then we can proceed correctly and under- 
stand that the time had reference to the Jews before Christ, 
and not 2,000 years after Christ. 

In the third year of Cyrus Daniel had a vision. The angel 
said to Daniel, "Now I am come to make thee understand 
what shall befall thy people in the latter days; for yet the 
vision is for many days." (Dan. 10:14.) This vision also 
speaks of wars. Persia and Greece are the leading nations. 
(Verse 20.) The angel says, "And there is none that holdeth 
with me in these things, but Michael, your prince." The 
vision referred to "thy people" (Daniel's people, the Jews), in 
many days to come. When the vision was being fulfilled in 
the future and these days were when Persia and Greece had 
a national existence, a person must be blind if he tries to show 
that these things were fulfilled after A. D. 1798 and is warning 
his members for Satan when one is endeavoring by God's 


grace and true knowledge to show them that they are on a 
wrong track. 

"And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken 
away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there 
shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed 
is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred 
and five and thirty days." (Dan. 12: 11, 12.) 

The sanctuary should be cleansed after the 2,300 days. 
(Dan. 8:14.) This happened on December 25, B. C. 167, 
when the first sacrifice was offered since the sacrificial service 
had been turned down for three and a half years. 

If we count backward from December 25, B. C. 164, to 
December 25, B. C. 167, we get three years; counting six 
months from December 25, 167, to June 25, 167, we come to 
the month of June. This corresponds with history and the 
Books of the Maccabees and Dan. 12 : 7. But verse twelve has 
it 1,290 days. Three and a half years are 1,260 days, or thirty 
days less than 1,290. Verses seven and twelve contradict one 
another if we do not find out the real meaning. The Jewish 
year is 360 days. But the astronomical year is 365 days, five 
hours, forty-eight minutes, and forty-eight seconds. This 
causes an extra month every fifth year. When the angel 
expressed the time in years it was three and a half years. But 
when there was a question of exact days he says 1,290, just 
thirty days more, as an extra month was added to the year. 
Our leap year is an illustration of this additional month. 
"Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three 
hundred and five and thirty days" (verse 12). 1,290 days are 
forty-five less than 1,335. Antiochus had determined to put 
to death every man in Palestine, and to send another class of 
people to inhabit the same. Although the Jews were victorious 
in the battles against the king, capturing Jerusalem and other 
points, they were not happy or secure before forty-five days 


later, and why? Yes, Antiochus died. The Jews had had a 
terrible experience during these six and a half years. But 
blessed was he who persevered in his faith. Their joy was 
great when they gathered in the holy place again. The bless- 
ing was considerably greater when they heard that he who had 
murdered so many, sold their wives and children, cast down 
their sanctuary, abolished the evening and morning sacrifices, 
was dead at last; it was a time of general rejoicing among the 
Jews. The death of Antiochus occurred in February, B. C. 
163. The majority of the historians say that Antiochus died 
in B. C. 164, probably because it occurred so early in the 
year 163. 

Finally the angel says to Daniel, "But go thou away till 
the end be : for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the 
end of days" (verse 13). 

The strongest support for the doctrine of Christ's return 
was the 2,300 days, Mrs. White says. This time of the end N 
was when she saw Jesus riding in a flaming carriage within 
the veil, becoming our high priest then, although the holy 
scriptures teach us that he became that since he had gained 
for us everlasting salvation. When Jesus began his mediator- 
ial office in 1844 the investigative judgment also commenced. 
This is their most important doctrine. 

Uriah Smith says in "Daniel and Revelation" (page 394), 
"How did Daniel at that time stand in his lot? Answer: In 
the person of his advocate, our great high priest, as he presents 
the cases of the righteous for acceptance to his Father. And 
when Daniel's case comes up for examination, he is found 
righteous, stands in his lot, is assigned a place in the heavenly 

A person who does not know the truth will have to use 
all kinds of speculations to make out his case. 

It is said that Daniel should arise. But he did not arise 


1844, even if the 2,300 days had ended then. Jesus began to 
cleanse the sanctuary in A. D. 1844, according to the Adven- 
tists. ' It was the same sanctuary which was to be cleansed 
after the 2,300 days that was cast down at this time. Who 
had cast down or defiled the heavenly sanctuary? The best 
advice I can give you, Adventists, is to cleanse your own pro- 
phecies. God is abundantly able to take care of his sanctuary 
in heaven and keep it pure. 

Although Daniel was a holy and good man he will have to 
wait for his resurrection till the time when all other worthy 
ones are going to rise at the first resurrection. If the end of 
the days had any reference to the 2,300 days, this verse would 
come in conflict with the second coming of Christ everywhere. 

In our study of Daniel's twelfth chapter we have found 
the following facts : 

1. That the time of the end is the same time that is 
spoken of in Daniel's eighth chapter and is the guiding star. 

2. That the time when Michael should stand up (verse 1) 
was when Antiochus Epiphanes came to his end, B. C. 163. 

3. That Michael is a fighting angel, one of the foremost 
princes. Not the chief. (Dan. 10:13.) 

4. When the angel spoke to Daniel he said "thy people." 
The people of Daniel were the Jews, and cannot be applied 
to the believers at the second coming of Christ. 

5. That the time of the end is where the vision is fulfilled, 
and that the vision began to be fulfilled in the Medo-Persian 
empire and ended with the 2,300 days in B. C. 164, when the 
sanctuary was cleansed by restoration of sacrifices and temple, 
service in Jerusalem, which had been cast down for three and 
a half years. 

6. That the vision occupied a period of 374 years from 
B. C. 538 to 164, and not from A. D. 1798 to 1844, a period 
of forty-six years. 


7. That the vision did not end in 1844, that Jesus did not 
commence his mediatorial office then, neither did Daniel stand 
in his lot at that time by being assigned a place in the heavenly 
Canaan. Daniel will have his part at the glorious appearing 
of our Lord, when all the faithful shall receive their reward. 

It is very easy to see that Daniel's twelfth chapter was- 
fulfilled, when the vision was fulfilled, that it was during the 
time of the Jews, and that the vision did not extend beyond 
B. C. 164, when the temple was cleansed and Antiochus Epi- 
phanes died. 

As it has been proved that the first verse refers to the last 
verse of the eleventh chapter, and that the whole twelfth 
chapter is dealing with the Jews, it is reasonable to infer that 
the second verse also belongs to the same period and the same 
people, though it is very difficult to understand in its present 
form. I will nevertheless say what I believe in regard to this 
difficult passage. But please note that this is only what I 
believe, without pretending to know with certainty. If the 
dust of the earth here may be taken in a figurative sense, it 
can be taken as indicating the spiritual condition of the Jews 
when the persecution broke out against them. They were 
sleeping in their sins in the dust, in their worldly cares, but 
now they woke up. Some rallied to the Lord's side and fought 
for the principles of righteousness. These awoke to ever- 
lasting life. Others fell victims to the abominations of An- 
tiochus, those awoke to shame and everlasting contempt. The 
verse may have a double meaning. Anyone can make mis- 
takes in his efforts to interpret this difficult chapter. Many 
translators and learned commentators have given it up in 
despair, but I hope the reader has received some help or sug- 
gestions from perusing the views I have aimed to bring forth. 


The Seventy Weeks in Dan. 9: 24-27 

A week in Daniel's chronology was seven years. Seventy 

weeks are accordingly four hundred and ninety years. 

When did this period begin and when did it end? Who 

is the Messiah who was put to death after the sixty-tzvo 

weeks?. And who is the prince who sent his people 

to destroy the city of Jerusalem and the sanctuary, 

and caused the sacrifice and the oblation to cease 

for a half week {three and a half years)? 

The seventy weeks offer few difficulties for the one who 
has studied and understands Daniel's 8th, 11th, and 12th 

A week in Daniel's chronology is seven years. All the 
commentaries I have consulted are agreed that seventy weeks 
stand for a period of 490 years, which is correct. 

Since Daniel had been in the captivity sixty-eight years he 
found in the prophet Jeremiah that the time for their cap- 
tivity was to last seventy years. (Dan. 9: 2.) Then he went 
to the Lord in prayer. His prayer can be read in the ninth 
chapter from verse 4 to 19. In verses 16 and 17 the petition 
is found that Daniel lay before God, that he should have mercy 
upon the people, upon the city, and upon the sanctuary, for 
his name's sake. While he was praying the angel Gabriel 
came to him saying, "At the beginning of thy supplications 
the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee : 
for thou art greatly beloved : therefore understand the matter, 
and consider the vision" (verse 23). 

The Adventists assert both in speech and writing that 


Daniel prayed for and received an explanation of the vision 
which he had had in the eighth chapter. But Daniel did not 
ask for an explanation of the vision in the eighth chapter. 
It is not true. They think so because the angel said that 
seventy weeks are cut off, and say that there is no other time 
to cut off time from than the 2,300 evenings and mornings. 
(Dan. 8: 14.) The 2,300 days are a certain measure and the 
seventy weeks are another measure. No one can cut anything 
off from a measure, as it is a measure by which one is measur- 
ing, and that must not be shortened. There is no other line 
from which to cut off time than the only line which is caused 
by the revolution of the earth around the sun and around its 
axis. Both of the above mentioned periods shall be cut off 
from the general time. Here they have themselves destroyed 
their prophetic message though they do not know it. 

It is of small importance to know when Daniel had the 
vision. The vision itself and when it was fulfilled interests 
us more. 

The interpretation which the Adventists give of the seventy 
weeks or 490 years is briefly this. The 2,300 days and the 
490 years begin both B. C. 457, and that the 490 years must 
be cut off from the 2,300 evenings and mornings. Both these 
numbers are a measure and must not be shortened. 

Here are two legs upon which their doctrine rests. The 
number 2,300, which they say shall begin in the year B. C. 
457 and the 490 years must begin simultaneously. The angel 
has shown us in Daniel's eighth chapter, that the 2,300 
evenings and mornings shall come after B. C. 176 ; the Ad- 
ventists have gone back nearly 300 years beyond that date. 
Here one of the legs is pushed away by the word of the Lord. 
We are soon going to take away the other crutch, upon which 
they rest their opinions when they say that the 490 years begin 
in B. C. 457. . - 





The words of the angel to Daniel are these, "Seventy 
weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy 
city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, 
and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in ever- 
lasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, 
and to anoint the most Holy" (verse 24). 

The 490 years must be cut off from the time arising from 
the revolution of the earth around the sun and its axis. You 
may just as well tell a scientist that a crooked line is the 
shortest distance between two points, as to say that you can 
cut off a certain measure from any other line than the common 
astronomical time. 

If this be so, then the 490 years must be cut off from the 
time arising from the revolution of the earth around its axis 
and around the sun. 

The important question next is, "Where shall the 490 years 
begin or end ?" If we find out where they begin, we count so 
many years forward, and vice versa. 

One thing shall be fulfilled in the beginning of the 490 
years: The commandment to restore and build Jerusalem is 
going forth then. (Dan. 9: 25.) And six things shall be ful- 
filled at the end of this period: 

1. A limit shall be set for the transgression. 

2. Sins will have an end. 

3. Reconciliation made for iniquity. 

4. Everlasting righteousness brought forth. 

5. The vision of prophecy sealed. 
6: The Most Holy be anointed. 

When did now these seventy weeks, the 490 years, begin 


at the beginning of which the commandment of the restora- 
tion of Jerusalem went forth and at the close of which these 
above six events took place? This is the scope of pur study. 

If the reader wishes to have a thorough understanding of 
. the subject let him study diagram No. 5. 

Those who have written on this subject have begun their 
calculations at various times: B. C. 536, 519, 457, 454 and 444. 

The Adventists say that it is "one" message, thereby mean- 
ing that the beginning can be anywhere between B. C. 536 and 
444. There is a difference of 92 years between 536 and 444. 
The word of the Lord says that the seventy weeks shall begin 
at the time the commandment of the restoration of Jerusalem 
went forth, not from those "times." The time of the angel 
cannot be counted from more than one starting point. There- 
fore only one can be right of those who have started from 
five various points. 

The yardstick is the 490 years which shall be laid alongside 
the general time upon which all time is computed. 

In the 25th verse we read of a Messiah, an anointed prince. 
It has been thought from the days of Martin Luther that he 
was Christ. The translators of the Bible are probably re- 
sponsible for this mistake. The latter translations have cor- 
rected the previous misunderstanding. 


Let us suppose that the government in Washington de- 
cided in 1887 to build a new Custom house in New York city. 
The house shall be erected between 1897 and 1913, a period of 
sixteen years. The president who was inaugurated in 1897 
should see to it that the foundation was laid. Wm. McKinley 
became president that year. He issued an order that the foun- 
dation should be laid. Theodore Roosevelt, his successor, had 


to continue the work according to the decision of 1887. Wm. 
Taft succeeded Roosevelt. The decision of the government 
was that the president whose term expired 1913, should have 
finished the house. 

The house was built and finished by the order of Presidents 
William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt and William H. Taft. 

Here is the question that gives us the solution of the whole 
matter : 

Is it possible that President Taft, who was elected 1909- 
and who was to finish the work, could make an order to lay 
the foundation of the house twelve years before he became 

We say that it is absolutely impossible. If we admit the' 
order was given after McKinley then we exclude him and the 

The Persian king Cyrus gave permission to the Jews, B. C. 
536, to return to Jerusalem in order to build the temple and 
the city. If we count the 490 years from B.C. 536 they end 
in B. C. 46 and Messiah is excluded. If the 490 years begin 
B. C. 536 the six events mentioned before should happen in 
the year B. C. 46 viz. a limit should be set for the transgres- 
sion, sins should have an end, reconciliation being made for 
iniquity, everlasting righteousness brought forth, the vision of 
prophecy was sealed and the Most Holy anointed. (Verse 24.) 
Nothing of the kind can be proved to have taken place in B. C. 
46. We must not, therefore, begin the 490 years in B. C. 536. 

Was nothing accomplished then by Cyrus, some one asks. 
Yes, they began building up the desolate city and laid the 
foundation to the temple. But then they were forbidden to 
proceed with this work in 534 and no progress was made till 
the second year of King Darius, B. C. 519, a period of fifteen 


If we count the 490 years from 519 we are brought down 
to B. C. 29, and Messiah is left out again. 

The third starting point, the one the Adventists adhere to, 
is B. C. 457 in the seventh year of the Persian King 
Artaxerxes I, according to Ezra's seventh chapter. But to 
the humiliation of the Adventists and their manner of reading 
the Bible there is not one word in Ezra's seventh chapter say- 
ing that Ezra received any commandment in B. C. 457 to build 
either city or temple. This is the second leg upon which the 
Adventist doctrine rests. A veritable falsehood. Ezra was 
ordered to go to Jerusalem in religious affairs, as to beautify 
the temple and its service and teach the law to the people. 
For this purpose he received an escort of priests, and Levites, 
and singers, and porters, and Nethinim. Was he sent to build ? 
There is not a word to that effect in Ezra's seventh chapter. 
Let the Adventists sit down and study their lesson again. It 
is stated in Ezra 7 : 14 that he was sent by the king and his 
seven counsellors, to inquire concerning Judah and Jerusa- 
lem, according to the law of God, which was in his hand. 

On the 2 :d of February, 1912, I offered through the "Chi- 
cago Record-Herald" to the first Adventist, who could show 
me in what verse of Ezra's 7th chapter it is written that Ezra 
received a commandment to build Jerusalem, a ticket to the 
Olympian Games in Stockholm. Other papers copied this 
offer. At the same time I wrote to several Adventist papers 
in the country asking them to show me the verse in Ezra's 7th 
chapter which says that Ezra was ordered to build up Jerusa- 
lem in B. C. 457. Some were foolish enough to refer to the 
old falsehood that it is recorded in Ezra 7 : 8. Let us read this 
passage then, "And he came to Jerusalem in the fifth month, 
which was in the seventh year of the king." Can any one 
come to the conclusion from reading this that Ezra should 
build up Jerusalem? We know that Ezra came to Jerusalem 


B. C. 457. The seventy weeks must be counted from the time 
the word went forth to build Jerusalem according to the 
words of the angel. But there is a vast difference between 
coming to a city and building up a city. 

The Seventh-day Adventists publish a paper in Washing- 
ton, D. C, called "The Review and Herald." This paper had 
a long article in the issue of February 22, 1912, with reference 
to my promise in the Chicago papers. The writer, W. W. 
Prescott, said that the 2,300 evenings and mornings in Dan. 
8 : 14 are years, and that those as well as the seventy weeks 
must begin B. C. 457. That was the whole content of his 
argument. If I had believed him blindly without knowledge 
whether it is so or not, I had, of course, been a good Ad- 
ventist, but now I am considered a satanic adversary, who is 
not willing to believe the truth. It is easy to make assertions 
when one is not compelled to prove the statements. 

I wrote to Mr. Prescott asking him to show upon what 
ground he said that the 2,300 days and the seventy weeks 
commenced at B. C. 457. He referred me to their various 
publications where the subject is clearly stated. But I am only 
too well acquainted with their fantastic literature. 

The only one, who has given a correct answer to my ques- 
tion regarding the alleged commandment in Ezra, that he 
should build up Jerusalem, is the assistant editor of the above 
publication, Mr. C. M. Snow. He writes, "There is no com- 
mandment in Ezra seventh chapter in so many words, that he 
should build up Jerusalem." Then he adds that the com- 
mandment takes in the temple also, and if the years' do not 
begin there, there will be a missing link in the great prophecy. 

The whole prophetic folly by which they have deluded 
more than 100,000 people rests therefore on the assertion that 
Artaxerxes commanded Ezra in B. C. 457 to build up Jeru- 
salem. If they cannot prove the statement they have for 


seventy years been deluded and have led many people astray. 
My question is what is written in Ezra's seventh chapter and 
not in the Adventist books where they think all the treasures 
of wisdom are hidden. 

An Adventist woman who had heard me lecture on this 
subject came to my home and asked me. to get a Bible so that 
she could read herself in Ezra seventh, and see if Jerusalem 
should be built up at that time. Having read through the 
chapter she said, "It is not there, and let him be right who is 
right." This was from a woman. If it had been one of their 
preachers he had, no doubt, found some way' out of the dilem- 
ma by falsifying the plainest facts; for it must be there, other- 
wise our whole blessed doctrine crumbles to dust, and think 
of what shame that would be for our wonderful prophetess 
and for "the present truth!" 

One of their preachers who found that the doctrine of 
Jesus becoming our high priest first in 1844 was false left 
them, because he saw that their system was tottering on that 
mistake alone. He said to me that he really had believed that 
the word concerning the building up Jerusalem had gone 
forth in B. C. 457 ; but he admits now that no one can go 
against my exposition who is not totally blind. 

Another Swedish preacher, Henry Johnson, has published 
six maps on the prophecies. I sent for them and am prepared- 
to say that their typographical make-up is beautiful but their 
contents are erroneous from beginning to end, because the 
foundation is wrong, though he does not understand how 
terribly weak it is. 

He begins with the 2,300 evenings and mornings and the 
seventy weeks, counting them from B. C. 457, when according 
to Ezra 7: 7 the commandment went forth that the City of 
Jerusalem should be restored. "And there went up some of 
the children of Israel, and of the priests, and the Levites, and 


the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinim, unto Jerusa- 
lem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes the king." Is there 
anything said in this verse about building? 

The people mentioned were set apart for the temple ser- 
vice. If they had come to build up a ruined city, the verse 
had read something like this: "Architects, contractors, car- 
penters, builders, brickmasons, stonecutters, ironworkers, cop- 
per- and tinsmiths, hodcarriers" etc. 

We ask Henry Johnson to examine Ezra 7:7a little more 
closely. If you have held-such opinions heretofore, God may 
have pity on you on account of the times of ignorance, but 
do not sell any more of those maps, for they are incorrect 
and misleading from beginning to end. Do not despise a 
word of admonition. We wish you only well. 

When a person does not understand the starting point, 
even if it looks good at first sight, the whole argument will 
be false. 

Two persons received respectively 15/16 of 208 dollars 
and 9/13 of 221 dollars. To this sum are added seventy-five 
dollars. Before they were allowed to divide the rest between 
themselves they had to pay a bill of 188 dollars. How much 
did each one receive ? 

One should think that 15/16 of 208 are sixty-eight dollars 
and 9/13 of 221 are fifty-five dollars. Total 123 dollars, plus 
seventy-five dollars equals 198 dollars. The bill should first 
be paid which is- 188 dollars, leaving a balance of ten dollars. 
These ten dollars shall now be divided between the two men 
and therefore they get five dollars each. 

If we add seventy-five dollars to 123 dollars, does that not 
make 198? Do you see how it agrees with facts? If we pay 
our bill of 188 dollars, are there not ten dollars left? This 
is true. If we divide equally the ten dollars between two 
persons, everyone knows that each gets five dollars. 


This is the whole truth and he who cannot see this is in- 
capable of reasoning. We are the only Church of Christ who 
has a prophetess and she has proved by her visions that we 
have the truth. "Believe your prophets," says the word of 
God, "and you shall succeed." As many as can see the truth 
in our calculations, please raise your hand. Nearly all with 
the exception of Nyman and some others who have left the 
truth do not believe their calculations raise one hand. We 
warn you against Nyman and others who say that they have 
figured out the numbers and found that we are wrong from 
beginning to end. Do not listen to them, they are the agents 
of the Devil and we should have nothing to do with them. 
They are under the severe judgment of God, because they 
want to destroy the firm prophetical word. If there come 
any circulars to you, don't read them; throw them into the 
stove ! He who has read our writings knows how well every- 
thing harmonizes. It was ten dollars at last which should be 
divided between the two persons, and when they received this 
money they felt satisfied and said it was right, and you may 
be sure that God does not bless any heresy. 

This is another application that is damaging to their 

The two persons who received five dollars each could 
probably use the four rules of arithmetic, but they did not 
understand multiplication of fractions ; therefore, they believed 
without knowledge that their calculation was correct. 

But just what they did not know was the cause 
of their mistake, namely 15/16 of 208 and 9/13 of 221. 
15/16 of 208 is not 68. Divide 208 by 16 and the quotient is 
13. When 1/13 of 208 is 13, how much is 15/16. It must 
be 15 times 13 which equals 195 and not 68. How much is 
9/13 of 221 ? Divide 221 by 13 and the quotient is 17. When 
1/13 of 221 equals 17, then 9/13 must be 9 times 17, or 153, 


and not 55. 195 plus 153 equals 348; plus 75 equals 423 dol- 
lars. The bill of 188 dollars must now be subtracted from 423 
dollars and we get a difference of 235 dollars, which shall be 
divided between the two persons, leaving- an amount of 117 
dollars and 50 cents to each. 

So it is with the message of the Adventists and Henry 
Johnson's prophetical charts. When one is using Ezra's 7 : 7 
as a starting point for a prophecy, and says that a command- 
ment went forth to .build up Jerusalem, the foundation of such 
a prophecy is false, yes a falsehood, no matter how strong 
faith you have in your doctrines. 

When the Adventists happen to see that it is not written in 
Ezra 7 : 7 that a commandment went forth to build up Jeru- 
salem, they say that the temple, as well as the city, are in- 
cluded in the message, and that Ezra built the temple. We 
ask, where is it written? 

The temple was dedicated in the sixth year of the King 
Darius. Darius became king of Persia B. C. 521. The sixth 
year of his reign was B. C. 515. (Ezra 6: 15.) 

Ezra came to Jerusalem B. C. 457, and issued an order to 
build" the temple which was dedicated in 515, just fifty-eight 
years before Ezra came there. 

Is there any reason in assertions like these? People ought 
to be ashamed to call such nonsense "the present truth;" it is 
in, fact a seventy year old error upon which your whole system 
is based. 

"Tidens Tecken och Sions Vaktare" (The Signs of the 
Times and Zion's Watchman) is the official organ of the 
Swedish Seventh-day Adventists. In its number for July 23, 
1912, there was an article under the heading, "The Sanctuary," 
translated from the American paper, "The Signs." The 
article begins like this, "The order that was issued by the 


Persian king to restore and rebuild Jerusalem with its temple 
may be found in the seventh chapter of Ezra." 

Is it possible that Ezra could issue an order to restore the 
temple in B. C. 457, when it was dedicated 515, or fifty-eight 
years before Ezra arrived at Jerusalem? 

On this point rests their prophetic message. They must 
distort the Tacts in order to retain their pet hobby. 

Adventist leaders, will you admit that you have sent out a 
falsehood to your ignorant people who don't know history 
but believe blindly what they read in the papers? If you are 
honest and sincere, recall this falsehood. Your message truly 
falls to the ground ; but it is better than deceiving people, and 
at last to stand with shame before the face of God. 

If an Adventist dies believing in their message, then he 
dies in the faith of "the present truth." But in reality he dies 
believing in the error that came up in 1844.. If he has lived 
a righteous life we don't believe by any means that he is lost, 
but their death notices would read a great deal better, if they 
could say that he died in the faith in Christ and not in such 

Ezra beautified the house of God and improved the temple 
service. But there is a vast difference between building a new 
temple or beautifying an old one that was built fifty-eight 
years previously! 

There is not" a trace in Ezra's seventh chapter of any 
people that Ezra brought with him for building purposes, 
neither that he had with him a cent for the building ; he did not 
buy as much as a brick nor a foot of lumber ; not that he filled 
a crevice in the wall nor that he hung a door on the hinges 
before. thirteen years afterwards. (Neh. 2: 1.) 

The Adventists have fortunately no patent on the reading 
of Ezra's book; there are still many people who can read this 
chapter correctly. 


Pastor C. T. Russell believes that a message went forth 
B. C. 454, but that is equally wrong. 

We have now reached the fifth and last starting point, 
which some think is the right one, counting the days and weeks 
from the twentieth year of Artaxerxes in B. C. 444. The 
year B. C. 444 and A. D. 46 are supposed to comprise the 
seventy weeks, 490 years. But as the end of the period is as 
late as forty-six Messiah is excluded again. I heard a D. D. 
in the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago lecture on this subject. 
He said that Messiah (the anointed one) who was killed after 
the sixty-nine weeks, was Christ. 

If we deduct one week (seven years) from A. D. 46, we get 
the year A. D. 39, as the year when Christ died. This is er- 
roneous, as Jesus was not fully thirty-four years at his death. 

Professor J. G. Princell has published a book on the his- 
tory of Israel. He makes the seventy weeks begin at B. C. 444. 
Pointing out that Christ was four years old at the year one of 
the Christian era, which is probable, he makes another mistake 
here. While he goes back with the four years between Christ's 
birth and the year A. D. 1, the sixty-nine weeks are also 
brought back from the year A. D. 39 to 35. Then he begins 
counting from the year B. C. 4. This cannot be done, because 
the earth cannot go back four years and again return to its 

Owing to several discrepancies in the translations of this 
passage it has been difficult to understand correctly. Dr. 
Martin Luther, Dr. H. M. Melin, Dr. Adam Clarke, Per Fjell- 
stedt, Missionary Franzon and many others have, in my 
opinion, failed to bring out the clear and correct meaning. 
They have given their opinions and the case has been settled. 
The Adventists and Pastor C. T. Russell have used those 
views as a foundation for their doctrines. They have allowed 
the seventy weeks to begin at times without any correspondence 


in the Bible or history. The city was rebuilt B. C. 444 by Ne- 
hemiah. One can understand why so many have let the seventy 
weeks commence there, when they have not thoroughly studied 
the eighth chapter, the very foundation of the ninth chapter. 

Some people have wondered if I am really sane who has 
dared to criticise both doctors of divinity and professors, wide- 
ly known both for piety and learning. But wise men can also 
make mistakes. I have studied these prophecies carefully, and 
while I cannot boast of profound learning, I think I have dis- 
covered the thread which goes through the whole system of 
Daniel's prophecies. But you cannot do it while you are drink- 
ing your morning coffee. It takes time. 

As a working man who has to labor daily for the support 
of his family, I have used my leisure hours, sometimes past 
midnight, and studied hard after my dear ones have retired 
and resting soundly. The blessing of God has been my sweet 
reward and supported my physical strength. 

A minister who is occupied with other studies and the 
multifarious duties of his calling has hardly time enough to 
sit down and study these things carefully. I am therefore glad 
if the result of my efforts in this direction can be of any ser- 
vice and give you any suggestions in this interesting field of 

"And they builded, and finished it, according to the com- 
mandment of the God of Israel, and according to the com- 
mandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes, king of 
Persia." (Ezra 6: 14.) The commandment to build Jerusa- 
lem must not be counted from Artaxerxes, for he was the 
fourth in the order and should finish the work. If we count 
the order from him, God, Cyrus and Darius are excluded. In 
my illustration of the building of the Custom house, that was 
to be built by the government, McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft. 
Taft was the last one who was to complete the work, there- 


fore the building could not commence during his administra- 
tion, as the other three would then be excluded. In this place 
most of the commentators have failed, because they have 
assumed that Jesus was the anointed prince (Messiah) re- 
ferred to in the ninth chapter. 

Let us now see what God himself* has to say concerning 
Cyrus and the restoration of Jerusalem, and the reader will 
more readily see the solution of the intricate question. 

"I am the Lord, that saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd 
and that shall perform all my pleasure; even saying to Jerusa- 
lem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation 
shall be laid." (Isaiah 44: 28.) 

"Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose 
right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and 
I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two- 
leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; I will go be- 
fore thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break 
in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: 

And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden 
riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the 
Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. 

For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have 
even called thee by thy name: I have summoned thee, though 
thou hast not known me. 

I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God 
besides me : I girded thee, though thou hast not known." 
(Isaiah 45: 1-5.) 

"I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct 
all his ways : he shall build my city, and he shall let go my 
captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts." 
(Isaiah 45: 13.) 

From the foregoing passages we learn that it was Cyrus, 


who should restore the city, lay the foundation of the temple 
and set the captives free. 

Next to God it is Cyrus who shall give out the order to 
build up Jerusalem. When the 490 years shall begin at the 
time the commandment went forth to restore Jerusalem, and 
God himself has said, that Cyrus should issue the command- 
ment, the seventy weeks (490 years) cannot begin after Cyrus, 
but must begin either before or during his time. If now 
Christ is the anointed prince (Messiah) in Dan. 9: 25, which 
a great number have believed, we cannot exclude him, but 
Cyrus will be excluded; for 490 years from Cyrus' reign 
(B. C. 536) brings us to B. C. 46. One of these two will then 
have to be excluded, either Cyrus or the anointed prince (Mes- 
siah). If we exclude Cyrus then the Lord himself becomes a 
deceiver through the statements of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra and 
2 Chron. 

Most writers on this subject whom I have consulted have 
thought that Christ is the anointed prince in Dan. 9 : 25. They 
have therefore been forced to exclude Cyrus and let the words 
of the restoration of Jerusalem begin at several times, the 
latest in B. C. 444, ninety-two years from Cyrus (536) and 
eighty-five after his death. Cyrus died in B. C. 529. 

As we cannot exclude Cyrus from the period covered by 
the seventy weeks because God himself would then be a de- 
ceiver, we must try to find out whether the Messiah, that is 
the anointed prince, in the ninth chapter is Christ or if the title 
is applied to someone else. We are soon going to show that 
the anointed prince is not Christ, and that the mistake in so 
many calculations can be traced back to this verse. 

Before going any farther in our discussion I wish to say 
that the commandment of the restoration of Jerusalem cannot 
be dated from Cyrus, B. C. 536, Darius 519, 'Artaxerxes 457, 
454, or 444, It shall not start from any of the five above men- 


tioned points. The angel could not begin from more than 
one of them, and then he must begin with Cyrus 536, but in 
such a case the six events at the close of the period happen 
B. C. 46. But as it cannot be proved that a single of these 
events happened then, it must be wrong to begin with Cyrus 
B. C. 536. 

I will now use another illustration throwing light upon 
the truth we are seeking. (See diagram No. 5.) 

A king wishes to notify his whole artillery that it shall 
take part in a maneuvre a certain day. Does the king person- 
ally give to every soldier his order? No. He sends the order 
to the general master of the ordnance. He sends the 
order to the commanding general in each military district. 
Does the latter communicate the order directly to each soldier ? 
No. He sends it to the chief of each regiment in his district. 
Does the chief communicate directly with the soldiers? No. 
He sends it to each battery and company officer? Do these 
officers come in contact with the individual privates? No. 
He sends for his adjutant, and if there are several batteries 
and companies located in one place, they have a common divi- 
sion adjutant who reads the order to the various battery- and 
company adjutants in that place. These officers take down the 
order in the journal. The soldiers are called together and 
while they stand in "attention" the adjutants read the order to 
the soldiers. Whose order is it, or from whom did it emanate ? 
If a certain, period shall be calculated from the time the order 
was issued, that period must be counted from the time the 
order was sent by the king, all the others through whose 
hands the order went are only instruments in the hands of the 

If we count the order from the various regiment chiefs 
the king and all the other officers are excluded. We cannot 
count the order from the battery adjutant who read it before 


the soldiers. The order must be dated from the king him- 
self. The seventy weeks shall be dated from the time the 
order went forth. If we begin these weeks from the time of 
Artaxerxes, we exclude God, Cyrus and Darius. In the same 
way it was impossible for President Taft, who was to com- 
plete the Custom house, to give out the order of its building 
twelve years before he became president. 

"And they budded, and finished it, according to the com- 
mandment of the God of Israel, and according to the com- 
mandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Per- 
sia." (Ezra 6: 14.) 

Here is another important item that must be correctly un- 
derstood. Were the seventy weeks going to begin when the 
commandment was given that Jerusalem should be rebuilt, 
or shall they be counted from the year the building actually 
began? A society decides this year (1913) that a Home for 
Old People shall be erected, and that the work shall begin 
1920. The contractor cannot begin the work before he is 
ordered to do it. The order precedes the building. On this 
point several have made a mistake. Let us suppose that Cyrus 
was the first builder. From whom did he get the order? We 
find the answer in God's word : "Now in the first year of 
Cyrus, king of Persia, that the word of the 'Lord spoken by 
the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the Lord 
stirred up" ... (2 Chron. 36 : 22, 23 ; Ezra 1:1.) 

Cyrus found first though the prophecies of Isaiah that the 
Lord had said that he (Cyrus) was to build up the holy city 
and get the captives in liberty. There is good authority for 
the opinion that this prophecy was given 210 years before 
Cyrus occupied the throne. 210 added to 536 makes B. C. 746. 
Isaiah prophesied between 759-698, a period of sixty-one years. 
This agrees with the Lord's words, saying that he had girded 
him and surnamed him Cyrus, though he did not know God. 


The Adventists assert that Cyrus did nothing to the city, 
but turned all his attention to the temple. Some time ago I 
asked one of their professors to show me where it is written 
in Ezra's seventh chapter that any message was issued in B. C. 
457, to build up Jerusalem. His answer was, "If it is not in 
the seventh it is in the sixth chapter." The sixth chapter re- 
lates that it was done, but not that Ezra issued any order to 
have it done ; and what becomes then of the anointed prince ? 
"The message must be dated from the time the commandment 
went forth to build the city, but Cyrus gave order only con- 
cerning the temple," he said. I asked him to let me have the 
Bible he held in his hand; but then he rose from his seat and 
said he was no schoolboy and walked behind the curtain in 
his tent. There were two other persons in the tent. I took the 
Bible lying on the table and read Ezra 4: 12, "Be it known 
unto the king, that the Jews which came up from thee to us 
are come unto Jerusalem, building the rebellious and the bad 
city, and have set up the walls thereof, and joined the founda- 
tions." Then I went out in the large tent where the professor 
was and said to him, that if Cyrus did not give an order the 
word of God concerning him is a falsehood and asked him to 
read Ezra 4: 12. He did not answer. Then I said, "You do 
not seem to have any more grace in your heart now than 
twelve years ago when you spat on the Baptist church in 
Worcester, Mass., calling it a harlot." "That's not true," he 
said. I answered, "I walked on your left hand side and heard 
it ; but I would never use such vulgar language as that." Then 
I left the tent. 


"Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth 
of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the 


anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks, and three score 
and two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, 
even in troublous time." (Verse 25, Am. Revised Version.) 

The seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks are placed in 
juxtaposition; wherefore, it is easy to make the mistake of 
bringing- forth the anointed prince first after the sixty-two 
weeks have elapsed. But we have reason to expect that some- 
thing is going to take place at the end of the first seven weeks, 
before the sixty-two weeks commence; if not, why are the 
sixty-nine weeks mentioned in one connection? 

In later versions the seven weeks and the sixty-two are so 
clearly set apart that no misunderstanding needs to exist to 
him who dares to use his brain. But though the Adventists 
see this distinction between the two periods, they cannot grasp 
that their ill-conceived doctrines are shipwrecked on this rock. 
This was the reason S. Mortenson wanted to exclude modern 
versions of the Bible, if we were going to have a public de- 
bate; for he understood what the consequences would be, 
though his people do not understand it. 

From the time the commandment went forth to restore 
and build Jerusalem, till the Messiah (the anointed one), a 
prince was coming, seven weeks should pass. The general 
view is that Christ is the anointed one. I have asked through 
their papers and used the revised version to find out who is the 
anointed prince coming up after the seven weeks. (Verse 25.) 
The answer was : "It is undoubtedly Christ." 

The Adventists begin the seventy weeks in B. C. 457. 
After seven weeks an anointed one, a prince, should come (49 
years after 457), and the anointed one who is Christ is then 
born B. C. 408. "And after three score and two weeks shall 
the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing." (Verse 
26.) Who is the prince that should be killed after the sixty- 
two weeks? The Adventists say, "It is Christ." A week is 


seven years. Sixty-two weeks are sixty-two times seven equals 
434 years. 434 from B. C. 408, when the anointed prince was 
born, who, as they say, is Christ, brings us down to A. D. 26. 
Then Christ will be 434 years old at his death. 

I asked a woman who is a fullfledged Mrs. White wor- 
shipper to read these verses in the latest version of the Bible. 
When she had read about the anointed prince who was to 
come after the seven weeks, I asked her, "who is this prince?" 
She answered, "That is Christ." She continued to read, "And 
after the sixty-two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off." 
I asked her who she thought this anointed one to be. The 
answer was, "It is Christ." I said, "These sixty-two weeks 
stand for 434 years ; then Christ was 434 years old when he 
died." She opened her eyes wide and said it was only I who 
said so, who had left the truth. It is impossible to reason 
with such people. But that is the kind of children Mrs. White 
has fostered. 

Let us continue on the twenty-sixth verse, "And the people 
of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the 
sanctuary ; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and even 
unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined." (Am. 
Rev. Version.) 

"And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one 
week : and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice 
and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abomina- 
tions shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the 
full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon 
the desolate." (Verse 27.) 

"Christ is the anointed prince who died upon the cross in 
the midst of the seventh week," the Adventists say, and 
through his death he cast down the sacrifice and oblation 
spoken of in this verse." 


If Christ is the anointed prince, the result will be the fol- 
lowing : 

Christ was born in B. C. 408. He is the anointed one who 
died after the sixty-two weeks, the year A. D. 26, at the age of 
434 years. Though dead now he is sending people to destroy 
the city and the sanctuary. In the midst of the seventieth 
week he throws down sacrifice and oblation by dying for the 
second time, but now he was only thirty or thirty-four years 
old. Finally having died twice wrath shall be poured out upon 
the desolate (Christ). 

This is the doctrine of Christ, the anointed prince, in 
Daniel's ninth chapter. A beautiful and logical interpreta- 
tion ! ? 

OF IN DAN. 9: 24-27? 

An observing reader will find in the three last verses of 
Daniel's ninth chapter that reference is made to three different 

Seven weeks, or forty-nine years, shall pass from the going 
forth of the commandment to restore Jerusalem until the 
anointed one, the prince, shall come. Here we have an anoint- 
ed one, a prince, who should come after forty-nine 
years since the commandment had gone forth. The American 
Revised version has a comma after this statement in verse 
twenty-five. After the sixty-two weeks shall an anointed one, 
but not a prince, be cut off, or killed, and no one shall follow 
him. The anointed one is destroyed here. If he had been the 
same who should come after the forty-nine years, he had been 
434 years from this time, sixty-two weeks. After the anointed 
one had been destroyed the sentence is complete and followed 
by a period, whereupon the twenty-sixth verse begins with an 
entirely new meaning. 


"And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy 
the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with 
a flood" (verse 26). 

Here appears another prince whose people were to destroy 
the city and the sanctuary. This is not the anointed prince 
who came after the seven weeks, neither the anointed one who 
was put to death after the sixty-two weeks; but this is a third 
prince who sent people to destroy the city and the sanctuary 
in Jerusalem; he himself came to his end in a flood, thereby 
understood a violent death. 

"And he," the 27th verse begins. Which he? The refer- 
ence is to the prince who should send his people to destroy 
the city and the sanctuary. "And he" (the pronoun, "he," 
refers to this prince) shall make a firm covenant with many 
for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause 
the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of 
abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even 
unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured 
out upon the desolate." 

This prince shall make a firm covenant with many for a 
week, and for a half week sacrifice and oblation should cease 
through him. 

If the Adventists dared to use their brains and think of what 
they are reading, they could never get Jesus to be the third 
prince here. 

There are three things that must fit this prince : 

1. He shall send his people to destroy the city and the 
sanctuary in Jerusalem. No one can prove that Jesus ever 
sent any people for that purpose. 

2. He should abolish sacrifice and oblation for a half week. 
The Adventists have made this application to Jesus, that he 
worked for three and a half years, the first half of the 
seventieth week ; afterwards he, through his death, caused the 


sacrificial system to cease; that it took Jesus three and a half 
years to do away with the sacrifices for ever. 

There is a great difference between abolishing a thing for 
a half week, and when that half week is past the thing that 
was abolished commences again, or to take the time of a half 
week to abolish the thing for ever. 

A superintendent for a school closes the school for half a 
week. When the half week is gone the school is opened again. 
He did not take half a week to close the school for ever. 

Which one of these two opinions is correct? 

For half a week is the same as during half a week. When 
the half week, three and one-half years, are past, the sacrifices 
begin again. This is the correct meaning in Dan. 9 : 27. 

An Adventist professor who had left their communion paid 
me a visit one day, and when I showed him this difference, 
he said he had never thought of it, but knew immediately to 
whom the prophecy referred. 

The Lord Jesus did not abolish the sacrifice for a half week, 
he made them to cease for ever; but this prince should cause 
them to cease for half a week, three and a half years. This 
is the correct meaning without any subterfuges or jugglery. 

3. "Wrath shall be poured out upon the desolate" (verse 
27). If Christ was this prince who died upon the cross and 
abolished the sacrifice through his death, how could then 
wrath or punishment come upon him, since he had died? 

It is clear enough in all the Bibles I have read who this 
third prince is, so there is no reason why they have made such 
blunders. If the anointed one had been Christ here and he was 
cut off after the sixty-two weeks, then it cannot be he who 
abolished the sacrifice, for in such case he would have to die 
a second time. Finally when he was cut off twice a determined 
wrath shall be poured out upon him. 

When I have pointed out these things to the Adventists and 


Russellites, they have said that I explain away Christ; and 
even one who believes that he is a great prophet said that I 
did not want any Christ, etc. God knows that I am only 
seeking the truth, and anyone who seeks it in the right spirit 
shall find it. But those who are only looking for arguments 
to support their false visions and curious hobbies will con- 
tinue to walk in darkness, nor know whither they are going. 
What should take place at the,end of the seventy weeks? 
(Verse 24.) 

1. '^Transgression should be finished." If we begin the 
seventy weeks at B. C. 457, they will end A. D. 33. Were 
the transgressions finished then? Not at all. 

2. "An end was made to sin." How can sins be said to 
have an end? By putting the sinner out of existence. 

All our sins were laid upon Christ, and in that way they 
came to an end at the end of the seventy weeks, the Adventists 
say. But Jesus died, according to the same authority, in the 
middle of the seven weeks, or three and a half years before this 

3. "To make reconciliation for iniquity." Whose iniquity 
was reconciled A. D. 33 or 34? It cannot apply to Christ for 
he was dead before that time. 

4. "To bring in everlasting righteousness." One tries 
to show that this righteousness is Christ. An everlasting 
righteousness is a principle, not a person. If the word had 
had reference to Christ it would have been an everlasting 
righteous. Christ was dead before that time. 

5. "To seal up vision and prophecy." Which prophecy 
was sealed up in A. D. 33 or 34? The anointed prince died? 
No, he was dead three and a half years before. 

6. "To anoint the most holy." There is nothing in all these 
six paragraphs that happens at the time A. D. 33 or 34. 

Is there any trace in history of a most holy being anointed 


in the year 33 or 34 after Christ? Was it the sanctuary ("a 
most holy" appears to have reference to the place in the temple 
bearing that name) in heaven that should be anointed, and 
should it be done at the death of Christ or at his ascension? 
We remark that the Adventists say that Jesus was born three 
years before the Christian era, which is correct; but then 
Jesus did not ascend to heaven A. D. 33 or 34, but in the year 
30. But the sanctuary should not be anointed before 33 — 34, 
if the seventy weeks began B. C. 457. Christ would then 
have to stand waiting in heaven three and a half years before 
the sanctuary was anointed. Afterwards he entered upon his 
office as a priest in the holy place and did not become a high 
priest before A. D. 1844. 

These six paragraphs should all be fulfilled at the end of 
the seventy weeks. And if the weeks began in B. C. 457 they 
should be fulfilled in A. D. 33 or 34. But according to this 
theory they were fulfilled three and a half years before, though 
not one of them can be applied to Christ because the starting 
point is wrong. No message was sent out in B. C. 457, accord- 
ing to Ezra 7th chapter, to restore Jerusalem; there is not a 
word to that effect, though the Adventists vainly make such 
assertion in their books and pulpits in order to bolster up a 
doctrine that rests upon an error. It has been pointed out 
long enough that it is not there ; and still they persist in per- 
verting the truth whenever the fact is held before their eyes. 
It is a miserable message which is built upon so weak a found- 
ation that they must prevaricate before the people to maintain 
the doctrine. If they were not blind and insincere, they would 
immediately read Ezra 7th chapter and say that their opponents 
are right, it is not found there. And besides, if it was un- 
mistakably stated in Ezra that such a commandment was given, 
we cannot allow the weeks to begin there,' because then we 
would exclude God, Cyrus and Darius. 





Having thoroughly studied the eighth chapter of Daniel 
we have seen how easily the prophecy explains itself under the 
guidance of the angel, and we have also found that the key 
to the whole problem is found there. When we understand 
the eighth chapter there is no difficulty to find the truth about 
the seventy weeks. 

In Dan. 9 : 26 we read of desolations that are determined. 
Who has determined that these desolations should come? The 
Lord God himself. 

When should the people of the prince come to destroy the 
city and the sanctuary? (Verse 26.) 

After the three score and three weeks, after the anointed 
one had been cut off. 

When should the desolations come that were determined? 

After the three score and two weeks, since the anointed 
one had been killed. (Verse 26.) 

As it is the same prince whose people should destroy the 
city and the sanctuary, who should cause sacrifice and oblation 
to cease for three and a half years, and finally desolations 
were determined upon him ; it is absolutely impossible to apply 
these things upon the Lord Jesus. 

The little horn in Dan. 8:11 should take away from the 
prince of hosts his daily sacrifice and cast clown the place of 
his sanctuary. 

That is the same thing as we have in Dan. 9 : 26, 27. 

In Dan. 8 : 12 we hear of a host that was given over 
through transgression. 

Here is the key to our long investigation. 

What does it mean to be given over? 


To be left in the hands of the destroyer without protection 
and defence. 

Their desolation was determined. (Verse 26.) 

What does "desolation" mean? 

The synonymous words are waste, ruin, destruction, de- 
vastation, destitution, gloom. 

At what time did this ruin come that was unalterably 
determined ? 

In the latter time of their kingdom when the transgressors 
are come to the full. (Dan. 8 :23.) Greece was divided into four 
kingdoms and their influence is dated from the death of Alex- 
ander, B. C. 323 to 30. The latter time of their kingdom 
is from B. C. 176 to 30. The transgressors had come to the 
full some time between B. C. 176 and 30. This is the explana- 
tion of the angel. 

When the transgressors had come to the full, they were 
given over through transgression. Desolations were deter- 
mined by God. 

The little horn, a fierce king, was to come at the same time. 

Over what people did the desolation come? 

Over Daniel's people, the Jews. 

Those who have carefully studied Daniel's 8th, 9th, 10th, 
11th, and 12th chapters together with the Bible and general 
history, will find, that these chapters are a connected story 
and one chapter explains the other. You want to hear a story 
from beginning to end, if you are going to understand it. And 
if you are going to repeat the story you must know it from 
beginning to end. 

There are many who have published monographs on the 
seventy weeks; but if they have not studied the eighth chapter 
thoroughly, where we have to look for the key to the ninth 
chapter, it is not to be wondered at if they have not under- 


stood the seventy weeks. It is as difficult as to tell a story 
of which you have heard only a part. 

These prophecies are so interlaced that they must not be 
studied separately, independent of each other. 

A general is sending out an officer to reconnoiter a part of 
a landscape. The officer is ordered to follow the course of 
a river from a certain point to. where it empties into a lake. 
He shall make a map of the cities, villages, plains and hills 
three miles on either bank of the river. The river is the 
leading factor of that map. If he loses sight of the river and 
goes more than three miles from it, his map will be. faulty. 
If he commences his reconnoitering along another river than 
the one pointed out by the general, the map is valueless to the 
general, however well it may be executed. 

Our study is just as much depending upon the vision in 
the eighth chapter as the officer depended upon following the 
river for a correct map. If we do not understand the vision 
in the eighth chapter, it is absolutely impossible to lay out any 
prophecy that corresponds with the word of the Lord and 
history, just as impossible as it was for the officer to get his 
map correct when he began at the wrong place and followed 
another river than the one designated by the general. 

We have shown plainly and with incontrovertible argu- 
ments according to the word of God which says, "The vision 
is at the time of the end," that the time of the end is where 
the vision was being fulfilled. 

The vision began to be fulfilled in the Medo-Persian em- 
pire when the ram was pushing westward, northward and 
southward. We have followed the vision to the war of Alex- 
ander with Medo-Persia and its ruin in B. C. 331, the death 
of Alexander 323 and the division of his kingdom. At the 
latter time of their kingdom the transgressors had come to 
the full, between B. C. 176—30. At that time the little horn 


makes its appearance and becomes a scourge over the ungodly 
Jews. The last part of the vision was the fury of the little 
horn against the Jews. The 2,300 evenings and mornings are 
six years, four months, and twenty days. When the sanctuary 
was cleansed the vision ended. The sanctuary was cleansed 
B. C. 164 when Judas Maccabeus captured Jerusalem and re- 
stored the divine worship. No event in our study goes beyond 
that period. Dean F. W. Farrar says in his exposition on 
Daniel that the prophecy does not go beyond the year B. C. 
164, where the vision ended. When I read that I said amen, 
because I know it is correct. 

Has a person need of any learning to see that? One must 
be blind if he does not see it. 

To go out and teach that the time of the end is for the 
world when Jesus is going to return, that it began in A. D. 
1798 and lasted till A. D. 1844, that Jesus entered into his 
sacerdotal office then, that he had served as a priest in the first 
apartment until that time, that the searching judgment began 
then, that the seventh trumpet was sounding then : "The king- 
dom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord and of 
his Christ and he shall reign for ever and ever" ; all this, I 
say, is an astounding error. If the doctrine of the Adventists 
is true here, the angel has been deceiving the world for sixty- 
eight years (1844 — 1912) ; for the kingdoms of the world are 
pretty much the same as they have been. These and similar 
views we call "astounding errors." 

If they had followed the vision when it was fulfilled from 
beginning to end, they would without any difficulty have seen 
that there is no question of the end of the world but of the 
ungodly Jews whose transgressions had come to the full in 
the latter part of the divided kingdom of Greece. Antiochus 
Epiphanes is the little horn, the fierce king, who fills the re- 
quirements of the prophecy here. The 2,300 evenings and 


mornings in Dan. 8 : 14 is a certain time during his reign. 
This vision was closed when the sanctuary was cleansed, Dec. 
25, B. C. 164, when the first sacrifice was offered since the 
sacrificial system and the temple service had been set aside for 
three and a half years. This is a fact, even if the reader 
cannot see or believe it is so. 

We have found with a certainty that these prophecies do 
not go beyond the year B. C. 164 and that the vision is the 
leading river having its source in Medo-Persia and ending in 
164 when the temple service was restored again. 

According to the time of the angel the seventy weeks 
should begin when the word went forth that the city should 
be rebuilt. Daniel had this vision B. C. 538. When the com- 
mandment was "going forth," the angel said ; according to 
the laws of the language this proves that the commandment 
had already gone forth, otherwise the angel had used another 

The angel has not more than one starting point for the 
seventy weeks ; but we notice how several have been men- 
tioned: B. C. 536, 519, 457, 454, and 444. 

If Christ is the anointed prince in Daniel's ninth chapter, 
as many have believed, the time does not fit the historic Christ. 
The calculations of the Adventists and pastor C. T. Russell 
are the most nearly correct ; but in order to get the beginning 
of their calculations approximately correct they are compelled 
to select dates that have no foundation, in the Bible or history. 
The Adventists might just as well try to show the bones of 
Adam at their meetings as to prove from the seventh chapter 
of Ezra's book that Ezra ever received any commandment to 
restore Jerusalem. Pastor Russell has commenced the 490 
years in B. C. 454 because he has seen someone else do so. 

How important it is to understand the vision and know 
that it ended with the 2,300 evenings and mornings, B. C. 164. 


Let us now examine the six points to find out if they cor- 
respond with the events at that time. 

1. "The host was given over to it through transgression." 
(Dan. 8:12.) "To finish transgression, and to make an end 
of sins .... desolation was determined upon them." (Dan. 

Transgression was finished when Antiochus Epiphanes at 
this time put to death the transgressors and other Jews began 
to obey the Lord. 

2. "An end of sins was made." When the sinners were 
taken away an end was made to sins. 

3. "Reconciliation was made for iniquity." The Jews re- 
conciled their sins with their death. 

4. "Everlasting righteousness was brought in." An ever- 
lasting righteousness is a principle which God had toward the 
people and not a person. If he had meant a person he would 
have said "a righteous." 

God demanded obedience. He had instituted morning and 
evening sacrifices, circumcision and other rites which they 
ought to have observed according to the precepts of Jehovah. 
The Jews had neglected these ordinances to a great extent. 
The people lived in sins as the fish in water. Even the priests 
were found in heathen gambling dens watching the people 
who took part in the abominations of the gentiles. When 
Judas Maccabeus had captured the city and introduced the 
principles of God an everlasting righteousness was brought in 

5. "Vision and prophecy were sealed up." When a pro- 
phetic vision has been fulfilled then the prophecy is sealed by 
its fulfillment. 

G. "The most holy is anointed." There is a difference be- 
tween anointing a holy sanctuary and a person. This refers to 
the most holy place. The little horn, A. Epiphanes, took away 


from God his daily sacrifice in Jerusalem for three years and 
a half. Cast down the sanctuary and the host. 

Judas Maccabeus restored the temple service, the sanctuary 
was anointed and dedicated, the services were conducted ac- 
cording to the divine ritual, in other words the sanctuary was 
cleansed. Here the prophecy as well as the vision ends, in 
B. C. 164. 

The vision was sealed to the time of the end, we read in 
several places, and that it was the vision in the eighth chapter 
closing with the 2,300 evenings and mornings. When the 
power of the people has been broken in pieces, all these things 
shall be finished. (Dan. 12: 7.) 

The 8th, 10th, 11th, and 12th chapters refer to the vision 
and state that it belongs to the time of the end. The time of 
the end was where the vision is fulfilled. It ended B. C. 164 
when the sanctuary was cleansed. 

The seventy weeks are the same time of the end; the same 
city, the same sanctuary, the same desolation that was ir- 
revocably determined, the same people of the prince that was 
to destroy the city and the sanctuary spoken of in chapter 11 : 
31. "And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall pro- 
fane the sanctuary; even the fortress, and shall take away the 
continual burnt-offering, and they shall set up the abomination 
that maketh desolate." The same sacrifice which the people 
of this prince should take away. These chapters are as closely 
knit together as the links in a chain. 

The six points mentioned in the prophecy were all fulfilled 
at the end of the seventy weeks. There is no difficulty now 
to find where the weeks shall begin. 

The reader is requested to pardon the many repetitions I 
make here and there. They are made to help the reader 
whenever I take up some new item in the argument. 


The seventy weeks should begin at the time the command- 
ment of the restoring of Jerusalem went forth. 

"And they builded and finished it, according to the com- 
mandment of the God of Israel, and according to the decree 
of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes, king of Persia." (Ezra 

Who is now first in the commandment — God or Arta- 
xerxes? The quoted verse says that God is first. Then we 
must see to it if we can find a time when God first said that 
Jerusalem should be restored, for we must date this command- 
ment from God himself, as he is first mentioned in the com- 

As we have previously pointed out, God, Cyrus and Darius 
are also mentioned in the commandment to restore Jerusalem, 
and we cannot exclude them and begin with Artaxerxes. 

God had said concerning Cyrus that he should say aboui 
Jerusalem, "She shall be built" ; and of the temple, "Thy 
foundation shall be laid." (Isa. 44:28.) The message can 
therefore not begin after him. If we let it commence with 
him, B. C. 536, and count the 490 years (seventy weeks) from 
there, they end in B. C. 46, but none of the six points were 
fulfilled then. 

Darius issued an order to rebuild the temple on account of 
the commandment given by Cyrus, B. C. 536. 

Request was made of Darius that he should investigate if 
there was any order given by Cyrus in Babylon to rebuild the 
temple. "Then Darius the king made a decree, and search 
was made in the house of the archives, where the treasures 
were laid up in Babylon. And there was found at Achmetha, 
in the palace that is in the province of Media, a roll" (Ezra 
6:2, 3) containing the decree by Cyrus, B. C. 536. 

It was on the strength of this order of Cyrus, B. C. 536, 
that Darius completed the temple from B. C. 519 to 515. 


During the year B. C. 457 no order was issued, neither were 
any steps taken in that direction. The prophetic message of 
the Adventists is resting on this point, and therefore it is so 
fearfully weak. In the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, B. C. 
444, we do not know of any decree emanating from him. 
Nehemiah was permitted to return to Jerusalem in answer 
to his petition. Artaxerxes has received credit for having 
issued an order to rebuild the temple; but after closer in- 
vestigation we find that he gave Nehemiah permission to re- 
turn to Jerusalem and that the work was completed during 
his reign. When Nehemiah brought wine to the king, the 
latter asked him, why his countenance was sad. Thou art not 
sick; this is nothing else but sorrow of heart. Nehemiah 
answered the king, "Why should not my countenance be sad, 
when the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres, lieth waste, 
and the gates thereof consumed with fire?" (Neh. 2:1-3.) 
Then he asked the king permission to go to Jerusalem to re- 
build its walls that they no longer should be the scorn of the 
enemies. The king granted his request, but we cannot say 
that he issued any direct order to Nehemiah, so that the words 
of the angel can be applied to this permission given by Arta- 

Nehemiah went to Jerusalem, built the walls, and completed 
his work in about two months. 

Ezra, the builder of the Adventists, was a total failure 
who did not in thirteen years, from 457 to 444, place a single 
stone upon the wall or fill a single hole. 

He was with Nehemiah and aided him, but our Adventist 
friends have very little help from that fact, because their 
writings state everywhere that the commandment to build the 
city is based upon Ezra 7th chapter, an assertion which time 
and again has been proved to be erroneous. 

We cannot pass by the prophecy which God spoke con- 


cerning Cyrus, that he should build the city and set the cap- 
tives free. (Isa. 45 : 13.) Did this order emanate from Cyrus' 
own heart? No, but in order that the word of Jehovah by the 
mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished. (Ezra 1:1.) It 
is accordingly the word of Jehovah by the mouth of Jeremiah 
that came to the Persian king, so that he on that account gave 
an order to the Jews to return to Jerusalem. 

This is the course we must follow if we are going to find 
the true beginning of the seventy weeks, 'for God was the first 
one who gave the commandment that Jerusalem should be 

The seventy weeks must begin at the time when the com- 
mandment went forth to restore and build Jerusalem, and 
not from the order of anyone when they went to the work of 
building. It is here so many have made their mistakes. We 
may not exclude Jehovah, Cyrus and Darius. Anyone who 
makes a proper use of his understanding will soon find that he 
cannot begin with Artaxerxes, B. C. 444, and exclude God 
and Cyrus, B. C. 536. The difference between Cyrus and 
Artaxerxes is ninty-two years. 

If we exclude God from our calculations Jeremiah be- 
comes a deceiver. The word of Jehovah by the mouth of 
Jeremiah is valueless, if we begin with anyone else but God 
himself. Just as the king was first in our illustration about 
the soldiers, so God is first in the order to restore Jerusalem. 

Necho, an Egyptian king, having come to the throne B. C. 
610, had a war with Syria. Nebuchadnezzar drove Necho out 
of Syria, B. C. 605, and afterwards marched against Jerusa- 
lem. If this is correct, the Jews were subdued by Nebuchad- 
nezzar 605, and from that year we may date the Babylonian 
captivity, instead of B. C. 606. 

The Jews received the word of Jehovah by the mouth of 
Jeremiah. "Thus saith Jehovah, after seventy years are ac- 


complished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good 
toward you, in causing you to return to this place." (Jer. 

A man and a woman have kept company for some time. 
After a while the man asks her if she thinks they could live 
happily together. The young woman answers blushingly that 
she has thought of the same thing. The man promises to 
marry her after a certain time. The promise was given now 
at the engagement but was not fulfilled before he redeemed 
his promise. 

The Lord could not have'spoken to the Jews B. C. 606 or 
605, saying that he should fulfill his word of promise to them 
if he had not given them a promise before, and this promise 
was that he was going to lead them back to this place which 
should be built again. 

Those who believe that Messiah is the anointed prince in 
Daniel's ninth chapter cannot for this reason get the right 
opinion of the seventy weeks. 

The word "Messiah" means "the anointed." The author- 
ized version does not translate the word into English, but the 
American Revised version, which is by far the best English 
translation, renders it "the anointed." 

"Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth 
of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto 
the anointed one, the prince, shall be seven weeks" (forty-nine 
years). If we subtract forty-nine years from B. C. 605 there 
remain 556. What shall happen that year? The anointed 
prince shall come forth according to the prophecy. 

In 2 Chron. 36 : 22 and in Ezra 1:1 it is recorded that 
Cyrus in the first year of his reign gave permission to the 
Jews to return to Jerusalem. On account of this statement 
some have come to the conclution that Cyrus came to the 
throne that year (B. C. 536). This opinion has been confusing 


both to myself and many others. Some learned men have also 
been mistaken here. But it is a fact, that Cyrus made him- 
self a ruler and went against the Medes conquering them in 
B. C. 558. (See McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, Vol. 
G, page 18.) Two years later, or B. C. 556, the coronation of 
Cyrus took place. Here is the anointed prince who should 
come forth after the seven weeks, forty-nine years. (Verse 
25.) Subtract forty-nine from 605 (when the word of Je- 
hovah went forth by the mouth of Jeremiah — Jer. 29:10) 
and we have the year B. C. 556, when Cyrus became king. 
(The Evolution of a Great Literature, pages 175, 176.) 

Both the author of the Chronicles and Ezra have quoted 
Jeremiah. They refer to the first years of the reign of Cyrus 
since he had with his Persian soldiers taken the Babylonian 

It would be difficult to disprove these facts. He is the 
anointed prince, whom God had called before he knew God 
and had received this divine distinction, "the anointed" (Mes- 
siah in Hebrew). (Isa. 45: 1, 4:) "And three score and two 
weeks : it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in 
troublous times" (9: 25). "And after sixty-two weeks shall 
the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing" (9:26). 
That this anointed one cannot be Cyrus is apparent from the 
fact that he should have been at least 434 years old at his 
death. Cyrus died B. C. 529. The anointed one cannot be 
Christ either, because he was not born yet. 

From what time shall we date the sixty-two weeks, 434 
years? That question arrested my study for quite a while. I 
saw how the author of "The Evolution of a Great Literature" 
wanted to calculate, but my opinion had always been that the 
sixty-two weeks were to begin where the first seven ended. 

Every word in the 26th and 27th verses applies to Antiochus 
Epiphanes. But on account of my belief that the 434 years 


should begin where the forty-nine years ended I could not get 
the time to correspond. If I make the 434 years to begin, as 
is done in the book mentioned above, at the same time as the 
forty-nine years, or B. C. 605, then I cover the forty-nine 
years twice.- And so I stood before a problem I could not 
solve. I was convinced that the seventy weeks ended simul- 
taneously with the vision ; but I wanted to understand the 
beginning as well as the end. I did not wish to exclude the 
seventy weeks from the book, for although there was abun- 
dant evidence against the Seventh-day Adventists, that they 
never have had any message to the world, here is another 
proof against their assertion that the commandment to build 
Jerusalem went forth B. C. 457. 

Some people go to God in prayer when they do not under- 
stand a difficult question in the Bible. If they ask for wisdom 
that they might grasp the meaning with the understanding, 
their prayer is reasonable ; but quite a number of them think 
that God is going to explain the difficulty in some miraculous 
way, that the Spirit is going to tell them how it is. The 
Spirit is the very truth, says John. The Spirit leads us to the 
truth ; but we must grasp it or understand it. Many instances 
could be cited, how people have been greatly mistaken here and 
believed a mass of imaginations which they think have come 
from God under the inspiration of the Spirit, by which they 
have caused much evil. We need the Spirit which leads us to 
the full truth that one can comprehend with the understanding. 
A Spirit that leads people to believe in Mrs. White's fantacies 
and the message of the Seventh-day Adventists anyone can 
have who is able to believe without any real foundation. 

There is a story of a highstrung religious man who saw a 
house at a distance while crossing a prairie. He wondered 
whether he ought to go there to talk to the people in the house 
about the Lord. He asked first, if it was God's will that he 


should go there and received the answer that he ought to go. 
Led by the spirit he went there, but found to his surprise that 
the house was vacant, not having been occupied for a number 
of years. That time the Spirit did not lead to the truth. If 
he had used a little common horse sense here he had first gone 
to the house to find out whether it was inhabited or not. It is 
a vast difference between being filled with the Spirit of God, 
or filled with hobbies which one thinks is the Spirit. 

Finally I became uneasy concerning the question, and I 
.asked the Lord that he might enlighten my understanding 
through his Holy Spirit, and soon I received light upon the 
difficult question. 

It is clear that the sixty-two w,eeks shall begin at the same 
place as the seven weeks, in the year B. C. 605, when the 
captivity began. (See diagram No. 6.) 

Let us suppose that the mayor of Chicago has made ar- 
rangements for the members of his council to go to New 
York. From the time he promised them to go till the time the 
train arrives at New York shall be thirty-three hours. Know 
and understand that from the time the train left Chicago for 
Fort Wayne, Indiana, seven hours shall pass, and after seven- 
teen hours the train shall be in Buffalo, N. Y., after twenty- 
five hours it shall be in Patterson, N. J. One hour shall make 
them all happy, and the last half hour the journey shall end. 

Seven hours are required from Chicago to Fort Wayne, 
and after seventeen hours the train shall be in Buffalo. The 
seventeen hours are not counted from Fort Wayne but from 
the starting point Chicago. And after twenty-five hours the 
train shall arrive at Patterson. These twenty-five hours shall 
not be counted from Buffalo but from Chicago. The last hour 
will finish the journey. The thirty- three hours are now past 
that were determined by the mayor. The journey has not 
required more than twenty-six hours, you say, whereas, thirty- 


three were determined. You count the time between Chicago 
and Fort Wayne twice. We answer no. From the time the 
mayor gave the order concerning the journey till the time the 
train arrived at the station thirty-three hours had past, but the 
journey did not require more than twenty-six hours. Seven 
hours passed from the hour the journey was determined to the 
hour the train left the station. We see there is a difference 
between the order that they "were" going to leave Chicago 
and that they "did" leave Chicago. 

The seventy weeks should begin when the commandment 
went forth to restore Jerusalem and not when they actually 
began the building of the city. 

The commandment to restore Jerusalem was the word of 
Jehovah by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah. But the 
commandment to start the work came first from Cyrus and 
ended with the labors of Nehemiah in the twentieth year of 
Artaxerxes, B. C. 444. 

Owing to the transgressions of the Jews God made them 
understand that unless they repented of their sins they should 
serve the kings of Babylon seventy years. God also set a 
limit to their transgressions, and Daniel was told the time was 
490 years. 

Forty-nine years before the captivity was B. C. 605, when 
their transgressions were increasing, God determined a season 
of desolations over them. This time past the transgressors 
had come to the full and they were punished on account of 
their sins. 

After sixty-two weeks (434 years) an anointed one shall 
be destroyed without having any successor. 434 from 605 
brings us down to B. C. 171, when the high priest Onias III 
was murdered at Jerusalem. (2 Mace. 4: 34.) 

There were twelve high priests from Ahimaak and twelve 
high priests from Asariah I to Josadak, and. twelve high priests 


from Josadak to Onias III. The Jews had not any faithful 
high priest for the time being. The one that succeeded Onias 
was an hypocrite. It is probable that he was the thirty-sixth 
and last high priest of Aaron's tribe. "And the people of the 
prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" 
(verse 26). The prince is Antiochus Epiphanes whose people 
under the leadership of Apollonius destroyed the city and the 
sanctuary at Jerusalem. This prince should confirm the cov- 
enant with many for one week, seven years. 

In Mace. 1:11 we are told that Antiochus came to the 
throne B. C. 175. The twelfth verse begins, "In that time 
there were evil men in Israel, they came before the people 
and said : Let us make a covenant with the heathens around 
us and take up their worship ; for we have suffered much since 
we have opposed the heathens. This saying pleased the people. 
And some of the people were sent to the king; he commanded 
them to follow the way of the heathens. Then they opened a 
heathen gambling house in Jerusalem, and circumcision was 
neglected, and they fell away from the holy covenant, and 
followed the heathen and were hardened to commit all shame- 
ful vices." In 2 Mace. 4: 12-14 we are further told, that the 
king caused a gambling house to be erected under the fort 
and made the strongest men practice the. vices of the heathen. 
The relapse from the true worship of Jehovah went even so 
far that the priests neglected the sacrifices and the temple and 
attended the games of the decadent youth. 

According to history Antiochus Epiphanes decided to in- 
troduce Hellenic culture and worship in his kingdom and be- 
friended such of his subjects who made no resistance to his 
plans both among the Jews as well as the children of Moab, 
Edom and Amnion. These tribes lived on the borderline of 
Judea and had inherited from their forefathers an inveterate 
hatred against the Jews. He lived on a friendly footing with 


a large number of renegade Jews for a- period of seven years, 
from 175 to 168, but then he broke the covenant made with 
them. These prophecies refer to about the same thing, though 
they begin somewhat differently and vary as to some minor 
details,, but they end where the 2,300 days cease, in the year 
B. C. 164. 

The little horn in Daniel 8 : 14 should take from the Prince 
of princes his daily sacrifice. 

Anyone who has studied his Bible together with the pro- 
fane history can easily see that Antiochus Epiphanes fills all 
the requirements of prophecy. 

"And arms shall stand on his part" (Dan. 11:31), shall 
do the same thing and set up the abomination of desolation, 
the idol Jupiter Capitolinus, which Antiochus had imported 
from Rome. 

The twelfth chapter deals with the same idea. "And from 
the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the 
abomination that maketh desolate set up,'" etc. "It shall be 
for a time, times, and a half : and when he shall have accomp- 
lished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things 
shall be finished." (Verses 11 and 7.) 

After the anointed one was cut off (Dan. 9 : 26), the people 

of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the 

sanctuary. This does not refer to Christ, but the prince is 

■ Antiochus Epiphanes who had sent his general Apollonius 

with 22,000 men. He destroyed the city and the sanctuary. 

The same prince should for a half week abolish the sacri- 
fice and oblation (same time as in the twelfth chapter) and 
set up the abomination of desolation, his idol. 

Christ did not abolish any sacrifice for a half week but for 
ever. The general of Antiochus cast down the sacrifice in 
June, B. C. 167, but when the sanctuary was cleansed, Dec. 
25, B. C. 164, this time came to an end. 


Finally desolations should be poured upon the desolate. 

It is the same person who caused the sacrifice to cease 
upon whom desolation was determined. But desolation could 
not be poured upon Christ since he was dead. 

Antiochus Epiphanes fills the prophecy and the determined 
desolation was poured upon him at last. 

The 2,300 days in Dan. 8 : 14 were a certain time under the 
fury of the little horn against the Jews, six years, four months 
and twenty days, from B. C. 170, and they ended at the close 
of the vision, Dec. 25, B. C. 164. 

"And he shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished : 
for that that is determined shall be done." (Dan. 11: 36.) 

When that had been accomplished which was determined, 
viz., the punishment of the Jews, the vision was ended in 
B. C. 164. 

"Yet he (Antiochus). shall come to his end, and none shall 
help him." (Dan. 11:45.) This happened after the end of 
the vision, B. C. 164. 

Seventy weeks (490 years) were determined for the Jews 
before a limit was set for their transgressions. The host was 
sacrificed for transgression. Desolations ' were determined. 
Thus saith the word of the Lord. The last events to take 
place toward the end of the seventy weeks aside from the six 
facts mentioned before were these: The people of a prince 
should destroy the city and the sanctuary, cause sacrifice and 
oblation to cease for three and a half years and put the abom- 
ination of desolation (the idol) in the holy place. Finally de- 
struction was determined upon the desolate. 

All these prophecies ended in B. C. 164. 

The prince was Antiochus Epiphanes. His people were 
Apollonius at the head of 22,000 men through whom he de- 
stroyed the city and sanctuary and put up his idol. 


Punishment was at last meted out to the originator of all 
this misery. 

The commandment went out from God himself that Jeru- 
salem should be restored. The time was cut off from B. C. 
654. 490 from 654 brings us down to B. C. 164 where all the 
prophecies of Daniel end, when the sanctuary was cleansed. 

Any attempt to. refute the arguments that Antiochus Epi- 
phanes is the prince referred to in the twenty-sixth and twenty- 
seventh verses would be useless. 

If the statements in the Bible concerning the seventy weeks 
are reliable, which we cannot doubt, and a week in Daniel's 
chronology is seven years, then we must count the 490 years 
from B. C. 654, when it was determined by the Lord to let 
the Jews be sent in a captivity of seventy years duration, then 
back to Jerusalem again, and at last after the 490 years the 
transgressors had come to the full. The time of their punish- 
ment was between B. C. 170 — 164. About 538, when the angel 
spoke to Daniel, the word had already gone forth, otherwise 
the angel had not said, "Know therefore and discern, that 
from the going forth of the commandment," not "shall go 
forth." This shows that it already had gone forth at that time. 
One has made the objection, that the city was not yet destroyed 
at the time. That does not alter the case. They knew it was 
destroyed when Jeremiah prophecied, and the Lord knew of 
their wanderings on beforehand. 

My ear is always open to sensible reasoning. I accept all 
the enlightenment that can be obtained on the subject. But 
do not attempt to prove that Jesus is the prince who sent his 
people to destroy the city and the sanctuary in Jerusalem, 
caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease for half a week, 
three and a half years, etc. No Bible that I have read gives 
the least support to such an exegesis. 

No one has yet published any tenable exposition on the 


seventy weeks, nor can they do it, with this point in view / that 
Christ is the anointed prince in Dan. ninth chapter. There are 
three different persons: The anointed prince is Cyrus; the 
anointed one is the high priest Onias III ; and the prince in 
verses 26 and 27 is Antiochus Epiphanes just as surely as one 
plus one are two. 


Just as I was going to finish this work another book on 
Daniel's prophecies fell into my hands. The author, A. C. 
Gaebelin, is the editor of "Our Hope," a paper published in 
New York. 

What especially interested me was what he had to say 
concerning the questions upon which the Seventh-day Adven- 
tists base their prophetic message. 

1. Who fills the qualifications of prophecy in the eighth 
chapter of Daniel, Rome or Antiochus Epiphanes ? He says 
Antiochus Epiphanes. 

2. How does he interpret the 2,300 evenings and mornings 
in Dan. 8:14? He answers, They are literal days during 
the reign of Antiochus, and that they must be counted back- 
ward from Dec. 25, B. C. 164. 

3. That Christ became our high priest first A. D. 1844 is 
a Satanic doctrine. He adds that there is not a scintilla of 
truth in the statement that the commandment to restore Jeru- 
salem went forth B. C. 457, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes. 
We agree in these points, showing that the Adventists have 
built their message upon the sand. 

There are many who can see how blind and deluded the 
Adventists are though the latter cannot see it because they 
have placed Mrs. White between themselves and the light. 


A New Reformer 

Pastor Charles T. Russell's great error in Daniel's Bighlh 

Chapter, that the sanctuary which was cleansed after the 

2,300 days was the people who were cleansed from the 

pollutions of Rome and accepted the great 

light of Pastor Russell. 

This chapter is dealing with the astounding errors of 
Pastor C. T. Russell in the prophecies of Daniel upon which 
he has chiefly built his peculiar doctrinal system. 

"Millennial Dawn" is the name given to six large books, 
published by Pastor Russell. The books are seven and a half 
inches long and five inches wide, containing about 400 pages 

It is absolutely necessary to a right understanding of the 
false foundation upon which Pastor Russell has built his in- 
terpretation to read the exposition given in this book of the 
8th, 11th, and 12th chapters, and the seventy weeks. (Dan. 
9 : 24-27.) In these chapters the views of the Adventists have 
been dealt with in the minutest detail, and as the interpreta- 
tion of Pastor Russell falls to the ground on the same argu- 
ments as the former, it is unnecessary to cover the same ground 

The object of this discourse is not to take up the points in 
which Pastor Russell is right, but only those where he is 
crooked. If he had built his doctrine on the word of the 
Lord he would endure all criticism, but now he has built it upon 
a chronology that neither he nor his misguided people under- 


To those who do not use their understanding and dare not 
to think for themselves, as the. Adventists blindly believe their 
prophetess and her visions, this book is of no help, but a 
stumbling block and a rock of offense. 

If one wished to give Russell's doctrines a new name, none 
could be more suitable than this : "The errors of the Adventists 
in a new, but by no means improved, edition." 

Personally I have nothing more against Pastor Russell 
than against my own mother who died thirty years ago. But 
I protest against his perverted chronology and all the errors 
that are deducted from it. The mistakes he has made • are 
so much more inexcusable as there are such a deluge of 
reliable sources from which he could have brought pure water 
that he needed not to distribute wholesale water of such im- 
pure nature. 

Pastor Russell has, like the Adventists, started from Dan. 
8 : 14, and come to the conclusion that the 2,300 days began 
B. C. 454 and ended A. D. 1846. That the sanctuary which 
was to be cleansed at that' time was the people who were 
cleansed from the pollutions of Rome. To the people who 
accept without reasoning what he has written in his books he 
has given the flattering names, "The Sanctuary Class," and 
"The Friends of Truth." 

It was the same sanctuary which was to be cleansed after 
the 2,300 days that was cast down during this time. (Dan., 
8:14.) The Catholic church which came up several hundred 
years after Christ could not in the name of common sense be 
mixed up with the Medo-Persian kingdom B. C. 454, and 
pollute, nor cast down the sanctuary. 

The points especially in which Pastor Russell and the 
Adventists differ, we will bring up for discussion, and also 
point out some other of his errors in this chapter. 

The angel said that the vision which Daniel had in the 


eighth chapter belonged to "the time of the end." This time 
he has placed between A. D. 1799 and 1914, a period of 115 
years. (Vol. 3, page 23.) 

No one could understand the prophecy before A. D. 1799 
and before leaving the subject he promises to show that the 
prophecy indicates that it cannot commence to be understood 
before 1829, or be clearly revealed before 1875. (Vol. 3, 
page 24.) 

"Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the 
times of the Gentiles be' fulfilled." (Luke 21:24.) (Vol. 2, 
page 75.) 

It is clearly proved by the Bible that the times of the 
Gentiles are a period of 2,520 years, from B. C. 606 to A. D. 
1914. (Vol. 2, page 81.) 

The reward of the righteous cannot begin before the end 
of 1914 when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Vol. 
2, page 83.) 

The complete establishment of the kingdom of God will 
be realized at the end of A. D. 1914. (Vol. 2, page 102.) 

If Pastor Russell had understood the vision in Dan. eighth 
chapter he had not made such a miserable beginning. 

This misunderstood vision is the very foundation of his 
errors. If Rome is not the little horn (Dan. 8: 9), his whole 
system is torn up by the root. 

A little solid thinking would have made it clear to him that 
the vision does not cover a period of 115 years, from A. D. 
1799 to 1914. 

The period belongs to the time of the end. It is not diffi- 
cult to see that the period is where the vision was being ful- 
filled. The vision began in Medo-Persia, B.C. 538, when this 
kingdom began to extend its domain, when the ram was push- 
ing westward, northward, and southward. Then follow the 
wars of Alexander against Medo-Persia, B. C. 331, the fall 


of Medo-Persia, the death of Alexander, B. C. 323, the divi- 
sion of Grecia, the divided kingdom, and so at the end of this 
divided kingdom, between B. C. 176 — 30, the little horn should 
come up. We have now already from the time Medo-Persia 
enlarged the kingdom, which occurred first in the vision, to 
the middle of Alexander's divided kingdom, which is proved 
to be after B. C. 176, a period of 362 years; and we have not 
yet arrived to the time when the little horn was determined 
to come up, a fact to be consummated in the latter part of the 
kingdom of Greece. (Dan. 8:23.) 

We assert again that the time of the end is where the 
vision was fulfilled and we do not take anything back of that 
statement. The time of the end began where the vision began 
to be fulfilled, and that was in the kingdom of Medo-Persia and 
not in A. D. 1799. 

Let a person have a vision of the sinking of the Titanic 
two hundred years before it happened. He publishes a book 
of the terrible catastrophe. This vision, the man says in his 
book, belongs to the time of the end for the Titanic. Then, 
I declare that the time of the end for the Titanic was when 
that boat sank to the bottom of the Ocean, 1912. The vision 
did not go beyond the time the boat sank under the water. 

If Pastor Russell had been a passenger of the great 
steamer, and been saved in one of the small boats and having 
the book containing the vision in his pocket, he would bring 
out the book and read to the others in the boat that this 
calamity had been seen in a vision two hundred years ago 
and that the vision was the end of the Titanic. A man who 
thinks he is a great mathematician stands up saying, "Pastor 
Russell, this vision cannot be understood before 2,122 years." 
We wonder what Pastor Russell would have said or thought 
of the man. But on the same principles have he and the 
Adventists built their doctrine, that the vision, which was ful- 


filled in Medo-Persia and Greece, could not be understood 
before after A. D. 1799. And upon that vision which they 
never have understood they have built their doctrines and 
deceived a number of honest, though ignorant people, con- 
cerning these things. 

The poor people on board did certainly understand the 
meaning of the vision when it was fulfilled and the boat sank. 
The whole world knew about it a couple of days after. In 
the same way the Persians understood the vision in the battle 
of Arbela, B. C. 331, when Alexander put an end to their 
power, and they did not have to wait till A. D. 1799. 

The time of the end was where the vision was fulfilled. 
There is no question here of the time of the end for the world, 
but for the transgressors who had come to the full at the 
end of the divided kingdom of Greece. This is according to 
the word of the angel, and we prefer the word of the Lord to 
the guesswork of men. (Dan. 8:23.) 

To determine the coming of Christ, and the end of the 
world, after the vision that was fulfilled several hundred years 
before Christ, and say that it cannot be understood before 

A. D. 1799, is the height of ignorance. 

We believe that Nebuchadnezzar was in the wilderness 
seven years, beause it is written in Dan. 4 : 20 ; but no one can 
prove that this is a symbol of the Jews. That the Jews shall 
be under chastisement just as long since they were brought 
into captivity B. C. 606-5, we can, of course, say, but the 
statement cannot be proved. This time should be a symbol for 
the Jews 360 times seven, making a total of 2,520 years, from 

B. C. 606 to A. D. 1914. 

Every fifth year the Jews had an extra month inserted in 
their calendar, as a year had only 360 days. 2,520 divided 
by five gives us 504 months, divided by twelve it. makes forty- 
two years which Pastor Russell has forgotten to add. If a 


day is corresponding to a year, then the forty-two years must 
be added to 1914, and we get the year A. D. 1956. 

It is a useless task to examine all his mistakes concerning 
the vision, as any one can see that the time of the end is where 
the vision is fulfilled, and this was long before Christ. There- 
fore all his arguments concerning the fulfillment of the vision 
in 1799 fall to the ground. 

"From the kingdom of Alexander should come out a new 
horn. This refers undoubtedly to Rome." (Vol. 3, page 27.) 

It is true that a new horn should come out of the divided 
kingdom of Alexander, according to Dan. 8 : 9. 

But it is the height of ignorance to say that Rome came 
up from the kingdom of Alexander. Rome was founded B. 
C. 753 and Greece 331. Rome is therefore the son, and Greece 
which came up 422 years after Rome is the father of Rome. 
The son is already 422 years old when the father was born. 
What beautiful harmony ! 

"If we are right," he says, "when we place the time of the 
end to A. D. 1799." 

If Pastor Russell can show from history, that Medo-Persia 
extended its kingdom after that time, and that Alexander took 
possession of Medo-Persia after A. D. 1799 he is right. If 
he cannot do that, his system of fantasies, and everything that 
is built thereon, crumbles to the ground. 

Alexander is mentioned in the vision, then the time of the 
end must be where Alexander is. But he died in Babylon 
B. C. 323 and has now been in his grave 2,122 years. This is 
the result of believing that the 2,300 days are so many years. 

The little horn was to take from the Lord of hosts the 
daily sacrifice and cast down the place of his sanctuary. (Dan. 

"This is the papal power," says pastor Russell, "who took 


from Christ the perpetual sacrifice and the foundation of his 
sanctuary was overthrown." 

The angel says that this should happen in the latter time of 
their kingdom, for the little horn did not come up before 
then. (Dan. 8:23.) Could it be possible for papal Rome, 
which came up about A. D. 300, to be present in the kingdom 
of Greece and take from Christ his daily sacrifice five hundred 
years before its birth and one hundred sixty-one years before 
Jesus was born? We call such statements astounding errors. 
Has the reader ever heard that Jesus had any daily sacrifice 
while on earth? If the sacrifice should be prayers what then 
is the foundation or place that was overthrown? 

I will say to Pastor Russell and his deceived "Sanctuary 
Class," that the little horn is a fierce king, and not a 
kingdom. (Dan. 8:23.) 

"He shall be great in power," says Pastor Russell, "but 
not by his own strength." "Papacy increased by using the in- 
fluence of the other European powers." 

The little horn, that came up in the latter time of the king- 
dom of Greece, should increase in power ; but it did not be- 
come influential through the aid of Rome several hundred 
years before Catholic Rome came up. Pastor Russell only 
talks without examining whether his assertions can endure the 
mildest form of scrutiny. The world has probably never seen 
such miserable and credulous investigators. He deceives him- 
self and he is deceiving others. 

In the first volume of his works he speaks of the plan of 
the ages that is founded on such chronology. Those who 
believe this without the slightest knowledge are fit candidates 
for the society called "The Friends of Truth." 

If anyone happens to come in their company and is un- 
known to them, they immediately ask, if he belongs to "The 


Friends of Truth," or if he believes in "the plan of the ages," 
etc. Now I am considered, of course, an enemy of the truth, 
because I try to enlighten them in their darkness. I reject all 
but the truth; and if you desire the truth above anything else, 
you will find in me a brother who is willing to fight, suffer 
and even die for the truth. If you do not want such a brother, 
then stick to the fantasies of Mr. Russell and attack me as 
much as you please. The Lord keeps the account and at last 
His people will receive his recognition. 

The proper name of the people of Pastor Russell, who do 
not understand his system but believe what they read in his 
books, ought to be "The Friends of Ignorance." There is not 
one of them, not even Pastor Russell himself, who understands 
his doctrine. 

"Daniel prayed over the vision of the 2,300 days, and so 
the angel was sent to explain that misunderstood vision." 
(Vol. 3, page 107.) 

There is not a word in Daniel's ninth chapter saying that 
he asked for any explanation concerning the vision in the 
eighth chapter. Gabriel was ordered to explain the vision to 
Daniel (see chapter 8:16), and God's angels do no half- 
finished work. Pastor Russell has followed in the tracks of 
the Adventists, and therefore, he has come into the same dark- 
ness as they. 

Pastor Russell has, like the Adventists, cut off from a cer- 
tain measure and measured time on another timeline than the 
one which arises from the earth's movements around the sun 
and around its axis. Here he demolishes his own doctrine 
before common school science, though he does not think so. 

Pastor Russell thought that the 2,300 days began B. C. 
454, and in such a case they end A. D. 1846; that the sanct- 
uary to be cleansed was the people who should be cleansed 
from the papal defilement at that time.,, 


We are glad that people get cleansed from the papal defile- 
ment. But we enjoy just as much that they get cleansed from 
Pastor Russell's defilement. If you want to retain your beaut- 
iful 'name "The Friends of Truth," then let your hearts be 
cleansed by the obedience of truth and not by the faith in 
Pastor Russell's false chronology. 

My faith is very weak, for a change to the better, because 
error is, as a rule, very tenacious. 

Since the beginning of the time of the end, 1799, God has 
prepared his consecrated "holy people," his "santuary." (Vol. 
3, page 126.) 

The time of the end began where the vision was being ful- 
filled. The history states definitely that this time began in 
Medo-Persia, and Pastor Russell says that the time of the 
end begins A. D. 1799. There is a difference of 2,339 years. 
As soon as Pastor Russell proves that Medo-Persia pushed 
westward, northward, and southward, and extended the king- 
dom after 1799, I promise to ask both him and his people for 

But he cannot do it, for Medo-Persia was taken by Alexan- 
der B. C. 331, and his many strange opinions in the third 
volume of his theology falls flat before the word of the Lord. 

On this mistake that the time of the end began A. D. 1799 
he has built his whole chronology. On the year 1799 the 
following years are derived 1829, 1875, 1807, 1831, 1846, 1874 f 
1878, and 1914. Even the Biblical numbers 2,300, 1,290, and 
1,335 have some connection or other with all the other num- 
bers. The Biblical numbers belong to the vision when it was 
being fulfilled in Medo-Persia and Grecia. The last of the 
vision was the 2,300 days which ended when the sanctuary was 
cleansed in Jerusalem, Dec. 25, B. C. 164. 

Because Pastor Russell has believed that the 2,300 days 
are so many years, the foundation of his chronology is false. 


From the vision he has got the other numbers totally wrong, 
viz., A. D. 1799, 1829, 1875, 1846, 1874, 1878 and 1914. 

How Pastor Russell has reached these strange conclusions, 
is a matter of small importance and less interest. But I will 
here touch upon the most important that the reader may be 
acquainted with his peculiar method and the way he obtains 
his results. 

I prefer to use an illustration. Suppose that Pastor Rus- 
sell was going to make a journey from Boston to San Fran- 
cisco. He was asked to make a description of all the cities, 
villages, hills and valleys on the first 300 miles of his journey; 
but he started his description of the scenery at Denver, about 
2,000 miles from Boston. How can he get the cities on his 
map which are located west of Denver to correspond with the 
cities which he passed on the first 300 miles from Boston? 
He has moved the time of the end 2,000 years forward from 
Medo-Persia and Alexander's kingdom where these things 
were fulfilled to the year A. D. 1799. 

He says the time of the end is 115 years, from A. D. 
1799 to 1914, and the time of the harvest the last forty years, 
from 1874 to 1914. (Vol. 3, page 23.) And again, "Not only 
has the Lord shown us what to expect in this "harvest," and 
our share in it, both in being separated ourselves and, as 
"reapers," in using the sickle of truth to assist others to liberty 
in Christ and separation of false human systems and bond- 
ages, but in order to render us doubly sure that we are right, 
and that the separating time of the harvest has arrived, he pro- 
vided us proofs of the very year the harvest work began, its 
length, and when it will close. These, already examined, show 
that the close of 1874 marked the beginning, as the close of 
1914 will mark the end, of this forty years of harvest .... 
The parallel to this, as we have seen, points to 1874 as the 
time of our Lord's second presence as Bridegroom and Reaper, 


and to April 1878 as the time when he began to exercise his 
office of King of kings and Lord of lords in every deed — this 
time a spiritual King, present with all power, though invisible 
to men. (Vol. 3, pages 149, 150.) 

.... "when he would in reality assume the kingly office, 
power, etc. ; viz., in the spring of 1878, three and a half years 
after his second advent at the beginning of the harvest period, 
in the fall of 1874. The year 1878 being thus indicated as the 
date when the Lord began to take unto himself his great power, 
it is reasonable to conclude that there the setting up of his 
Kingdom began, the first step of which would be the deliver- 
ance of his body, the Church, among whom the sleeping mem- 
bers are to take precedence." 

"And since the resurrection of the Church must occur 
some time during this 'end' or 'harvest' period (Rev. 11: 18), 
we hold that it is the most reasonable inference, and one in 
perfect harmony with all the Lord's plans, that in the spring 
of 1878 all the holy apostles and other 'overcomers' of the 
Gospel age who slept in Jesus were raised spirit beings, like 
unto their Lord and Master. And while we, therefore, con- 
clude that their resurrection is now an accomplished fact, 
and hence that they, as well as the Lord, are present in the 
earth, the fact that we do not see them is no obstacle to faith 
when we remember that, like their Lord, they are now spirit 
beings, and, like him, invisible to men." (Vol. 3, page 234.) 

"Our belief that the Kingdom began to be set up, or brought 
into power, in April 1878, be it observed, rests upon exactly the 
same foundation as our belief that our Lord became present in 
October, 1874, and that the harvest began at that time." 
(Vol. 3, page 235.) 

These are the most perverted doctrines one can think of, 
diametrically opposed to the Bible and common sense, and 
that people can be found in the various congregations who are 


capable of swallowing such nonsense proves that they are 
children in understanding. "In malice be ye children, but in 
understanding be men." 

From the foregoing -we learn that Pastor Russell teaches 
that the Lord Jesus came to this earth in October, 1874, when 
his time of harvest began, and assumed his great power of 
government 1878. The apostles and all the holy ones arose 
from their graves, the cry was heard then. He says, "Be- 
hold the Bridegroom!" not, "Behold the Bridegroom cometh!" 
but, "Behold, he has come, and we live now in the presence 
of the Son of man." (Vol. 3, page 95.) 

It seems that unsettled people are ready to accept doctrines 
which are out of harmony with God's word; but it is appar- 
ently impossible for them to believe in the words of Jesus. If 
Pastor Russell is right here, then the direct words of Jesus 
concerning his second coming are a concoction of errors. 

Our Saviour came here in 1874 and as he did not begin to 
reign before 1878 then he had a rest of four years before. It 
appears from Pastor Russell's writings as though Jesus could 
not take care of himself, but had to wait for this selfstyled 
reformer ; for he says, 

"And such has been the character of the present move- 
ment, since that date: a proclamation of the Lord's presence, 
and of the kingdom work now in progress. The writer and 
co-laborers, proclaimed the fact of the Lord's presence, dem- 
onstrating it from prophecy, and on charts or tables, such as 
are used in this book, until the fall of 1878, when arrange- 
ments were made for starting our present publication, Zion's 
Watch Tower,' and 'Herald of Christ's Presence'." (Vol. 3, 
page 93.) 

When the Lord Jesus ascended to heaven the angels said 
to those who witnessed his ascension, "The same Jesus, which 


is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like man- 
ner as ye have seen him go into heaven." (Acts 1 : 11.) 

All eyes shall see him when he is returning, we are told 
in Rev. 1:7; Matt. 24 : 30. 

When he comes the second time, John says in his first letter, 
3 : 2, "We shall see him as he is." "And when the Chief 
Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that 
fadeth not away." (1 Pet. 5: 4.) 

Paul was confident that both he and those who loved the 
appearing of Christ should receive the crown of righteous- 
ness at the second coming of Christ. (2 Tim. 4: 8.) 

Heaven must receive Christ until the times of restitution 
of all things. (Acts 3: 21.) 

Paul says that if we suffer with him, we shall also reign 
with him. (2 Tim. 2: 12.) 

The holy people shall be priests of God and of Christ, and 
shall reign with him a thousand years. (Rev. 20: 6.) 

These priests shall reign on earth, (Rev. 5: 10.) 

Now we have reason and right to ask: 1. Did Jesus return 
to the earth in 1874 in the way the Bible says he should come ? 
2. Did all see him 1874 when he came? I did not see him my- 
self, neither have I heard that anyone else did see him. It is 
only Pastor Russell who has figured out that Jesus came in 
1874. But it seems as though Christ did not care very much 
for his calculations. Christ is likely to wait till the Ancient 
of days decides the time, and then there will be other' revela- 
tions than we had in 1874. This doctrine is sheer nonsense. 

One of the cited passages is sufficient to refute his fan- 
tastry. But the words of Christ have less weight than a grain 
of dust for such fanatics. The holy Spirit, the best interpreter, 
who leads to the whole truth has nothing to teach these dem- 
agogues. One cannot reason with such people. The words of 


Christ is fitted for them, "Let them alone; they be blind 
leaders of the people." (Matt. 15: 14.) 

Is there any support in the holy scriptures for the theory 
that we shall know the day of the Lord's return on before- 
hand ? _ 

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the 
angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matt. 24: 36.) 
"Watch therefore; for ye know not -what hour your Lord doth 
come." (Verse 42.) "Therefore be ye also ready: for in such 
an hour as ye think not, the Son of man cometh." (Verse 44.) 

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not 
the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Fath- 
er." (Mark. 13: 32.) "Watch ye therefore; for ye know not 
when the Master of the house cometh." (Verse 36.) 

The theory that Christ came here 1874, which Pastor Rus- 
sell says is reliable, is in open contradiction to the statements 
of Jesus. 

From what we have learned from the very words of Jesus 
we make the conclusion that Jesus does not know himself when 
the time is come for his reappearing, but the Father only. If 
this is true, how could Jesus point out a thing to Pastor Rus- 
sell of which he was ignorant? 

The Lord Jesus has been here thirty-nine years though no- 
body has yet seen him. He arrived in October 1874, says 
Pastor Russell. (See page 245, Vol. 3, of Pastor Russell's 
work, and anyone of "the friends of truth" will tell you that 
I am right.) 

That" the redemption of the saints must take place some 
time before 1914, he promises with full assurance, but cannot 
say exactly how long before that time (Vol. 3, page 238) ; but 
read my books and study my maps, and if you cannot see that 
I am correct, you cannot belong to my class of the sanctuary, 
which alone can see the truth. 


Before this dictum of the great leader I am condemned as 
one who perverts the truth, as I recognize only the scripture 
and the explicit word of God, which is sufficient to confute his 
false notions. 

"If the rubbish and defiling abominations were entirely re- 
moved in 1846, the time since should be a season for the 
setting in order of the things which remain, and for the un- 
folding and developing of God's glorious plans — which truths 
should reoccupy the places vacated by the errors removed." 
(Vol. 3, page 120.) 

Here pastor Russell thinks he has given his people meat in 
the right time. He believes that the 2,300 days began B. C. 
454, and that the word of the restoration of Jerusalem went 
forth then. If the 2,300 days were years, it is manifest that 
they must end in A. D. 1864. 

We can prove with Biblical and historical facts that just 
at that time the most obnoxious doctrines came up in the 
world. The prophecies which had been fulfilled more than 
2,000 years before were applied to that time. It has been a 
devilish lure which has deceived thousands of honest, though 
ignorant souls, concerning these things. The reader is cer- 
tainly convinced by this time that the 2,300 must be taken in 
another meaning. 

"And this harvest message to the saints continues to go 
forth, and will do so, until it has reached all the consecrated 
and faithful." (Vol. 3, page 123.) 

His message goes out and reaches all ignorant people who 
believe in Pastor Russell's fantasies without knowledge or 
common sense. 

"None are now prepared to receive this truth, except the 
consecrated, the sanctuary class." (Vol. 3, page 124.) 

No one needs a preparation to receive an error. But as 
they don't know the world's history they believe errors, but 


they do not know it. If they had taken some time to think 
that Alexander must be included in the vision, and then tried 
to find out if he lived as late as 1799, they would have learned 
that he died in Babylon B. C. 323, and that the whole exposi- 
tion of this vision by Pastor Russell is merely wind. 

A woman among the adherents of Russell asked me once, 
if I believed in the plan of the ages. I answered that I am 
opposed to the chronology upon which their leader is building 
his system. She turned away from me as if I had been an 
archenemy of God and his Kingdom, and it hurt me that she 
was so misled that she could not listen to the least opposition 
against her leader. 

Another woman came to me and wanted to sell his books. 
She said they were unsurpassed as aids to Bible study. How 
do you know ? I asked her. I have read them for nine years 
and not found any fault in them. Are you sure that you are 
competent to judge whether they are right or not? I asked 
again. Of course. I told her that Pastor Russell has made 
many mistakes in his books. As soon as she heard that I did 
not accept his teaching, she did not want to talk to me. She 
knew forthwith that \ was an "enemy of the truth," for it is 
only "the friends of the truth" who can understand his fan- 
tastic humbug. 

They are not bad people, those believers in Pastor Russell's 
theories. On the contrary, they are often very good people, 
and may they only remain just as faithful and good after 1914, 
when they will find out how miserably deceived they have been 
for forty years. 

"And, with the end of A. D. 1914, what God calls Babylon, 
and what men call Christendom, will have passed away, as al- 
ready shown from prophecy." (Vol. 3, page 153.) 

The Lord Jesus cannot say as much about this thing as 
Pastor Russell, and yet a great number of people believe in 


him, thinking that he is a chosen vessel of God, though anyone 
with sense who reads them can see from the word of God that 
they are nothing but a vulgar deception. 

Let us listen again to what he says in Vol. 3, page 242, 
.... "after the truth, which Babylon now begins to regard as 
her enemy, and as calculated to accomplish her destruction, 
shall have become more generally known and widely circulated ; 
after "the hail" has to considerable extent swept away the 
refuge of lies; and after the smoldering and menacing hatred 
of the truth is thereby roused to an opposition so violent and 
so general as to effectually stop the further progress of the 
great work in which the saints are engaged. And God will 
permit this as soon as the elect are "sealed." 

Just think what bold and arrogant language this is ! Pas- 
tor Russell is going to sweep away the refuge of lies. If one 
is going to drive away darkness one must bring forth light. 
To sweep away lies with lies is hardly possible. The sooner 
his great work (errors) stops the better for the deceived class 
of the sanctuary. The only sealing that the Lord knows any- 
thing of is the holy Spirit. When they get filled with him, 
they will soon find some more useful occupation than going 
around selling Pastor Russell's six books and misinforming 
people concerning the chronology of the Bible. 

The last trumpet has already sounded, according to Pastor 
Russell. But the fact is that none of the trumpets have sound- 
ed yet, because the seventh seal is not yet broken. 

"And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great 
voices in heaven, saying, the kingdoms of this world are be- 
come the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he 
shall reign for ever and ever." (Rev. 11 : 15.) 

Has the Lord taken possession of his Kingdom and reigned 
yet? Have the kingdoms of the world become the kingdoms 
of the Lord and of his Christ? The land companies and 


farmers are buying and selling land as before. If the king- 
doms of the world had belonged to the Lord, it is not probable 
that the social order would keep on exactly as before. "Are" 
is present tense. As soon as the angel sounded his trumpet and 
announced that the kingdoms of this world "are" become the 
Lord's and his Christ's, then Jesus would be here. If pastor 
Russell is right the angel is standing up there and is playing 
the part of a hyprocrite year after year. 

What spiritual food the "friends of the truth" have served 
before them! O that God were allowed to open their eyes 
that they could see the folly as soon as possible, for it is a 
pity about the misled people ! 

Men have predicted the time of our Lord's return again 
and again, and that he shall come at a certain period. 

This exhortation of Christ applies to us all, "Therefore be 
ye also ready for in such an hour as ye think not, the Son of 
man cometh." (Matt. 24: 44.) 


Errors Concerning Daniel's 1 1 th Chapter 

Pastor Russell's mistakes in this chapter are so much greater, 

as there is no excuse for such blunders. The vision which 

began in the Kingdom, of Medo-Persia B. C. 538 he 

puts forward to A. D. 1799 and applies it to Rome. 

. I did not know until a year ago that Pastor Russell's 
doctrines were so shallow. Since I had published a circular 
against the false exposition by the Adventists of Daniel's 
eighth chapter, one of Pastor Russell's adherents told me that 
if it was not true that Rome is the little horn in this chapter, 
Pastor Russell's doctrines fall to the ground for the same 
reasons. Then I began to study his chronology, which was 
very easy, having examined that of the Adventists. The foun- 
dation of these two systems is the same. Pastor Russell has in 
fact borrowed his corner stones from the Adventists. Upon 
these he has erected his stately mansion, and therefore it is easy 
to show how poorly his house is built. 

In Daniel's eleventh chapter they have made the most ob- 
vious mistakes, and if they were not blind they should have 
been able to avoid them. 

When I had discovered their errors I wrote the following 
letter to Pastor Russell: 

Chicago, October 18, 1911. 
Rev. C. T. Russell, 

Brooklyn, N. Y. 
Dear Brother: — 

Since I have read your books and especially noticed your 
position concerning the eighth and eleventh chapters of 


Daniel's book, I wish to write you a few lines to point out in 
all brotherly love that you are mistaken in your interpretation 
of these prophecies. The enclosed circular proves fully that 
Rome does not fill the requirements of the prophecy in Dan. 
eighth chapter, but the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes. In 
the eleventh chapter both you and the Seventh-day Adventists 
made such mistakes that a ten-year old child can see. The 
prophecy rests upon verses 17, 18 and 19 which you also pointy 
out in your book, Vol. 3. Only one person is referred to in all 
these verses, as the pronoun, "he" is the subject to all the 
predicates. The king who gave his daughted in marriage had 
gone against him with the strength of his whole kingdom. 
(Verse 17.) After reconciliation had been effected he should 
turn, his face toward the isles and take many, but a prince 
should cause the reproach offered by him to cease. (Verse 18.) 
Then he should return to the fort of his own land; but he 
should stumble and fall and not be found. (Verse 19.) This 
refers to the same man all the way through. The Adventists 
say that it is Ptolemy XI Auletes, an Egyptian king, who 
reigned between B. C. 80-51. He had made the arrangement 
before his death that his son and daughter should occupy the 
throne co-jointly. Three years after his death (B. C. 48) 
serious difficulties arose between the brother and sister, and the 
senate in Rome sent the general, Julius Caesar to Alexandria 
with 4,000 men to pacify the combatants. In order to gain 
some advantage with the Roman general, Cleopatra, caused 
herself to be wrapped up in clothes, was carried to Caesar and 
placed as a present before his feet. Enraptured by her beauty 
he made her his concubine and had one son with her. Auletes 
had no war with anyone, much less with Caesar three years 
after his death and with Anthony ten years later. It is im- 
possible for a dead man to take many islands and that he after- 
wards shall meet a man who is to put an end to his reproach. 


And finally that he shall return to the fort of his own land, 
and stumble, and fall and not be found. Neither Auletes, 
Cleopatra, Qesar or Anthony have anything to do with this 
prophecy, unless it can be proved that a dead king can do the 
things recorded in verses 17, 18 and 19. But one might just 
as well go against the multiplication table and try to prove that 
it is wrong. It is the king in the north who shall give his 
daughter to the king in the south and the prophecy fits the 
case of the Syrian king, Antiochus III the Great. He took 
Egypt, Ccelo-Syria and Palestine and all power was in his 
hands. Then he determined to extend his kingdom in other 
directions, made a treaty with the Egyptian king, Ptolemy V, 
and gave to him his daughter Cleopatra. They were both 
young, but married B. C. 193, when he was seventeen years 
old, at which occasion Antiochus III returned Ccelo-Syria and 
Palestine to his son-in-law as a wedding gift. Afterwards he 
turned his attention to islands and captured Rhodus, Samos, 
Eubea, Colopon and others, but in a battle against Glabrio at 
Thermopylae Antiochus lost. Another battle he fought with 
Scipio near the mountain Sipylus in Asia. Antiochus was 
defeated and compelled to make peace. The conditions were 
that he should pay to the Roman government an amount cor- 
responding to $15,915,000 and twenty of his most prominent 
men were given as a hostage, among them his youngest son 
Antiochus Epiphanes. Afterwards Antiochus III returned 
to his country to gather money to pay the war indemnity to 
Rome. While he was robbing a temple in Susiana he and his 
soldiers- were murdered. His son Seleucus IV, became king 
after him. He was chiefly occupied with raising money to pay 
his father's debt to Rome, wherefore he was called a raiser of 
taxes. He was murdered by Heliodorus B. C. 175 and his 
younger brother Antiochus Epiphanes became king in his place. 
Here is the vile man spoken of in verse 21, from there no other 


king in the north is mentioned and he fills to prophecy in every 
detail. If you study the prophecy correctly you cannot get in 
Rome in the verses 17, 18 or 19, and the time of the end can- 
not begin A. D. 1799. The time of the end was finished B. C. 
164, when the transgressors had come to the full (Dan. 8 : 10, 
23) when the 2,300 evenings and mornings had come to an end. 
Therefore your explanation from verse fourteen to the end of 
the chapter is a great mistake and many of your friends are 
sorry over that blunder, for which you soon will suffer. It is 
easy to see the mistake in Dan. 11 : 17, 18, 19, that the predic- 
tions there cannot apply to a dead, but a living king. When 
you have looked over these facts please write to me. If I live, 
I intend this winter to publish a book in the Swedish language 
against the prophecies of the Seventh-day Adventists and their 
prophetess, whose theories are untenable from beginning to 
end. If you do not see your mistake and recall your state- 
ments concerning Daniel's eighth, ninth and eleventh chapters, 
I wish to say that you will come in for your share in that book. 
I have both heard you preach and read your books. Your po- 
sition I most emphatically reject for several reasons: It is 
human to make mistakes, but I have so much confidence in 
your honesty that I think you will retract your errors when 
you see them. If you so wish, I can on good authorities prove 
that my calculations are reliable. I think there are few who 
have studied this subject so carefully as myself, so the Ad- 
ventists have not had the courage to go against me. My views 
are not built upon opinions, but on facts. And I know with 
certainty that I have facts on my side and if I live long enough 
I will show them. God and his Spirit are my guides in this 
study, and I neither can nor will neglect to do my duty. I 
wait for an answer as soon as possible. In brotherly love. 

Aaron Nyman. 
Wish to add here : When I sent the above letter to Pastor 


Russell, I had full confidence in him as to his character. Later 
I read a book by Rev. J. J. Ross— a court record from Ham- 
ilton, Canada. Then I lost confidence in his character. 

Some time afterwards I received a postal card from the 
central station of the sect in Brooklyn, N. Y. The postal card 
informed me that if I did not understand the prophecies, there 
might be other things that I could read and derive blessing 
from. Brother Russell had many who would be willing and 
glad to instruct him if they were permitted. Was this an 
answer to my letter? They understood the prophecy, but 1 
did not. Russell needs no information! This card was prob- 
ably from his secretary. But my letter to him cannot be 
silenced so easy as he thinks. Because he did not answer or 
retract any of his misleading doctrines he has got three chap- 
ters in this book, which in the name of the Lord shall make 
some stir in the camp, and which Pastor Russell with his sec- 
retaries cannot silence. 

If one is familiar with the meahing of Daniel's eleventh 
chapter (see chapter V in this book), and afterwards reads 
Pastor Russell's explanation of it, one can say without exag- 
geration that it is one of the most reprehensible works ever 
published on this question. And yet these are the wheels of 
his prophetical cart upon which he has gone around the whole 

We ask the reader to study Daniels eleventh chapter in the 
Bible together with the fifth chapter in this book and diagram 
No. 4. 

Pastor Russell has not succeeded better in his explanation 
of these prophecies than the Adventists. He has intended to 
improve them here and there according to his opinion ; but they 
are neither better or worse for the treatment they have receiv- 
ed. When the word of the Lord is put in its right place, his 


whole building, with its guilded spires and modern decorations 
and artifices, falls to the ground. 

Houses builded on a weak foundation which tumble to the 
ground always have some valuable stuff among the ruins which 
can be picked up; but as Pastor Russell has neither founda- 
tion, walls nor roof to his house, there is absolutely nothing 
of value to pick up among the ruins. It is a castle in the air, 
a fantastic building without foundation, walls or roof, a Fata 
Morgana that vanishes, before the fresh breezes of the dawn. 

In Vol. 3, page 25, "Let us understand how ignorant those 
people have been who have applied the little horn in the proph- 
ecy to Antiochus Epiphanes between B. C. 171-168, when he 
forced his way into the temple, abolished the sacrifice and 
placed his idol Jupiter Capitolinus in the holy place." 

If Pastor Russell had studied Daniel's eighth chapter with 
open eyes, he would have received light enough to see the his- 
torical facts. But then he could not have published any more 
books in that direction, which yie,ld him as lucrative income. 

Since he has said that they apply the time of the end to the 
wrong person, then he comes again with his false interpreta- 
tion. I hope that the illustration of the sinking of the Titanic 
is clear enough to show him that the time of the end for this 
boat was when she sank under the water, and that it did not 
require 2,000 years before that vision could be understood. 
Pastor Russell applies the prophecies to a period of 2,000 years 
after they are fulfilled. 

A woman who has had a strong belief in Pastor Russell's 
divine mission as a reformer in these latter days came often 
to my home and tried, in a wellmeaning way, to show me how 
beautifully his interpretation corresponded with the real facts. 
When my circular was published aga'inst the Adventists, she 
read it, and said afterwards, "If the time of the end does not 
begin A. D. 1799 his whole doctrine crumbles to dust." I com- 


forted her with these words, "Truth never fails, truth remains, 
when errors must vanish." 

When Pastor Russell is going to explain the prophecy in 
the eleventh chapter he says it would be too tedious to start 
from the beginning, and adds that the difference of opinion be- 
gins in the seventeenth verse. (Vol. 3, page 28.) 

"Proceeding, then, we understand verses 17-19 to apply to 
the times and incidents in which Mark Anthony and Cleopatra 
figured, when Anthony fell, and Egypt was swallowed up m 
the Roman empire." (Page 28.) 

Here he has said that the prophecy centers in verses 17-19, 
and that is right. But that these verses refer to Anthony and 
Cleopatra is a hard nut for him to crack. 

If we now can show with historical, biblical and scientific 
facts that the foundation is false, his whole message is un- 
founded, and the dates 1799, 1829, 1875, 1807, 1846, 1874, 
1878 and 1914 have no more value then multiplied by nothing. 

We ask in all seriousness as standing before Him before 
whose eyes no one can sham : What will become of his jour- 
neys over lands and seas to propagate his falsehoods, if these 
nine years can be proved to be erroneous? If he had the truth, 
be sure there would not be so many who followed him. We do 
not deny that he has some truth. But we deal now chiefly with 
his prophetical message, which is the very foundation of his 
doctrinal system and by which he recruits in many countries 
for his class of the sanctuary. 

We will now study the seventeenth verse which is the pivot 
around which all the remaining verses" of that chapter turn. 

The seventeenth verse reads, "He shall also set his face to 
enter with the strength of his whole kingdom; and uprights 
with him ; thus shall he do : and he shall give him the daughters 
of women, corrupting her : but she shall not stand on his side, 
neither be for him." 


The first thing we must do now before taking a single 
step forward is to find out who was the father of Cleopatra. 
Since we have found him, it is easy to find if he went against 
Anthony with the strength of his whole kingdom, made peace 
with him, and gave him his daughter in matrimony. Upon 
these things Pastor Russell's chronology is based. 

The pronoun "he" indicates that this person is mentioned 

"But he (verse 16) that cometh against him shall do ac 
cording to his own will, and none shall stand before him ; and 
he shall stand in a glorious land, which by his hand shall be 

It was therefore the father of Cleopatra, this "he" who 
went against "him". 

The father of Cleopatra was an Egyptian king, Ptolemy 
XI Auletes, who ascended the throne B. C. 80 and' died B. C. 

It was therefore Auletes in verse sixteen who should go 
against "him." Which "him?" He who is mentioned in verse 
fifteen, viz. Antiochus III, the Great. What was the relation- 
ship between these two kings? Antiochus III died B. C. 187 
and Auletes became king B. C. 80. Could Auletes go against 
Antiochus 107 years before he ascended the Egyptian throne? 
It is an absurdity to say that Auletes had a war 107 years be- 
fore he became a king. It looks forbidding for Pastor Russell 
before we even approach the seventeenth verse. 

These are the questions upon which the prophecy rests. 

1. Did Ptolemy XI Auletes go against Anthony with the 
strength of his whole kingdom ? 

2. Did he make peace with Anthony and did he give to him 
his daughter as a wife? 

If Pastor Russell can prove this, then he is in harmony 
with the word of God; if not, his fantastic castle in the air 


in which he has promised a place for the friends of the truth, 
is overthrown. 

Emperor Augustus had a sister named Octavia who mar- 
ried C. Marcellus B. C. 50. He died in B. C. 41, and Anthony 
married the widow living with her for a few years. Anthony 
was the leader in a war against Egypt B. C. 35 When the 
queen of Egypt, who now was a widow (since she had caused 
her husband Ptolemy XIII, who also was her younger brother 
to be murdered at the age of seventeen years), heard of his com- 
ing, instead of sending an ambassador went herself to meet 
him and handed her documents to him. Anthony was so capti- 
vated by the sight of the beautiful young queen, at this time 
thirty-four years of age, that he lost all interest in matters of 
the state, married Cleopatra and abandoned his wife Octavia. 

The difference between fifty-one and thirty-five is sixteen 
years. Auletes had now been dead sixteen years, when An- 
thony came to Egypt and saw Cleopatra the first time. 

Did the dead king who had been in his grave sixteen years 
go against Anthony with the strength of his whole kingdom? 

Any one who believes that is a great deal more credulous 
than the writer. 

Did the dead king make peace with Anthony,, and did he 
give him his daughter in matrimony after he had been dead 
sixteen years? It is questionable whether "the friends of the 
truth" do believe. 

Whom shall we believe now, pastor Russell or Nyman? 
Has Pastor Russell shown you from any reliable history where 
you can find that his statements correspond with the Bible? 
No. Any history that is somewhat complete will support the 
views I had advocated, or go to International Encyclopedia, 
Vol. X, page 787, which will give the pure and unadulterated 
truths concerning the verses in question. 

Rome is not here the king in the north, and the whole mes- 


sage of Pastor Russell which he has spread broadcast over the 
land falls to the ground before the unchangeable verdict of 

How can a prophecy look anything but distasteful when it 
rests upon a dead king, still slumbering in his grave. It had 
been better to build upon the word of God and upon the King 
who was mighty to arise from the tomb since he had been rest- 
ing in it for three days. 

"The present truth" of the Adventists is built upon the 
same dead king. The difference between them is thirteen 
years. The Adventists say that Caesar received his daughter. 
Caesar came to Alexandria B. C. 48, Auletes had then been 
dead three years. One who has been dead in three years or 
sixteen makes very little stir. The prophetess of the Adven- 
tists and Pastor Russell might just as well shake hands with 
one another. 

Just think if Pastor Russell had been married to Mrs. 
White, what marvelous doctrines would we not have had in 
the world ! I have never heard of two more credulous persons. 

Russellites, will you now admit that your doctrine is found- 
ed upon a dead king, and that it is an astounding error? 
There is no hiding place whatever for you. Do like a man did 
here in Chicago. After I had had a lecture on this subject, he 
came forward and said, "we cannot say anything against you 
because we do not know the history." He was sincere, and 
sincerity is a necessary qualification for entering into the King- 
dom of God. 

It is impossible to believe that a person who makes so many 
mistakes as we now have pointed out can be led by the Spirit 
of God. He is led by a spirit of credulity. If Pastor Russell 
had looked at his Bible closely, he would have seen that it is 
the king of the north who should give away his daughter to 
the king of the south, and not vice versa. Then he should 


have investigated to find whether the father of Cleopatra had 
any war against Anthony; upon that answer depends the 
meaning of the prophecy. But without making the slightest 
reference to history he rushes ahead and talks pall mall with- 
out giving any reasons. Does God's Spirit ever lead in that 

It is of no use to defend your errors. The only thing ac- 
ceptable in God's sight is to confess that you have been de- 
ceived by Pastor Russell whose teaching you have accepted 
without investigation. 

As Pastor Russell has switched off from the prophecy in 
the seventeenth verse, all his exposition to the end of the chap- 
ter is wrong. 

Verses eighteen and nineteen say, 

"After this shall he turn his face into the isles, and shall 
take many; but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the 
reproach offered him to cease; without his own reproach he 
shall cause it to turn upon him. Then he shall turn his face 
toward the fort of his own land : but he shall stumble and 
fall, and not be found." 

lit is selfevident that it cannot be a dead person referred 
to in these verses. 

Pastor Russell goes on to say, "And if we shall show that 
the events here mentioned in prophecy agree with Napoleon's 
career in history, we can determine the dates as certainly as 
we could the beginning of the reign of Augustus Caesar, or 
Tiberius, or Cleopatra — described in verses 17, 20, and 21. 
Napoleon's career, in the light of prophecy, marked A. D. 
1799," etc. (Vol. 3, page 40.) 

After Pastor Russell thinks that he has proved that the- 
dead king Ptolemy XI Auletes had a war, made peace, giving 
away his daughter, took several islands, etc., since he had 
been in the grave for sixteen years, Russell tries to bring in 


Augustus Caesar, Cleopatra, and Tiberius. If he cannot ad- 
duce sufficient reasons for this interpretation, all his exposi- 
tions are wrong. 

On page 22 of Vol. 3 he says, that the time of the end is 
a period of 115 years. On page 41 he adds, that Cleopatra 
fills the prophecy in the 17th verse, but she ended her reign 
in the year B. C. 30, when Egypt was incorporated in the 
Roman empire. Then she was in the vision ; afterwards 
Augustus Caesar and Tiberius. After this explanation he 
makes a wild jump forward to A. D. 1799, a time of 1,829 
years, as he thinks Napoleon is the king mentioned in the 36th 
verse. In this manner he has given the vision a length of 
1,829 years, Cleopatra in the beginning and Napoleon in the 
end; and in such a case he has got the vision on page 41 to 
be 1,714 years longer than on page 23. Which one of these 
two explanations is the correct one? Each explanation is 
equally absurd. 

In the 36th verse he puts up Napoleon to be the king who 
here fills the prophecy; "He shall magnify himself above every 
god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of 

Pastor Russell says, "Here the word 'gods' refers to rulers, 
kings and princes, and the expression, 'god of gods,' or ruler 
of rulers, refers to the pope. Most men have acknowledged 
some religious superior, but Napoleon acknowledged none. 
Even the 'god of gods' (i. e., the ruler of rulers — the pope) 
he addressed in a marvelous way." (Vol. 3, page 40.) 

Here Pastor Russell again shows his inability to reason 
logically. If this prophecy refers to Napoleon and his relation 
to the pope, then the word of the angel confirms the claim 
that the pope is the God of gods, and the Lord of lords, for 
the angel said that this ruler should magnify himself against 
the God of gods. But will Pastor Russell make such a con- 


cession for the pope? Besides, it is inconceivable how Pastor 
Russell and other fanatical exegetes can say that Napoleon 
set himself against God. The revolutionists in France during 
the reign of terror had abolished the Christian religion, but 
when Napoleon was first Consul he made a concordat with 
the pope Pius VII in 1802, according to which the Catholic 
church was restored to her rights and influence again. When 
the concordat was proclaimed in Notre Dame the first Consul 
was there taking part in the Te Deum that was chanted. 
Napoleon was by no means a religious man, but he knew that 
the people needed religion, and he restored to them the right 
of public worship, including both Catholics, Protestants, and 
Jews, after all religion had been banished for several years. 
(Guizot, "History of France," page 56.) At the coronation 
he wished to place a religious stamp upon his greatness, and 
instructed Cardinal Caprara to ask the pope to come to Paris 
to consecrate him. In a subsequent letter written by Napoleon 
to Pius VII he calls the pope "Very Holy Father. ... I beg 
your Holiness to come and give a religious character of the 

highest degree to the ceremony of the consecration Your 

Holiness knows the friendly feeling which I have long had 
towards you. . . . We pray God, most holy Father, that He 
may keep you for many years in the rule and government of 
our mother the holy Church. Your devoted son, Napoleon." 

There is not to be found anywhere a scintilla of an argu- 
ment showing that Napoleon was a blesphemer against God 
and not even an enemy of the Christian religion in its most 
perverted form. 

The king in our text should magnify himself against God, 
and not the pope of Rome, as any one can see. 

It is deplorable when a man is so blind that he cannot see 
that the angel means the true God, but thinks that the angel 
rneans the pope when he says the God of gods. 


Our Saviour said in his earnest petition to his heavenly 
Father, "Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth." 
(John 17:17.) 

Pastor Russell's class of the sanctuary must, of course, 
sanctify (set apart) themselves for his six books and other 
writings, for which they work both night and day, so that no 
other religious body can show anything like it. 

This king should not consider the gods of his fathers, 
neither any -other god. But instead he shall honor the god of 
the forces; and a god whom his fathers knew not. (Verses 
37, 38.) 

This God of the forces he says is the military system. (Vol. 
3, page 44.) 

When a man can say that the fathers of Napoleon did not 
have the military power before Napoleon's own times, then he 
can say anything. Take any worlds' history you please and 
study the history of France from A. D. 486, and follow it up 
to 1799, and say afterwards that the fathers of Napoleon did 
not know anything of warfare before 1799. In 1793 they 
decapitated their own king. The whole country was in tur- 
moil. England, Holland, Spain, Germany, and other powers 
fought against France. His fathers ought not to have for- 
gotten that in six years. Go back from the days of Napoleon 
1,300 years and we find that his fathers had several bloody 
wars during this time, so we are safe in saying that his fathers 
knew of the military curse long before his time. It does not 
look a bit better when they build upon a dead king. 

"And at the time of the end shall the king of the south 
push at him." (Verse 40.) 

Here he gets the king in the north to represent England 
after he has tried to prove before that it was Napoleon 
(France). England should push against "him," the king in 
the north. We have then two kings in the north ; one pushes 


against the other. If Napoleon is the king in the north, then 
France must be the kingdom in the north. A king can easily 
be moved back and forth but it is quite difficult to put a 
kingdom on a cart and wheel it away. No, it will remain 
where it once has been placed on this terrestial globe. 

The Bible speaks of only one king in the north (Syria, the 
present Turkey) and the king in the south (Egypt). 

Pastor Russell's explanation of the eleventh chapter in 
Daniel, occupying thirty-nine pages in his book, is the most 
miserable mixture of errors one can conceive. One need not 
be an expert in history, or be a genius, to see how absurd 
everything is. 

His people do not see it, however, but are happy and con- 
tent as "the friends of the truth," the class of saints which is 
purified from the errors of the churches of Babylon. 

My heart is aching when I think of how many sincere and 
godly people are misled by his fantastic doctrines. 

"Is there no balm in Gilead" that can heal this wound? 

It is not my intention to look for faults; we are apt to 
make mistakes. Even the wise admit that they are sometimes 
mistaken. When a person does his best, but mistakes happen 
to creep into his work, we ought to overlook such misfortunes. 
The soldier who is having target practice aims to hit the center 
every time. With the best efforts he often fails, but he has 
been very near. It would be wrong to blame him because he 
does not strike it every time. But if he cannot strike the 
target at all, he is incapable of shooting and ought to learn 
to aim his gun in the right direction before he tries to shoot. 

Has such a person any right to go around among the other 
soldiers and boast of his remarkable ability to shoot when he 
has not hit the target a single time, and at the same time make 
fun of the comrades because they do not shoot right? When 


his comrades find out that he has not hit the target, they will 
make it lively for him. 

Pastor Russell has handled the 11th chapter of Daniel in 
a culpable way. He has not hit the target with a single shot, 
but has been shooting, in a different direction. His shots have 
been soft tallow props with which he has blinded plain and 
unsophisticated people. A single shot from the batteries of 
truth, the word of our Lord, is sufficient to batter a breach in 
his glass palace, so he cannot make the debris fit together 
again, if he would try to repair the damage. 

Did Ptolemy XI Auletes have a war with Anthony, and 
did he give him his daughter ? We say no. And we can prove 
that we have hit the mark and his whole glass palace is ruined 
by that shot. 

Before a civil court the witness is expected to say what he 
has seen and heard. The judge is not satisfied when the wit- 
ness talks hither and thither and says what he thinks or has- 
heard other people say, but he demands that the witness shall 
state what he has heard or seen himself in the case. By this 
we do not mean that Pastor Russell himself should have been 
in Egypt B. C. 51 and seen when Ptolemy XI died, or when 
Anthony took Cleopatra in matrimony B. C. 35. But it is a 
reasonable demand that he should have examined the historical 
sources to find out, whether Ptolemy went against Anthony 
and gave him his daughter, as this is the very foundation of his 
chronology in the eleventh chapter. This is a just criticism. 

"That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you," 
says the apostle John. If Pastor Russell had followed the 
apostle's injunction here, he had not been in this bad .straight 
now. In his writings he makes us understand that he has 
studied his expositions very carefully, but that cannot be true. 
He has followed the mistakes of the Adventists as closely as 
possible. As a judge he would be a total failure, if he did not 


examine the cases better before giving his verdict, than he has 
done with the prophecies in Daniel's book. It is unfair and 
almost reckless to go ahead and instruct others concerning 
things of which he knows nothing. 

Before he, in books and sermons, told his people how "care- 
fully" he has studied these things, that Anthony and Cleopatra 
are the persons, who fit the prophecy in Dan. 11 : 17, he should 
have made a careful examination and he would never have 
arrived at such conclusions. He should testify before his 
people of what he really had seen; yet, he has not done so, 
but given a false testimony, and upon this testimony built a 
doctrinal system, which has been accepted by hundreds of 
thousands of innocent people who have not had the ability to 
judge for themselves. It is inexcusable, not to say dishonest, 
to treat the word of God in such a careless manner. The 
Spirit of God cannot be held responsible for this heedless 

If it had been a difficult theological question, there would 
be small room for criticism, but in this case there is no excuse 
for such blunders, and for the stubborness' in keeping on year 
after year, since the correct solution has been pointed out to 
him repeatedly. 

There is no need of a hurricane to turn over such a house, 
for there could not be any poorer foundation for a theological 
system than a dead heathen king. 

We feel for you who, have been deceived by your leaders, 
and we ask you at the same time in our Redeemer's name, 
Let him save you from these false doctrines that have no 
value in the eyes of the Lord. 

"Is not my word like as a fire ? saith the Lord ; and like a 
hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces ? Therefore, behold, 
I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words 
every one from his neighbor. Behold, I am against the pro- 


phets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and say, He 
saith." (Jer. 23:29-31.) 

Pastor Russell should study his chronology a little better; 
revoke his mistakes, and ask God and men for pardon. 

It is not only the prophetical question where he is wrong, 
but there are several others that are just as perverted. It is, 
however, only his chronology that is the subject under discus- 
sion, so I must leave the others. 

Pastor Russell is the most twisted expositor one can im- 
magine, and unfit to teach others, because he is building too 
many theological theses upon his own queer notions, and not 
upon what he really knows or understands. 

Shortly after the invention of gunpowder people com- 
menced to talk of its wonderful power. A peasant who did 
not believe in its alleged power bought a small keg to find out 
for himself. He bored a hole in the keg, sat down upon it 
to see if the gunpowder was strong enough to lift him. As 
he ignited the powder the keg exploded and the peasant and 
his house were blasted to pieces. No matter what he believed 
about the gunpowder when his belief did not rest upon facts. 

When the disciples prayed, "Master, increase our faith," 
they did not ask for a faith that they should belief what they 
heard from all directions, but a faith built upon true knowledge 
of -God. It is better to serve God having a correct idea of him 
than to believe what one does not understand. 

Neither Pastor Russell, nor anyone else can go before an 
intelligent audience and prove that the time of the end began 
A. D. 1799. You say you believe so strongly that you are 
willing to die for it. That has nothing to do with the facts 
in the matter. This question is enough to nonplus every 
speaker who advocates the chronology of Pastor Russell in 
Daniel's book, viz., "Were all the things which Daniel saw 
in the vision really fulfilled in 1799?" We answer no. They 


were fulfilled in the time of Medo-Persia and Greece, and 
Pastor Russell's message to the world is hereby proved to be 

From various quarters it is reported that some of his 
people commence to waver in their faith that the times of the 
gentiles are going to end, and that millennium is to begin in 
the beginning of 1914. They are consoling themselves with 
the assurance that they have not lost anything, but only been 
aroused so as to be ready at the time of the Lord's advent. 

We wish to ask you, if the 31,173 verses in the Bible are 
not sufficient to wake us up from our slumber, show us the 
way to salvation, sanctification and the power of the Spirit 
to make us persevere to the end? Is not the wonderful love 
of the eternal Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, sufficient to 
transform our hearts and keep us watching for his return, 
without having errors preached to us for over thirty years, built 
upon a false chronology in direct contrast against God's holy 
word? ""What is the chaff to the wheat?" saith the Lord. 
(Jer. 23:28.) 

"Hear now, Hananiah, the Lord hath not sent thee ; but 
thou makest this people to trust in a lie." (Jer. 28 : 15.) 

Without pretending to be a prophet who can fortell future 
events, but oij account of the knowledge we have gleaned 
from his writings, we state now, that he is a false prophet 
because he makes his people trust in a lie. 

The disciples asked their Master, what should be the sign 
of his coming and the end of the world. "And Jesus answured 
and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you." 
(Matth. 24:4.) "Many false prophets shall rise, and •shall 
deceive many." (Verse 11.) "But as the days of Noe were, 
so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in 
the days that were before the flood, they were eating and 
drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that 


Noe entered into the ark; and knew not until the flood came, 
and took them all away ; so shall also the coming of the Son 
of man be." (Verses 37-39.) 

The word of God teaches us, that we cannot find out the 
time, the day and hour when the Lord shall return. It shall 
be as in the days of Noah : people knew nothing of it before 
the flood came and destroyed them all. 

"But of the times and the seasons, brethren ye have no 
need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly 
that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." 
(1 Thess. 5:1, 2.) 

Now they try to find some support for their views in the 
fourth verse, as though Paul meant the time for Christ's 
coming. It reads, "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that 
the day should overtake you as a thief." If Paul had meant 
that they were not in darkness concerning the time when Jesus 
should come, "he comes in contrast with the statement of Christ 
himself; for he says that neither the angels nor Christ himself 
knew the day or the hour. 

When Pastor Russell tries to prove his "time of reaping" 
between 1874 — 1914, he makes use of this verse to show that 
they know of the time. We can excuse the apostle from the 
false accusation that he did not mean that the •Thessalonians 
knew of the day for Christ's coming, but not Pastor Russell. 
It is nearly 1900 years since the apostle wrote this to the Thes- 
salonians. This is evidence enough that he did not mean 
the clay for the Lord's coming, or Paul becomes a false pro- 

When Paul says that they were not in darkness, so that 
that clay should overtake them as a thief, it behooves us to' 
see what kind of darkness he meant. Did he mean that they 
were not in darkness concerning the time when Christ should 
return, or that they were not in spiritual darkness, but watching 


and prepared to meet him whenever he should come? "Ye 
are the children of light, and the children of the day." (Verse 
5.) To a child of the light the Lord Jesus does not come 
as a thief; but he comes on that day that he shall be glorified 
in his saints, and to be admired in all of them that believe. 
(2 Thess. 1 : 10.,) 

If you love truth instead of error, study this chapter im- 
partially together with Pastor Russell's explanations, and you 
will with certainty find who has the Bible and history on his 
side to prove the truth. When the year 1914 is past, you can- 
not go around and sell his books any longer. Then, if not 
before, you must admit that my arguments against him are 
reliable, and that the words in Deut. 18 : 21, 22 are applicable 
to your leader : "How shall we know the word which the Lord 
hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the 
Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the 
thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath 
spoken it presumptiously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." 

When Pastor Russell is going to demonstrate the meaning 
of the seventy weeks, he lets them begin B. C. 454. They 
end accordingly A. D. 36. After the sixty-nine weeks, in the 
•seventieth week, between A. D. 29 — 36, the people of a prince 
should come and destroy the city and the sanctuary. (Dan. 
9 : 26.) This prince he says is Titus, the Roman general, who 
destroyed Jerusalem A. D. 70. This Titus was born at Rome, 
A. D. 40, and could not be the prince in the prophecy, as he 
was not born then, A. D. 29 — 36. 

If the prophecy shall apply to Titus at the end of the 
seventieth week, it must be A. D. 70. Pastor Russell must 
then move the starting point for the 490 years to B. C. 420 
and prove that the commandment to restore Jerusalem went 
forth at that time, as the difference between B. C. 420 and A. 
D. 70 are 490 years. 


If he retains B. C. 454 as the starting point, and shall bring 
in Titus at the end of the seventieth week, the time is only 
514 years instead of 490. 

Pastor Russell continues, "And he (Messiah) shall confirm 
the covenant with many for one week, the seventieth week." 

In Dan. 9 : 26 is spoken of the prince who should destroy 
the city and the sanctuary. Now he says it is Titus. "And 
he," the pronoun in the 27th verse, therefore, is Titus and not 

After the anointed one was cut off (verse 26), the Bible 
does not mention more than one prince, but Pastor Russell 
has managed to get two: Titus and Messiah. And the fact 
in the matter is, that it is neither. 

In his excitement to cleanse his class of the sanctuary from 
the pollutions of the papacy, he has not taken time enough 
to study the subject, but has contaminated it with his own 

If he cannot study himself, nor see how absurd his chron- 
ology is, there ought to be some one among the many thousands 
of his followers who can see that the prophecy does not fit 
Titus between A. D. 29 — 36. But they are evidently so con- 
verted to the person that they see nothing wrong with him, 
whereas the one who is converted to God sees immediately 
that the whole system is crooked as a corkscrew. 

We do not think that Pastor Russell is a hypocrite, for it 
is patent from his writings that he believes what he writes. 
But only he who walks in the darkest night can make such 
blunders as he is doing. The angel shows us in the plainest pos- 
sible manner in the eleventh chapter, that it is only the king 
of the south (Egypt) and the king of the north (Syria). 
If there had been a change of kings in these kingdoms every 
year, the location of these kingdoms does not change one iota 
on the map. 


Any Bible student can see that there is no change of kings, 
neither in the south nor in the north, from verse 21 to the end 
of the chapter. If Tiberius had been the king of the north 
in the twenty-first verse, then he is the king who exalts him- 
self against the God of gods, who planted the tabernacles of 
his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain. 
(Verse 45.) Then it was Tiberius who at the time of the end 
died himself and there was none to help him. Tiberius died 
A. D. 37, therefore they must make a desperate leap forward 
from 37 to 1799, a period of 1,762 years, in order to get 
Napoleon in as the king of the north. 

Now France became the kingdom of the north, but Pastor 
Russell does not see, that this does not fill the requirements 
of the prophecy. When he comes to the fortieth verse where 
the king of the south shall push at the king of the north, 
then he lets the king of the north be the English admiral 
Horace Nelson, and accordingly England becomes the kingdom 
of the north. He has now two kingdoms of the north, France 
and England. Napoleon was on his way to Palestine. (See 
Vol. 3, page 46.) 

The Bible knows of only one kingdom in the south (Egypt) 
and one kingdom in the north (Syria). 

Pastor Russell has entered a profession he was not cut 
out for; therefore it cannot go any better for him when he 
tries to prove things he does not understand. We can assure 
"the friends of the truth" that they cannot prove his peculiar 
theories, even if God gave them the new earth as a present. 

To the one who understands the meaning of the prophecy 
this is some of the most abominable hodge-podge that has 
found its way to the printing press. 

A housekeeper spreads a table with ten or twelve courses. 
Every course is served in its proper place and time. She 
invites her friends to partake of the feast; they eat with 


appetite, and the hostess is praised for the splendid food and 
her exquisite taste. 

If the hostess instead should take all these courses and mix 
them together till they became an unsavory mess, the invited 
guests must be unusually hungry before they would touch this 

The hostess declares that all who believe she is an excellent 
cook shall understand the contents of her mish-mash. 

That is the way in which Pastor Russell speaks, as though 
no one can understand his doctrines more than his class which 
believes blindly in his stuff without understanding what in- 
gredients have been mixed together. If these poor deluded 
people could not be saved and happy before they understood 
and can account for his chronology, they will all be excluded 
from the kingdom of God, and among them the author of 
all that distasteful humbug. 

It is reassuring for us to know that the good Lord looks to 
the heart and the life before anything else. But if you are 
sincere and honest Christians, you will admit that it is better 
to have the truth instead of error, and that we ought not to 
reject the light that is shed upon our path, as their might be 
sad consequences upon such conduct. 

One of Pastor Russell's greatest mistakes is that he has 
put his own chronology in the Bible. His company has 
published an edition of the Bible with this chronology in it. 
The general public does not know the historical events re- 
ferred to. When they read the Bible and study his chronology 
they try to find out where they are in the course of time. Com- 
ing to the book of Daniel, where his exposition is totally 
twisted and wrong, they get so mixed up that they do not 
know where they are. Papacy plays the greatest part to him 
in Daniel's prophecies, and if the reader has the slightest 
knowledge of history, he will immediately see that there is not 


a word of this remarkable hierarchy in the whole book. 
Anthony, Cleopatra, Napoleon, Admiral Nelson, etc., have no 
more to do with these prophecies than you and I. 

Think how beautifully everything corresponds, these sim- 
pleminded people say, who do not understand the least thing 
about this chronology. And as his explanation of the times 
has been smuggled in between the covers of his Bibles, many 
think it is inspired by God himself. 

If there are any mistakes in his chronology, one of his 
adherents said once, God wanted him to announce these mis- 
takes in order to bring out the truth later on. 

If all Christian professors were as thoroughly converted 
to God as such people are to Pastor Russell, the hundred 
churches which were abandoned the last year in Iillinois should 
not stand closed. 

The God who sends out error I cannot recommend as the 
true God. 

The Spirit of God leads in harmony with the truth, and his 
word enjoins us to prove the spirits whether they are of God ; 
for many false prophets have gone forth in the world and they 
drag many unsettled people with them. 

When his people cannot defend themselves, they commence 
to talk of their type and antitype. Then we ask you : When 
Pastor Russell says that the papacy, Anthony, Cleopatra, Ad- 
miral Nelson, and others are the antitypes, where are the types 
of them in Daniel's prophecies? 

Daniel- saw many things in symbols, and when the time 
came for the fulfillment of these symbols, we get the reality. 
The reality of the symbols came several hundred years before 
Christ, but Pastor Russell says that no one could understand 
this until A. D. 1799, and this is a very great mistake. 


A Mistake of Eighteen Years in the 

Pastor Russell's mistakes in the chronology of the Old Testar 

merit gives a fatal blow to his whole message which 

is founded on chronology. 

Pastor Russell is cock sure of his chronological calcula- 
tions. In Vol. 2, page 243, we read the following: "For be 
it distinctly noticed that if the chronology, or any of these 
time-periods, be changed but one year, the beauty and force 
of this parallelism are destroyed. For instance, if the chron- 
ology be altered but one year, more or less — if we add one 
year, say to the period of the Kings or the Judges, or if we 
make one year less — it would spoil the parallelism." 

In the paper "The Watch Tower," for August 15, 1904, 
page 250, we read, "The harmony of the prophecy is one of 
the surest proofs that the chronology of the Bible is correct. 
It fits together as the cogs in a wheel. To change the chron- 
ology, even if only a single year back or forth, should destroy 
its harmony." 

The same paper for October 1, 1907, page 295: "The 
change of a single year would make the parallel calculation 

Here is a table from Vol. 2, page 239 (Swedish edition). 

From the death of Jacob to the exodus 198 years 
The sojourn of Israel in the desert. ... 40 years 

To the division of Caanan 6 years 

Period of the Judges 450 years 


Period of the Kings 513 years 

Period of the desolation 70 years 

Prom the restoration to A. D 536 years 

Total years from the death of Jacob 

to A. D., or year 1 of our era 1813 years 

From A. D. to the crucifixion, at the 
feast of Passover, in the spring 
A. D. 33 — Jewish ecclesiastical time 32 years 

The whole period from the expectation 
of Israel for the kingdom under di- 
vine favor and recognition 1845 years 

Pastor Russell has made up this table, but has not proved 
with historical facts that these events have happened at the 
various times given in the table. But that is essential to 'the 
verification of the chronology. 

The person who is going to advocate his doctrines must 
believe this chronology without any proofs or historical knowl- 
edge. It is not enough that the addition is done correctly, but 
the events must also have happened the year that is indicated 
in the table, or the chronology is wrong. 

Are the last two numbers, 1813 and 1845, reliable? We 
answer, no. 

Here we could point out many things of interest, but as 
Pastor Russell admits himself that a single year, moved back 
or forth should destroy the harmony of the whole system, 
we will only show a single mistake that certainly will break 
up the alleged harmony in this nonsensical system. 

We will start with a fact that is absolutely certain, viz., 
that the time of seventy years began B. C. 606. 

He counts the age of the kings from 606. That period 


covers 513 years and brings us back to B. C. 1119. What was 
to happen that year? Saul should be the first king of Israel. 
He was the first and Zedekiah the last of the kings of Israel. 

It would be impossible for him to show that Saul became 
king B. C. 1119. 

The time the Jews were in captivity was surely counted 
from B. C. 606-5 when they became tributaries under Babylon; 
but they had their own king to B. C. 588, when Nebuchadnez- 
zar captured Jerusalem, put out the eyes of Zedekiah, bound 
him with fetters of brass and brought him to Babylon. Here 
the age of the kings ends, B. C. 588. The difference between 
588 and 1119 is not 513 but 531. Pastor Russell has eighteen 
years too many. 

There are several different accounts of when Saul became 
king. We have examined at least six different histories, and 
found the years: B.C. 1101, 1099, 1096, 1095, and 1093. 

When Saul was rejected by God for his disobedience, 
Samuel received commandment to go and anoint David king 
in his place. David was anointed king over Israel B. C. 1055. 
(Int. Cy., Vol IV, page 525.) Saul reigned forty years. If 
we add this period to 1055 we get 1095. There may have 
been some time between the rejection of Saul and the anoint- 
ing of David. 

According to Schaff-Herzog's Encyclopedia, Saul was 
chosen king 1099. The time of the kings was 513 years, 
counting backward from 588 we get the year B. C. 1101 when 
Saul should have become king. There is only a couple of 
years difference in the accounts, so we must be satisfied. 

Where is now the mistake of Pastor Russell concerning 
the eighteen years? Let us find out. 

The time of the kings was 513 years, here he is correct. 
This time ended B. C. 588. When he subtracts the seventy 
years of the dispersion he goes back to 606 and begins the 


period eighteen years on the other side of 588. Subtracting 
the seventy years from 606 he counts the eighteen years twice. 
His final years, 1813 and 1845, he must change to 1795 and 

When the time of the kings was ended, there were fifty-two 
years left of the captivity. 588 minus 52 gives us the fixed 
year B. C. 536. 

Pastor Russell says himself that the change of a single 
year should put the chronology out of commission, then we 
think that a mistake of eighteen years gives the death knell 
to his chronological studies. There is no hiding place here. 
His message to the world which is based on time is found to 
be false, as we have proved conclusively. 

There is only one honorable way to retreat for the mis- 
directed people, and that is to acknowledge that Pastor Rus- 
sell has led you astray with his mistaken notions. If you do 
not choose this course, you will never get right again. May 
the Lord be our guide, and he will lead us right at last. 


A Warning to the AdventisT: Preachers 

What position will the Adventist preachers take to this book 

since they have read it? The advocates of the "present 

truth" hauled over the coals, and letters to 

some of their preachers, et cetera. 

You who believe that you have had and think that you 
still have a message to the world will in all probability not 
see how your message is ground to pieces by the millstones of 
truth in this book, but think you have the same right to give 
it your contempt as you are used to do to the writings of 
others, that do not flow from your fountains of wisdom. It 
matters not what you intend to do. As before God I shall be 
faithful to my calling and try to give the honest Adventists 
light enough to see the net of errors in which they are en- 
tangled that they may get out of it. 

One of your preachers who has-left you on account of the 
false teachings wrote me a letter thanking me for the light 
he had received through a circular I sent him on the eighth 
chapter of Daniel, so that he could see that Rome was not 
the little horn (verse 9), and that the sanctuary which should 
be cleansed was not in heaven, but in Jerusalem. He who 
cannot see this, he says, is stone blind. Perfectly correct. 
"Since I have got out from their errors I have suffered great 
opposition, still as long as I live a righteous life no one can 
do me any real harm," he adds. When I) read this I said 
amen from the bottom of my heart. 

You Adventists teach people in your books and from your 
pulpits that they will not be condemned on the great day of 


judgment, because they have been mistaken, but on account 
of having rejected the truth that has been shed on their path. 
Such statements are in harmony with God's word. We be- 
lieve that the Lord is going to hold us responsible for the 
light we have and for the opportunities we have had to obtain 
more light. We mean hereby such light as we can under- 
stand. First then we can serve one another with the gift we 
have received. (1 Pet. 4: 10.) 

What light do you mean when you speak thus to people 
who listen to you ? Yes, your light concerning the prophecies 
which comes from the visions of Mrs. White? Is it not that 
you have reference to? I did not nap when I was among you. 
You think that the members of the various churches, who are 
the people you in reality are angling for to get into your nets, 
are ready to devour your prophecies, which you have not 
understood yourselves, but which can be proved to be the most 
stinking harlot's wine that is in the cup of the harlot. 

Do you allow the students who come to your schools to use 
their own power of thinking and reasoning? Are they allowed 
to think according to the laws of logic? They have come to 
learn just what you will plug into their heads. Are you willing 
to accept a single ray of light from your students? No, if 
they are going to be acceptable Adventist leaders, they must 
drink out of the stinking cup, though they do not know what 
it contains. When a man has been drunk for some time, he 
will sober up again if he stops drinking. But when they have 
been in your schools for three or four years and become in- 
toxicated by your wine there is very small hope they ever will 
be sober again. Afterwards they go out and offer the same 
rank wine to other ignorant people so that they may get just 
as intoxicated as yourselves, if not worse. When some of 
these folks die, you say that he or she died in the faith of 
the "present truth." No light to any Adventist except through 


"the spirit of prophecy," Mrs. White or some other elder. If 
an angel from heaven came to you and said that Jesus did not 
ride 'within the veil in 1844 and became our high priest, but 
that he became such after he had won upon the cross an eternal 
redemption, you would in all likelihood send for the patrol 
wagon and have the angel put under lock and key if he did 
not follow you. How have you treated honest people when 
they tried to show you that your doctrinal system is false? 

If Mrs. White had written her books as any other religious 
author, without claiming to be an especially inspired pro- 
phetess, there would be very little to say against her. But now 
we want to show you that her impudent claims do not endure 
the smallest scrutiny. She has said that she is going to live 
till Christ comes. She shall be changed. She is now eighty- 
seven years old, and if she dies before Jesus comes it will be 
interesting to hear how they are going to twist the fact in 
order to defend her inspiration on that point. We are not 
going to say anything more until she dies; then there will 
be someone alive who is going to ring the alarm bell and show 
the Adventists that her first vision was a lie. 

Do you not teach that you are the only true church of 
Christ, and that you have the spirit of prophecy (Mrs. White) 
among you? She says that the Adventists who live when 
Christ comes are the 144,000. If Christ had come in 1844 
as they expected, how could she then have scraped together 
144,000 Adventists when after sixty-nine years of hard work 
they have not been able to get more than some 94,000 ? They 
need 50,000 more to get the number full, and if it goes as 
slowly as it has done the last years in America it is more than 
probable that Mrs. White and this whole generation and theis 
grandchildren will be gathered to their fathers before the 
number is full. 

These 144,000 shall not be contaminated with women 


(other churches). Take then away from your 94,000 all those 
who have come to your communion from other churches, and 
try afterwards to get your number complete without pitching 
your tents in the vicinity of other churches to get your mem- 
bers in the old way; and when you then get the biblical 
number complete, and no guile is found in their mouth, then 
it is time for Mrs. White to depart this life. The lifetime of 
Methuselah will then be a mere fraction compared to hers. 

Those who died in Christ are going to rise from their 
graves, and so they go together with the Adventists to heaven 
to judge the world for a thousand years. Mrs. White promises 
her people what no other church can afford, and they who 
believe that she can fulfill all these promises must defend her 
in dead earnest. 

. If any church is rich in beautiful promises it is the Adven- 
tists. Still I have heard time and again how you complain of 
the situation among you; that you are the last congregation 
(Laodicea). If you are the church you claim to be, you are 
not the Laodicean. You say, to be sure, that you are wretched, 
and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked, as that church 
was. This church, however, did not know it was so miserable. 
You know it, for you speak of it in your meetings. If you 
have the whole truth and a prophet among you, then you 
are not poor by any means. You do not need any more light ! 

Hear what the true and faithful witness says: 

"I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that 
thou mayest be rich ; and white raiments, that thou mayest be 
clothed, and that the shame of your nakedness do not appear; 
and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." 
(Rev. 3:18.) 

You do not think that you are the people who have these 
faults, though you say so. But if your eyes were anionted 
with the eyesalve that the Lord recommends, you would soon 


see that you never had any message to the world. Take that 
away, and then first you will admit that you are the wretched, 
and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. But as long as 
you believe that your message is correct, you are proud 
enough. The day will come when your follies are going to be 
laid bare. 

If you are in possession of the privileges which, as a 
church, you boast of, you ought to jubilate and rejoice in- 
stead of complaining. When you start your meetings in a 
new place, do you make the people understand who you are 
and that you as a church have a prophetess among you? Do 
you do that? No, you keep your prophetess as secret before 
the unsuspecting audience as an army keeps its passwords and 
watchwords secret within the headquarters, that the enemy 
shall not come within the camp. 

When new members are received in your congregations, 
.you ask them if they believe in the spirit of prophecy in the 
church, and they answer yes. They do not know that you mean 
a woman who lives in California and who is the ruling spirit 
among you. Here you make use of falsehoods and deceptions, 
and you also know that your members know very little of her. 

Mrs. White has said that the preachers shall take a definite 
stand against certain kinds of food, among other things coffee, 
tea, meat, etc. When members were taken into the church 
formerly, the preacher asked if they were willing to abstain 
from these things. They answered yes. After the meeting 
was over the preacher went to a table where both meat and 
coffee were served and he enjoyed these gifts as well as any- 
one else. You who say that people should not drink coffee 
drink coffee yourselves, and you who say that people should 
abstain from meat, eat meat yourselves. O, what hypocricy ! 
If they had put these questions to me I had answered : I eat 
what I want, and sing what I can. The preacher did not ask 


me if I believed in Mrs. White's system of tithing. He may 
have thought like this: If we only get the fish in our nets, 
we will afterwards put our hooks in his mouth as Gog (Hez. 
38 : 4) and lead him to the full truth. But that time they got 
an unruly fish in the net who crept out again and left such a 
big whole in the net that a number of other fishes also crept 
out in the open water, and soon they cannot mend the meshes 
fast enough to keep the poor remaining fishes where they are. 
My incarcerated bretheren and sisters, come out of the net of 
error and take a free swim in the deep and glorious water. 
"To liberty Christ has called us." 

If you intend to appoint a committee to analyze and con- 
demn my book, do not appaoint the same committee which 
tried to whitewash Mrs. White from the accusations I brought 
against her once before. The committee did not touch upon 
the real question but attacked five unimportant points and even 
then they took refuge to lies in order to make people believe 
they had acquitted themselves as men. 

When you are now going to examine your stately building 
as it has been shown to you through the microscopical lenses 
in this book, if you should find that I have made a spout slant- 
ing a little too much to one side, do not, as usual, say that 
the whole structure is wrong. The first thing you ought to do 
is to look at the essentials, the real arguments I have brought 
forth against your prophetical building. I have made no 
effort to expose your system in detail, what I am after is to 
show that the very foundation is false. The minor details I 
let go, but do yourselves the favor to find out if the founda- 
tion is strong enough to invite other people to build upon. 

Be thoroughly sincere, when you are going to examine 
my errors. Do not care for a moment about what Mrs. White 
has said. Use your common sense, the Bible and history. 
Do not do as you generally have done, put the Bible, the 


history and comomn sense on one chair and the writings of 
Mrs. White and other leaders on the other; then you kneel 
between the two chairs and ask Gods Spirit to help you un- 
derstand the truth. But instead of letting God's Spirit lead 
you right you try to make the Bible, history and common 
sense harmonize with Mrs. White's writings. When you find 
out that that does not work very well you are ready to say 
good-bye to both Bible, history, and common sense, only you 
can retain the blessed Mrs. White. But you will never in 
time or eternity be able to make Mrs. White's visions har- 
monize with common sense or God's words. The question is 
now before you. Which shall it be? The selfstyled pro- 
phetess Mrs. White, or the Word of God, supported by his- 
tory, science and common sense ? I know what side will win 
in the long run. Errors and lies are certainly long lived but 
they must pass away when the sun of truth and righteous- 
ness rises higher and higher upon the firmament, just as rats 
and mice flee away when a few rays of the blessed daylight 
comes into a dark cellar. I am glad we are living in an age 
and day when fanaticism has less chance to succeed than for- 
merly, and a reasonable interpretation of the oracles of God 
is demanded on every hand. That is what I have been aiming 
at in this book. 

If you hold this fact before your eyes in studying my 
exposition of the prophecies of Daniel, you do not come with 
any remarks or objections to mistakes of minor importance 
which may have crept in here and there; but answer, if you 
please, the great questions under discussion, and if you can 
prove with historical facts that your interpretation is in har- 
mony with history, I shall gladly desist from this controversy. 
But if you cannot or will not do this, you have thereby 
acknowledged that you never have had any message to the 


I will now repeat again the important questions to which 
your poor deluded people have a right to demand a clear, 
unsophisticated answer, built upon real Biblical and historical 
facts. The arguments I have advanced are found elsewhere 
in the book. Here are the points in your system that you 
ought to give up as soon as possible: 

1. The Adventists teach that there is no other time to cut 
off the seventy weeks from (Dan. 9:24) than the 2,300 days 
(Dan. 8: 14). We answer, first, that there is no other time 
to cut off time on than the astronomical which is caused by the 
revolution and the rotation of the earth, around the sun and 
around its axis. Secondly, that these two numbers indicate a 
measure, and we cannot cut anything off from a measure with- 
out getting into trouble. Both these measures must be laid 
upon the common astronomical time-line, and that line shall 
be cut off, but not the measures. Adventists, Your prophetical 
message that you have built on time is smashed to pieces right 
here before we have mentioned neither Bible nor history. Do 
not try to refute this point. If you do not understand it, go 
back to school, preferably the kindergarten, and learn the 
rudiments of mathematics. 

2. They teach that the little horn (Dan. 8:9), coming up 
from one of the four divided kingdoms of Greece, was Rome, 
which came in contact with the Jews B. C. 161. We assert 
on historic basis that Rome came up B. C. 753, and was no 
new horn 161, but a horn of 592 years. The division of 
Greece is dated from the battle at Ipsus, B. C. 301. The 
father of the new horn, therefore, arose then. But now 
Rome is the son, which came up 753, then he is 452 years old 
at the birth of his father. Here visions and dreams are of no 
avail. . 

3. They teach that the little horn is a kingdom (Rome). 
We wish to be in harmony with the explanation of the angel 


Gabriel, when he says in the twenty-third verse that the little 
horn is a fierce king. We have also shown conclusively that 
this king can be no other than Antiochus Epiphanes. 

4. The little horn should grow southward, and eastward, 
and toward the pleasant land (Dan. 8:9). They say the 
little horn is Rome. Rome took Egypt in the south B. C. 30, 
Syria in the north B. C. 65, and the pleasant land B. C. 63. 
We say that this is an astounding error, for no one is cap- 
able of going backward a fraction of a second of his life, 
much less could Rome go backward from B. C. 30 to 65 — 
just thirty-five years. It is strange that the people can become 
so blind, when they study the library of the whole truth! 

5. This king should take away from the prince of the 
host his daily sacrifice. (See verse 11.) Now they say that 
the prince of the host is Jesus, and the power is Rome with 
Titus as its head. The angel says that this presumptious king 
should come up in the latter time of the kingdoms of Greece, 
between B. C. 176—30. (See diagram No. 1.) Titus who 
was born A. D. 40 could not be in the kingdom of Greece 
201 years before his birth and take away from Jesus his daily 
sacrifice 161 years before Jesus was born. Christ had neither 
sacrifice nor sanctuary when he was on the earth. This is the 
whole truth with the prefix "un" before it. 

But here come the strongest arguments : They say that 
the 2,300 days in Dan. 8 : 14 are years, that they began B. C. 
457 and ended A. D. 1844. 

We say that they were mentioned in connection with the 
horrible work of the presumptious king, but he did not arise 
before the latter part of the four divided kingdoms. (Verse 
23.) They claim that it is Rome which came in contrast with 
the Jews B. C. 161. If it had been Rome she could not have 
begun her deeds B. C. 457, when she did not come in among ' 
the Jews before 161, for the deeds cannot be 296 years before 


the power that was the cause of them. This was Mrs. White's 
strongest support for her theory that Christ returned 1844, 
and how strong this argument is has already been shown. 

7. They teach that Jesus officiated as priest in the lower 
sanctuary till 1844. Mrs. White saw then in a vision that 
he rode in a flaming chariot within the veil and began his office 
as an high priest, and through this service the sanctuary in 
heaven was cleansed. 

This is not true. The atonement which took place on the 
cross has by this vision been postponed to A. D. 1844. We 
have had no high priest for more than 1800 years. The 
author of the Hebrews becomes a deceiver when he says that 
we have an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, which 
entereth into that within the veil, whither the forerunner is 
for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever, when 
he won for us an eternal redemption. 

Several preachers have left them on account of this view. 

If the doctrine of the Adventists had been as pure as the 
sanctuary in heaven, I would riot have the pains of writing 
this book. 

8. They teach that the seventy weeks, 490 years, (Dan. 9: 
24) began B. C. 457 ; that the commandment to restore Je- 
rusalem went forth then, according to Dan. 9 : 25. They refer 
to Ezra 7th chapter, where it is written that Ezra was ordered 
by the Persian king Artaxerxes to restore Jerusalem 457. 
It is a shame that Adventists should be so blind that they 
cannot see that there is not a word to that effect in Ezra 7. 
The year 457 is just as important to their system as the sun 
is to the earth. When there cannot be found a single word 
concerning the restoration of Jerusalem in the seventh chap- 
ter, they say it is in the sixth. But there is nothing said in 
that chapter either concerning Ezra building the city. It is 
stated that the work was done, but not that Ezra gave any 


order or had anything to do with it. The first person, who 
can indicate in what verse of Ezra's seventh or sixth chap- 
ters it is said that Ezra received a commandment to restore 
Jerusalem, shall within thirty days thereafter receive a check 
for one hundred dollars for his trouble, and at the same time 
we promise not to sell a single copy of this book, but recall 
our astounding errors against "the whole truth." 

I asked one of their preachers in Chicago to read Ezra 
seventh chapter and especially the verse which says that Ezra 
received a commandment to restore Jerusalem. He brought 
his Bible and commenced to read Ezra 7:7, 8. According to 
the error of sixty-eight years duration he thought it was 
recorded there. I pointed out to him that there was nothing 
said concerning the building. It is further on, he said. Will 
you please read it wherever it is, as long as you read the 
seventh chapter, I answered. He continued, but soon found 
that he had undertaken something that was impossible to do. 
Then he closed his Bible adding that there was nothing to 
do about it, when I did not believe what was written there. 
It was my fault, of course, who did not believe it was there, 
though he could not find the verse. He ought to have thought 
something like this: If the verse upon which our whole mes- 
sage is based cannot be found in the Bible, then I am preach- 
ing a falsehood. 

See the exposition of the seventy weeks. 

9. They teach that "the anointed prince" (Dan. 9:25) is 
Christ who was cut off after the sixty-two weeks, 434 years; 
and that is the same prince spoken of in verses 26 and 27. 
We say then, that they hereby have indicated, that Jesus sent 
his people to destroy the city and the sanctuary of Jerusalem, 
abolished the sacrificings for a half week, died the second 
time, and yet determined desolations came over him. (Dan. 
9 : 26, 27.) The Bible says that there is an "anointed prince," 


an "anointed " and a "prince" — three different persons. The 
first one is Cyrus, the second the high priest Onias, and the 
third Antiochus Epiphanes who sent his people and destroyed 
the city and the sanctuary, abolished the sacrifices for three 
and a half years and afterwards determined desolations were 
poured upon the desolate. 

10. Their treatment of Dan. 11th chapter is even more 
abominable. They apply the seventeenth verse to the Egyp- 
tian king Ptolemy XI Auletes. Then he must have gone with 
the strength of his whole kingdom against Julius Caesar, made 
peace and given him his daughter Cleopatra VI in marriage. 
By applying the prophecy to these persons they have suc- 
ceeded in getting in Rome in the eleventh chapter. 

We have proved that there was no war between Auletes 
and Julius Caesar for the simple reason that Auletes died B. C. 
51, and Caesar came to Alexandria three years later, sent by 
the Roman senate to allay some difficulties between Ptolemy 
XII and his sister Cleopatra VI. She gave herself to Caesar 
in order to win her point against her prother. On this dead 
king, Ptolemy XI Auletes, rests their message which is eter- 
nally lost, when the right person is put in his place. When 
a church is building her message upon a dead king, it cannot 
look any better. When I have told them so, they answer that 
they are building upon Christ, but that is one of the foxiest 
refuges that people resort to, when they are unable to defend 
a lost cause. They ought to know that their special message 
is built upon chronology and upon history, but not upon 
Christ. Their message is built upon the 2,300 days and the 
490 years; that these numbers began B. C. 457, and finally 
upon the seventeenth verse of the eleventh chapter which they 
apply to the dead king. 

It is deplorable that there should be so many people who 
are so blind that they do not want to listen to reason. They 


have laughed at me when I have told them that their message 
is built upon a dead king. It would be more pleasing to God, 
I think, if they would examine their doctrines a little better, 
as I have tried to do, and they would find greater reasons to 
weep than to giggle. The Adventists in Chica'go have for 
the last three and four years looked upon me as an arch- 
deceiver, and one of their professors said once that I was not 
quite sane, so there was nothing to do with me; but still he 
has not dared to meet me in debate concerning these questions, 
though I have offered him the opportunity. He is apparently 
afraid of this innocent lunatic. I, would not have the title 
of professor, if I could not defend my views before the world. 
A professor is a man who professes to know thoroughly some 
branch of human learning and is prepared to give the last 
word concerning his science. But the Adventist professors 
seem to be experts in the play "hide and seek" with the 
public. When there is no opposition they are wonderfully 
brave and wise, but when asked to come out and prove to the 
world what they know they are admirably careful. 

My brethren and sisters in the Adventist communion, I 
forgive you gladly and freely before hand for your conduct 
towards me, as I know you cannot be otherwise, as long as 
you let your leaders keep you locked up in the dark and 
gloomy icebox. 

The prophecy should be applied to the Syrian king Anti- 
ochus III the Great and Ptolemy V of Egypt. Antiochus 
gave his daughter Cleopatra I to Ptolemy V. See the exposi- 
tion of Dan. 11th chapter. 

11. The king of the north, spoken of in Dan. 11:36, 40, 
they apply to Napoleon Bonaparte. We say that in such a 
case France is the kingdom of the north. Take your Bible 
and read from the 40th to the 45th verse, and you will find 
the pronoun "he" in the beginning of this paragraph. If it 


were Napoleon in the 40th verse, it must be the same person 
in the 45th verse. Pastor Russell is not guilty of this mistake 
At least, for when he thinks it is meant Napoleon in the 40th 
verse, he has also applied the 45th verse to him. The Adven- 
tists have put in a kingdom, Turkey, on the pronoun of Napo- 
leon, and that it is the Turk who is going to Palestine, and 
then Christ shall come. 

From the 21st verse there is no change of the king of the 
south (Egypt) who is Ptolemy VI, or of the king of the 
north (Syria) who is Antiochus Epiphanes, the uncle of 
Ptolemy. From the time they apply the prophecy to Caesar 
and Cleopatra to A. D. 1798, when they bring in Napoleon, 
is a period of 1846 years. When it says the king of the north 
"he," and by such a violation of the laws of the laguage, to say 
the kingdom "he" they have extended their chronology 1846 
years. A king "he" cannot live so long, but the kingdom 
"he" can exist so long and is still existing. In this way 
Napoleon "he" became the king and France the kingdom 
of the North in A. D. 1798. On the pronoun of Napoleon 
they have put in the Turk who shall fill the 45th verse, and 
last year (1912) when the Turk was engaged in a fierce war 
they preached with a vengeance that Christ is soon here. O 
you blind leaders ! The first thing you ought to do is to look 
after, if the dead king Ptolemy XI had any war with Caesar 
before you do so much ado about the unspeakable Turk and 
what is going to happen, when he is driven out of Europe. 

It is just as easy to find out and prove that Antiochus 
Epiphanes was the king of the north from the 21st verse to 
the end of the chapter, as it is to prove that Abraham Lincoln 
was the sixteenth president, when we know who was the first. 
The history of Antiochus Epiphanes corresponds exactly with 
the predictions in the 45th verse. 

12. They teach that the time of the end began A. D. 1798 


and ended 1844, a period of forty-six years. At the same 
time they say that Caesar and Cleopatra who met in B. C. 48 
were included in the vision, and Napoleon in 1798 was also 
in -the vision. Here we get a period of 1846 years instead 
of forty-six. Besides that, the vision is not ended yet as long 
as their prophetical Turk is still remaining in Europe. We 
have in several places pointed out that the time of the end is 
where the vision was being fulfilled; and that the angel did 
not refer to the time of the end for the world, but for the 
ungodly Jews whose transgressions had come to the full in the 
latter part of the divided kingdom of Greece. (See Dan. 

It would give me great pleasure to examine with the Ad- 
ventist brethren, before the Lord as our judge, the pillars in 
this book, upon which they are founding their message. 

Let us picture before our minds the process of such a 
trial. Suppose that we meet in an open place with a platform 
twelve feet high in the foreground, upon which their preachers 
take their places. The Lord Jesus, together with the angel 
Gabriel, come also and they take places among the preachers. 
The Lord Jesus opens the meeting saying that he has come 
with Gabriel to have' an investigation of the twelve paragraphs 
in the book Nyman has written against your prophetical mes- 
sage. It will be a serious thing for both parties. The one 
who is mistaken must humble himself and ask for pardon 
or forfeit his eternal life. 

1. The Lord Jesus says, "You Adventists do teach that 
there is no other period of time to cut off the 490 years, 
seventy weeks (Dan. 9 : 24), than the 2,300 days (Dan. 8 : 14). 
Nyman says there is not more than one line from which all 
time must be measured, and that it is the general time-line 
which originates from the movements of the earth around 
the sun and its own axis. A. G. Daniels, President of the 


General Conference, come forward and show your 94,000 
followers that N-yman is mistaken." 

The Adventists stand there timid and wondering how he 
is going to solve this problem, but they believe at the same 
time that Nyman shall begin to see his follies. It is not poss- 
ible that a denomination with 94,000 members, including so 
many professors and elders and our reliable prpphetess, have 
held any erroneous views. 

Elder Daniel steps forward. He says, "It is evident that 
there is no other line to cut off time on than the general time- 
line arising from the movements of the earth around its axis 
and the sun; but we cut off from that line also, when we cut 
off anything from the 2,300 days." 

The Lord Jesus says, that we must limit ourselves to what 
you have written in your books; for Nyman has taken his 
arguments against your doctrines from your writings. You 
say that there is no other time from which to cut off the 490 
years than the 2,300 days. Both these numbers are a measure 
and you cannot cut anything away from a certain measure. 
You can divide this measure of time in large or small parts, 
but you have no right to cut it off. Elder Daniels admits that 
he never thought of that before, or that it has anything to, 
do with their message, but he sees now how it is crushed under 
the weight of this argument. 

The Adventists commence to wonder how the other ques- 
tions are going to be answered, when the greatest man in the 
denomination could not prove that Nyman was led by Satan, 
as the preachers had said, and warned the members against 

Never try to refute this argument again. 

2. "You teach that Rome is the little horn that came out 
from one of the divided kingdoms of Greece (Dan. 8:9). 
L H, Evans, Shanghai, China, Vice-President of the China 


Mission, come forward before these people and show with 
historical facts that Rome came out as a new horn from one 
of the four kingdoms." 

Elder Evans says, "Rome came up as a new horn B. C. 
753; but it seemed to the prophet, as though it came forth 
when Rome defeated Macedonia B. C. 168. Rome came in 
at that time.". 

The angel Gabriel takes the floor. He says, "My explana- 
tion to Daniel was that the little horn should come out from 
one of the four and not that it should come from anywhere 

Evans now admits that he has not studied the subject, as 
he ought to have done, but believed that Uriah Smith was 
correct in his expositions of the subject. 

3. "You teach," the Lord Jesus says again, "that the little 
horn is the Roman empire ; but Nyman says it is a king. • Will 
J. C. Raft, from Copenhagen, Denmark, come forward and 
prove that the little horn is a kingdom." 

Elder Raft says, that horns in the Bible signify kings, 
empires and power, and that this empire refers to the Roman 
is self evident from the fact that it was going to grow ex- 
ceedingly, and that cannot be said about Antiochus Epiphanes, 
whom Nyman believes is the king the prophet had in view." 

Gabriel takes the floor. He says, "In my explanation to 
Daniel I have said that the little horn is a fierce king. (Dan. 
8:23.) My explanation is reliable. Nyman is right." 

4. "You teach that the little horn is Rome. Will Elder 
L. R. Conradi from Hamburg, Germany, come forward and 
prove from history that Rome grew southward, eastward and 
toward the pleasant land." 

Elder Conradi comes forward and says, that it is very easy 
to prove. Rome took Egypt B. C. 30, Syria B. C. 65, and 
Judea B. C. 63. 


The Lord Jesus asks him if he can prove that it was poss- 
sible for Rome, since she had taken Egypt B. C. 30, and 
that country must be taken first, to go backward in her his- 
tory thirty-five years and capture Syria in B. C. 65. 

He sees now how impossible that is and excuses himself 
by saying he has read it in Uriah Smith's book. 

5. "You teach," the Lord Jesus continues, "that I am 
the prince of the host; then it was Rome that took away from 
me my daily sacrifice and cast down my sanctuary. (See verse 
11.) Elder L. P. Tieche, Paris, France, come forward and 
show that Rome could take away from me any daily sacrifice 
or cast down any sanctuary for me between 176 and 30 before 
my birth, and also explain if I had any sacrifice or sanctuary 
while I was on the earth." 

He comes forward but admits that he cannot show that 
"the Lord Jesus had any sacrifice when he was on the earth, 
and that is was impossible for Rome, which we know came 
in contact with the Jews B. C. 161, to take away any sacrifice 
from him before he was born. I have never given very close 
attention to this study as I ought to. I see I am mistaken." 

6. "-The strongest evidence you had for my return to the 
earth in 1844 was the 2,300 days (Dan. 8:14), which you 
believed were so many years. And in your yearbook of 1912, 
page 262, paragraph 9, you still say it means years, begin- 
ning B. C. 457 and ending A. D. 1844, when I, according to 
your teachings, changed place from the holy to the most holy 
place in the heavenly sanctuary, and give as a reason for 
this view a vision of Mrs. White which she says she had in 
1849. Elder W. C. White, son of Mrs. Ellen G. White, come 
forward and prove that the 2,300 days began B. C. 457. This 
is the most important argument for your prophetic message; 
if your arguments fail here, you know that your prophetic 
message is leveled to the ground." 


Elder White comes forward and says, "The seventy weeks 
(Dan. 9: 24) are 490 years, divided in seven weeks, sixty-two 
weeks and one week. Now these shall begin when the com- 
mandment of the restoration of Jerusalem went forth. This 
commandment went out B. C. 457, according to Ezra 7th chap- 
ter. There is no other time to cut off these 490 years from 
than the 2,300 days. (Dan. 8:14.)" 

The Lord Jesus says first to Elder White that he must not 
cut anything off from a measure, and there is no other time 
to cut off the 2,300 days and 490 years than the line which 
comes from the movement of the earth around the sun and 
its axis. The Lord Jesus then asks Elder White, "What gave 
rise to the 2,300 days ?" 

White answers, "The deeds of the little horn." 

"Correct! When did the angel say the little horn should 
come up ?" 

White answers, "In the latter part of the four kingdoms." 

"When was the latter part of their kingdoms?" Lord 
Jesus asks. 

"Between the years B. C. 176 and 30," says White. 

"Correct. When does White say that the little horn came 
in among the Jews?" 

"B. C. 161," answers White. 

"Can a person do his work before he is born?" Jesus asks. 

White answers, "No." 

"Say that you are right in believing that Rome is the power 
which came in among the Jews in B. C. 161, that the 2,300 
days were years, you must not count them before the coming 
up of the little horn, B. C. 161, and if I shall cleanse the 
sanctuary at their end, I must wait till 2139 and not 1844. 
When this investigation is held, 1912, I have 227 years left 
before the sanctuary is to be cleansed," 


White becomes white as snow and sees that their prophetic 
message is built upon a false foundation. 

7. "You teach that the 2,300 days ended 1844; that I en- 
tered within the second veil and began my service as an high 
priest that year. Here is another point that is indispensable 
to your prophetic message. Elder S. Mortenson of Chicago 
who thinks Nyman is no dangerous opponent, come forth and 
show these people what service I rendered before and after 
1844. Now you have a good opportunity to crush the prop- 
aganda of Nyman." 

Elder Mortenson steps forward carefully and begins his 
speech. "At the end of the 2,300 days which are years, begin- 
ning B. C. 457 and ending A. D. 1844, the sanctuary should be 
cleansed. Wm. Miller was mistaken regarding the place, for 
he thought that it was the sanctuary on earth which should be 
cleansed through fire, but he was correct concerning the time. 
It was the heavenly sanctuary that should be cleansed. Now 
our dear Saviour served in the first apartment, afterwards he 
ascended to his heavenly Father. He was now like the High 
Priest of the old covenant, bringing redemption to Israel." 

The Lord Jesus interrupts him, saying, "In your year- 
book for 1912, page 261, in the preface before you begin the 
twenty-six paragraphs, you say that you have no other creed, 
but the Bible only. Please tell me where it is recorded in the 
Bible that I served in the outward sanctuary to 1844?" 

Mortenson answers, "We are the only true church on earth 
which has the Spirit of prophecy, Mrs. Ellen G. White, is 
among us, and in the 'Great Controversy Between Christ and 
Satan,' a book of 722 pages, written by this prophetess of the 
Lord, we read on page 421 that our Saviour ministered in the 
first apartment to 1844. In the book "Early Writings' by the 
same author, in the edition of 1907, on page 55, this maid 
servant of our Lord had a vision in which she saw the Lord 


Jesus in a flaming chariot move from the first to the second 
apartment, within the veil." 

The Lord Jesus says then to Mortenson, "This is no answer 
to my question. My question was, where is it written in the 
Bible that I ministered in the first apartment till 1844?" 

Mortenson admits now that it is not in the Bible. 
. "Did you not hear, Mortenson, that we proved in the fore- 
going paragraphs that the 2,300 days cannot begin before the 
power that brought them into existence. Formerly my heaven- 
ly Father spoke to men through the prophets but in these lat- 
ter days he has spoken to you through me. Don't you see, 
Mortenson, that the atonement which was accomplished on the 
cross you remove to 1844? The believers have not had any 
high priest, then, from my ascension to 1844. First in the 
seventh paragraph the reason appears why you. have not 
answered any question correctly. You have believed in Mrs. 
White's visions, and therefore you have come into this dark- 
ness. I have never ministered as a priest in the first apart- 
ment. I did not ride within the veil 1844 to become your high 
priest. I have always been your high priest, since I ascended 
to my heavenly Father. I entered once for all into the 
sanctuary, since I had gained for you an eternal redemption. 
According to your doctrine I should have entered once after 
my ascension and another time in 1844; that is twice. 

The upright have always had in me an anchor for their 
souls which is steadfast and sure, and which entereth into that 
within the veil, whither I went after my ascension and not 
1844. (See Hebr. 6: 19, 20.) Go, Mortenson, and preach 
this doctrine no more." 

8. The Lord Jesus continues, "As you know, Adventists, 
your prophetical message is depending upon the year B. C. 
457. You say that the commandment to restore Jerusalem went 
forth then, and that it is written in the seventh chapter of 


Ezra's book. Professor J. M. Erickson of the Swedish Ad- 
ventist school in Broadview, near Chicago, will you come for- 
ward and read loudly before these people the verse in Ezra 
seventh chapter which says that Ezra received a command- 
ment from the Persian king Artaxerxes to restore Jerusalem 
that year?" 

Professor Erickson is standing up, finds Ezra seventh chap- 
ter, but does not find a single word there that Ezra was or- 
dered to restore Jerusalem. "If it is not in Ezra seventh, it 
must be in the sixth," says Erickson. 

The Lord Jesus interrupts him saying, that it is written in 
Ezra's book that the "work was done; but we don't look for 
that, we know it. It is absolutely necessary for your message, 
that it should be written in the seventh chapter, because other- 
wise you cannot get the year B. C. 457, and in such a case your 
message is false. But as Erickson says it is the sixth chapter, 
please read the verse in Ezra sixth which states that Ezra re- 
ceived a commandment to restore Jerusalem." 

Erickson commences to look for the verse; but he cannot 
find a word there to that effect. The people stand trembling 
and amazed that it is not written in Ezra seventh chapter, as 
this is the very starting point of their system which they al- 
ways trusted would endure the most fiery test. 

The Lord Jesus says to Erickson, "It was just that which 
Nyman wanted to show you, when he attended your tentmeet- 
ings in Chicago, but he has said that you did not want to give 
him the Bible to read to you, but you went behind the curtain 
saying that you were no schoolboy of his. Now I ask you, 
Erickson, if you will be my disciple?" 

"There is not a word written in Ezra's book that Ezra re- 
ceived any commandment to go to Jerusalem to restore it. He 
was commanded to beautify the temple which was dedicated 
fifty-eight years before and to teach the people the law of God. 


In Ezra's sixth chapter Exra's name is not even mentioned, 
much less that he received commandment to build anything. 
Your message is built on a false foundation. Do not go out 
again and say it is written in Ezra seventh or sixth chapters." 

9. "You teach that the anointed prince, spoken of in Dan. 
9: 25-27 is I, Christ. Elder U. Bender, Riversdale, Jamaica, 
West Indies ! Come forth, and show that I am the prince 
who sent people and destroyed the city and the sanctuary, since 
I abolished sacrifice and oblation for a half week (three and a 
half years) and finally tjrtat a determined punishment came 
over me." 

Elder Bender comes forward. He begins to relate that "we 
as a people have always taught that the prince who is spoken 
of in Dan. 9 : 25 is Christ, and that he is the same prince who 
died after the sixty-two weeks, 434 years. That the Lord Jesus 
abolished sacrificings forever through his death upon the cross, 
but that half of the seventieth week (three and a half years) 
began with the work of Christ and ended with his death, and 
that the latter half of the week was occupied by the disciples 
to work among the Jews before they were rejected as a. na- 
tion, and Paul went to the gentiles." 

The Lord Jesus asks Elder Bender, if he cannot see that 
the Anointed one who was put to death after the sixty-two 
weeks (434 years), and the prince who afterwards was sending 
his people to destroy the city and the sanctuary, could not be 
the same persons. "And he, the same prince, shall confirm a 
covenant with many for one week (seven years), and in the 
midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation 
to cease — how can you apply these things to me ? The pro- 
noun he (verse 27) shows that it is the same prince who de- 
stroyed the city and the sanctuary, who made a covenant, 
abolished the sacrificings for three and a half years, and finally 
a determined punishment came upon him." 


Elder Bender admits now that he has not studied the sub- 
ject, but read and believed what Uriah Smith had written. 

10. "You teach that Rome is the king of the north in Dan. 
eleventh chapter, and that this power is introduced first in the 
seventeenth verse. That the Roman general, Julius Caesar, is 
the first Roman who got his wife Cleopatra from the Egyptian 
king Ptolemy XI Auletes. Professor Charles T. Everson from 
Chicago, come forth and show with historical facts that there 
was a war between Auletes and Caesar, and that Caesar received 
Cleopatra in matrimony from him." 

Professor Everson stands up, but he cannot show with the 
aid of history that Ptolemy had any war against Caesar, but 
must admit that Cleopatra gave herself away to Csesar B. C. 
48. Everson stands now exposed to the glances of Jesus. 

The Lord Jesus asks him, if he knows, how much of the 
message is proved to be false, if Rome does not come in here. 

Evers answers, "The whole message is then false." 

The writer wants to add that he has heard Everson speak 
twice on the eleventh chapter of Daniel, and both times he 
passed by the foundation, where they say Rome fills the 
prophecy, and tried to show at last that the forty-fifth verse 
shall be fulfilled by Turkey, when this power shall be driven 
out of Europe. If he should preach in one hundred years, his 
hearers will know as little after the last sermon as they did 
after the first, as he did not adduce any proofs of his state- 
ments at any time. 

After I had heard him the last time I sent him a registered 
letter, which read like this, 

Chicago, June 22, 1912, 
Chas T. Everson, 

3722 Irving Park Blvd. 
Dear Brother — 

East Thursday, the 18th of this month, I heard your talk 


on Daniel's eleventh chapter, when you tried to, prove that 
Turkey is the power which fills the requirements of ■ the 
prophecy in verse forty-five. Without the least proof of your 
statements you said that Rome fills the prophecy from verse 
fifteen to thirty. I wish to ask you in all friendliness, if you 
want to debate these verses with me, and show that Rome is 
the power referred to in those verses. We may appoint seven 
judges, and if they say you are right, I will gladly contribute 
with 100 dollars to your work. 

Awaiting your answer before 12 o'clock noon, the 30th of 
this month, I am, 

A lover of truth, 

Aaron Nyman, 
1050 Wellington St. 

No answer. 

To appear before a public that is absolutely ignorant in 
history and say that Rome fills the requirements of prophecy 
from verse fifteen to thirty is mighty easy, when no one is 
allowed to make any remarks. But now when an occasion 
was offered to prove these assertions^ which could be done in 
an hour, then they dare not. Think if Everson had the truth 
how he would have advertised my folly to the whole world ; but 
he found out that the case was weak and without warrants 
from God's word and the immutable evidence of history. A 
dead king cannot carry on any warfare. Rome does not come 
in there. I see now. If I should say as it is, the denomina- 
tion does not want me any longer. I would better remain silent. 
It will die out by and by. 

A man who left the tent before- the meeting was over told 
me that the speaker had first said that the kingdom of the 
south is Egypt, and the kingdom of the north is Syria, at 
present Turkey. If a kingdom happens to change its name, 
it does not change its location on the map; but when the 


speaker came to the fortieth verse he applied it to Napoleon. 
Napoleon was not king of Syria, the man said to me. I was 
not acquainted with this man, but was glad that he did not 
accept the "present truth." 

11. The Lord Jesus says, "Because you have got Rome 
to fill the qualifications of prophecy in the eleventh chapter, 
you have made the thirty sixth and fortieth verse to 
apply to Napoleon Bonaparte to the end of the chapter. Pro- 
fessor J. Wallenkampf, Stockholm, Sweden, step forth before 
these people and explain what a pronoun is." 

Professor Wallenkampf came forward saying, "It is very 
easy to say what a pronoun is. It is a word used instead of a 
noun. Let us take an example that all can understand. The 
king has left the capital. He has gone to the seaside. At his 
arrival the people received him well. "He," "his" and "him" 
are pronouns. 

The Lord Jesus acknowledges this answer, and asks him 
afterwards to read Dan. 11 : 40-45. Thereupon the Lord asks 
Wallenkampf to whom the Adventists apply the prophecy in 
verse forty. 

He answers, "Napoleon Bonaparte." 

"In what kingdom was he the ruler ?" 

"In France." 

"Was there any change of kings from verse forty to forty- 

Answer: "No." 

"How can you then, Adventists preachers, go around and 
teach that verse forty-five applies to Turkey, when a pronoun 
stands instead of a noun, and there was no change of kings 
from verse forty to forty-five ? If Napoleon is the king of the 
north in the fortieth verse, it is "he" in the fortyfifth. The 
Adventists see now that the Eastern question that has been 
troubling them for a long time is already solved, as far as 


Daniel is concerned, and that' by a little pronoun in Dan. 11: 

12. "You teach that the time of the end began A. D. 1798 
and ended A. D. 1844, a period of forty-six years. Elder H. 
Kuniya, Tokio, Japan, come forth and show that what Daniel 
saw in the vision was fulfilled between those years." 

Elder Kuniya, who is a converted Japanese, came forward. 
He says, "Daniel 11: 36 is applied to Napoleon, the monarch 
of France. Verse forty refers to a battle that should be 
fought between Egypt and France, and Turkey and France 
A. D. 1798." 

"To what time," Jesus asks, "did the angel say the vision 
should belong, that is mentioned in Dan. 8? 
, "The time of the end," was Kuniya's answer. 

"What time of the end?" 

He answers, "The time of the end for the world." 

"The time of the end for the world begins 1798, according 
to the message of the Adventists?" 


"What did Daniel first see in the vision?" 

"A ram standing before the river." 

"Of what kingdom was the ram the symbol?" 
"The Medo-Persian kingdom." 

"How did the ram push?" 

"Westward and northward, and southward." 

"What does that signify?" 

"That the kingdom extended its dominion in these direc- 

"Did Medo-Persia extend her dominion in these directions 
after A. D. 1798?" 

"No, they did it between the years B. C. 538 and B. C. 525." 

"When the vision belongs to the time of the end, you ought 
to see that that time must be when the vision was being ful- 


filled. It was about 2,330 years ago when the vision began to 
be fulfilled, and not A. D. 1798." 

"I see," said Kuniya, "but then our whole message is 
broken down before this vision. I am a heathen who has 
learned this from the missionaries and believed with all my 
heart, but I see now, it is false." 

The Lord Jesus asks him to study Daniel's 8th chapter: 
"A host was given him by reason of transgression. The 
transgressors had come to the full at the end of the empire 
of Greece. The little horn, a fierce and presumptuos king, 
came up at the same time. The 2,300 days are a certain time 
during his fury against this host. This time is six years, four 
months and twenty days. The sanctuary should be cleansed 
toward the end of these days, which took place, when Judas 
Maccabeus offered the first sacrifice, Dec. 25, B. C. 164. There 
the 2,300 days end, and not A. D. 1844. The foundation is 


Do you intend to continue preaching your prophetical mes- 
sage, since you have read this book? Are you going to prove 
that the Biblical, historical and scientific facts I have made use 
of in my arguments against you are manufactured falsehoods? 
Do you intend to condemn my book from your pulpits and 
forbid your people to read it? Do you intend to appoint an 
(un) skilful committee who can with the Bible and history 
refute these twelve points that are the foundation of your 
prophetical system when anyone of them is strong enough to 
demolish the whole palace? Will you try to demonstrate that 
there is another time to measure time on than the one pointed 
out in the previous chapters? Will you try to prove from 
history that Rome came out as a new horn from the divided 


kingdom of Alexander? Are you going to prove that, since 
Rome had taken Egypt, B. C. 30, it was possible to go back 
and capture Syria in B. C. 65? Do you intend to prove that 
Jesus is the prince of the host in Dan. 8:11; that Titus, born 
Dec. 31, A. D. 40, could take away from Jesus his daily 
sacrifice 161 years before Jesus was born, and 201 years before 
Titus himself was born? Are you going to prove that Jesus 
had a daily sacrifice, while he lived on the earth? Do you 
intend to prove that the fierce king who came up in the latter 
part of the kingdom of Greece, and who, according to your 
opinion, is Rome, which came in contact with the Jews B. C: 
161, could begin her deeds B. C. 457, 296 years before its 
existence ? Are you going to prove that the little horn is the 
Roman empire, when the angel Gabriel says in his explanation 
that it is a fierce king (Dan. 8 : 23) ? Do you intend to prove 
that Greece, which is the father of the little horn, and coming 
up B. C. 301, and that Rome, B. C. 753, being the son, could 
be 452 years old at the birth of its father? Do you intend 
to prove that Jesus ministered in the holy place from his 
ascension to 1844, when he changed the clothes and rode in a 
flaming chariot within the second veil? Do you intend to 
prove that the world was without an high priest more than 
1800 years in direct contradiction to the word of God and 
common sense ? Do you still intend to prove that it is written 
in Ezra 7th chapter, that Ezra received a commandment to 
restore Jerusalem ? Do you intend to show that it is written 
in Ezra 6th chapter, if it cannot be found in the seventh, that 
Ezra received any message from Artaxerxes to restore Jeru- 
salem? Do you intend to prove that Jesus is the prince who 
sent his people to destroy the city and the sanctuary in 
Jerusalem, abolished the sacrifice and oblation for a half week, 
and then died upon the cross the second time, and that at last 
determined desolations were poured upon him? 


Do you intend to prove that Rome is referred to in Dan. 
11:17; that Ptolemy XI Auletes had a war against Caesar 
after his death and gave him his daughter? Do you intend 
to prove that France is the kingdom of the north, and Napo- 
leon its monarch ? Do you intend to prove that you can make 
the pronoun in verse 45 refer to the Turkish power which, 
according to your opinion, applies to Napoleon? Do you in- 
tend to prove that the seventh trumpet began to sound in 
A. D. 1844, while you teach that the silence of half an hour 
shall occur, when Jesus comes the second time? That it is a 
prophetical time of eight days ? This silence began after the 
breaking of the seal. Christ has not come, therefore the seal 
is not broken yet. The seven trumpets were sounding first' 
after the breaking of the seventh seal, and not before; but yet 
you teach that the seventh trumpet began to sound in 1844. 
Just think what beautiful logic these Adventists apply to their 
reasoning ! 

A man who is to be born in the unknown future will have 
seven sons. The youngest of his sons has sixty-eight years 
ago been president of the United States; but the father is not 
born yet. The seventh seal which is, as it were, father of the 
seven trumpets is not broken yet; but yet the seventh trumpet 
began to sound A. D. 1844. (Rev. 8:2, 6.) It shall sound, 
"The kingdoms of this world are become (present tense; not 
shall become in the future) the kingdoms of our Lord, and of 
his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." (Rev. 11: 
15.) Either is your message a cruel deception or the angel 
has been standing up there and has deceived people since 1844. 

Owing to these immutable facts, and led by the Spirit of 
God, I admonish you in the name of my God and Saviour 
whom I serve in my spirit to desist from preaching your pro- 
phetical message which is proved to be the most astounding 
error from beginning to end. 


It is so easy to acquire knowledge of these things that 
anyone with ordinary brain capacity can grasp it. A preacher 
is without excuse who tries to argue against the reasons that 
are given in this book. He is unfit to preach the gospel. It 
is as impossible to you, Adventist preachers, to overthrow the 
arguments against your message as it is for you to go to 
Egypt and carry the great pyramid, weighing about six million 
tons, upon your shoulders to Chicago and place it in Lincoln 

In Matth. 23rd chapter the Lord Jesus pronounced an 
eight-fold woe over the Pharisees and Scribes for their folly 
and blindness. They went over lands and seas to make pros- 
elytes, and in order to get their bread they were eating the 
houses of widows while they offered long prayers. 

When one shows them their errors one is criticized for not 
using the same mild, soft and blandiloquent language that the 
false prophets tise when they are trying to make proselytes. 
Why did not Jesus use the same kind of language to the 
Pharisees ? Perhaps he then might have won them for God. 
Why did not Martin Luther use such language against the 
pope and prelates of the Catholic church? When they com- 
menced to speak of their spirit, he said that his spirit would 
give their spirit a blow in the face. If Luther had spoken 
softly he might have won them for Jesus. He who is sent by 
God has his Spirit and knows what kind of language to use 
to whom he is speaking. 

If the Lord Jesus had written against the Adventists they 
might have heard a more definite language, without vowels, 
adjectives and euphony. If they had been a people looking fur 
the truth, it would have been a pleasure to me to use a softer 
tone ; but to impart any knowledge to the hide bound Adventist 
leaders is a thankless task. My book will enlighten others that 
they shall not come into this place of torment, 


After the Adventist preachers have finished their sermons, 
the main contents of which are taken from Uriah Smith's book 
and Mrs. White's so called visions and useless divinations, 
they often say, "You are not going to be condemned on the 
day of judgment because you have been mistaken, but because 
you do not accept the truth when it comes to you." 

When any one of your colleagues leaves you on account 
of your doctrines, how do you treat him ? How did you treat 
Brother A. F. Ballenger, when he was enlightened on the 
sanctuary question? He showed you that if Jesus had minis- 
tered in the first apartment till 1844, then the throne of God 
must have been there, but the throne of God has always been 
in the holy of holies, according to Heb. 6 : 19, 20, and that 
Jesus entered into the holy of holies when he acquired for us 
an eternal redemption. The atonement was accomplished on 
the cross, but according to your doctrine it was done 1844. 
The speculative message was 'sent to the bottom of the sea 
on that point. The prophetess is thereby proved to be false. 
Think what shame it is to have preached so long that they 
are the on4y true church; all others are Babylon. 

Instead of accepting the light from Brother Ballenger, 
which he offered you weeping, he was expelled by the General 
Conference, held in Tacoma Park, Washington, D. C., a few 
years ago. How many times have you not written and 
warned your members against him ! This beloved brother was 
in Chicago two years ago (1911) and preached a few times. 
May God in his wisdom send us many such ministers ! The 
Adventists are raging because they are not permitted to lead 
those who see. How did you treat the venerable father of A. F. 
Ballenger, when he took sides with his son, because he found 
the latter was right? Jesus had not ministered in the first 
apartment till 1844, The atonement took place at the cross, 


and Jesus became our high priest after his ascension. You 
expelled him, also, taking the bread away from the old 
gentleman. When I read that I commenced to cry over your 
conduct against an honorable servant of God. But Mrs. 
White's visions you must believe, thinking that she has re- 
ceived them from God's throne, even if they are dark as the 
demons of the underworld, and in opposition to God's word. 
As soon as I hear that a person accepts Mrs. White as a 
prophetess I know he is unfit for the service of the Lord. 

As long as I am living and have strength I am willing to 
go alone against you, the audience may be small or large. 
You may come with your whole conference, the prophetess in 
the lead, I do not fear. My lips shall not quiver, neither shall 
my knees tremble as Belshazzar's did at the feast. When you 
have studied my "false evidences" against the "whole truth"; 
then let us examine the matter before the public. To write 
in your papers and to throw dust in the eyes of your blind 
members is the same as shooting in the air, when you want to 
hit the bear, or fishing perch in the top of a tree. 

When you point out the weaknesses in their doctrines they 
say you are barking at them. 

A professor said to me that we who have left them are 
barking at them. I read Isaiah 56 : 10, "His watchmen are 
blind ; they are all ignorant, they are like dumb dogs, they 
cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber." 

I thank God that I am not among the dogs that cannot 
bark. A master has no use for a watchdog that cannot bark. 
A dog which is going against the thief, wagging its tail in 
order to get a bite to eat while the thief takes what he wants, 
such a dog is useless to his master. The Lord has not sent 
dogs that cannot bark. The Lord wants such to speak the 
truth. This is the meaning of the verse. 

Sometimes I have been provoked in my spirit and wished 


I had all their books in a hole that I might pour oil upon them 
and burn them to ashes. Again I have had compassion for 
them. How many times my eyes have been dim with tears 
while writing this book, I do not know. Often after my 
family has retired for the night I have been studying their 
doctrines and wept over the misled people. I have felt as 1 
though I would take them all in my arms and say to them, 
"Brethren and sisters, you are misled. Your message is built 
on a false foundation. Why do you throw away your hardly 
earned money for what is not bread?" 

The Adventists may say what they please about me. They 
are not harder on me than I am on their message. They would 
not wish to see me in a hole, saturated with oil, and burning 
to death. I think better of them than that. One thing is cer- 
tain, I wish them no evil, but all the good they can enjoy in 
this life, a peaceful death, and finally life eternal. I want to 
see them all saved to the everlasting kingdom of God, and I 
think they have the same longings for me, though they may 
think there is small hope for me, as I have left the "present 

When they are unable to defend their doctrines they often 
say, "We have Jesus, and there is no salvation in chronology 
anyway." We answer, "If there is no salvation in your 
message you ought to give it up and preach that part of God's 
word which leads to salvation. Is it worth the while to keep 
on since - 1844 preaching a message that contains no salvation 
and squeezing $1,300,000 in tithes every year out of your 
poor members, not to say anything of other donations ? Leave 
out the prophetical message, received from the fantasies of 
Mrs. White, and the answer will be as one of your own 
professors once said, "What is then left?" 

One of their most gifted men who preached in Chicago six 
years ago assured the old men leaning on the edge of the 


grave that they needed not to die for the day was close at hand 
that Jesus was to return the second time. There was no time 
for business, but we ought to use our time selling books show- 
ing people that Jesus is soon here. He was honest in his 
ignorance. He was a splendid agent for Mrs. White. Young 
people have gone out to sell books, many have lost their 
previous savings, had to give up this occupation and sought 
other employment to get a living. If we had been as blind as 
the preacher with the great light of Mrs. White from God's 
throne and left our business which is the only means of our 
support to sell books, thereby exposing the family to suffering 
and want, had that been pleasing to God? We use our undei- 
standing and believe that that is just as pleasing to the Lord as 
being controlled by a fanatical woman who has led these people 
away off from the truth with her visions and fanaticism. 

There are many other things that could be mentioned, but 
we want to finish this book. Here is light enough to show 
that the Adventists and Pastor Russell never have had any 
message to the world ; all is built upon false visions, dreams, 
imagination, false chronology, etc. 

A message so muddled as that of the Adventists no one 
can unravel, unless he is thoroughly familiar with the world's 
history and the methods they have used in spinning it together. 
Therefore there are not many who can go against them in 
their interpretation of the prophecies, unless they know their 
many hiding places. Any one of the questions that have been 
treated in this book is sufficient to smash their message to 
pieces. If they cannot prove one point they cannot tackle the 
others, because the questions are all links in a common system. 

If you are so foolish that you cannot see when reading 
this book that you never had any message to the world, there 
is nothing to do for you. But when you see that the founda- 


tion is false, you know how many questions of doctrine there 
are which lose the importance you have attributed to them. 

The most important questions which are lost and gone, 
according to your interpretation, are the following : 

1. The messages of the three angels. (Rev. 14: 6-12.) 
3. The seven churches. (Rev. 2nd and 3rd chapters.) 

3. The seven seals. (Rev. 5th, 6th, and 8th chapters.) 

4. The seven trumpets. (Rev. 8th, 9th, and 11th chapters.) 

5. The little open book which you say is applied to you 
during the years 1843 and 1844. 

Remark. Seek light from this book and you will find that 
you did not eat any book 1844. This book will not give you 
any too sweet taste in the mouth. 

6. The investigative judgment beginning 1844. 

7. The Eastern question. 

These and other related questions are proved to be false. 

8. Here is the most important of them all, viz., that Mrs. 
Ellen G. White, who is the main cause of their message, has 
fallen from her high position, where she has been placed by 
ignorant people, and come down to the level of quite ordinary 
beings. If she is going to retain her title as a prophetess she 
must be satisfied to be classed among the false. 

As the Apostle Paul preached in Ephesus, and the truth 
became known, "the magicians brought their books and burned 
them in the presence of all. That is what the Adventists ought 
to do. You ought to carry all your prophetical books with 
which you have deceived thousands and thousands of honest 
souls and burn them in the sight of all. If Mrs. White lives 
then, she ought to ignite this heap of rubbish as she is the chief 
author of the false prophecies. Isaiah 59 : 13 would be a very 
appropriate text to preach from at the occasion, "And as for 
our iniquities we know them; in transgressing and lying 
against the Lord, and departing away from God, speaking 


oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart 
words of falsehood." (The fantasises of Mrs. White.) If 
you do that the Lord shall accept your oblation as a sweet 
odor; but if you proceed with your propaganda you will reap 
what you are sowing, for the Lord is not mocked. 

We believe that the Lord still has compassion with the 
times of ignorance. But in this book there is light enough to 
enlighten you so that the times of ignorance will be a very 
poor shelter. If you reject this light which the Lord has made 
to shine upon your path it may have serious results. Without 
pretending to be a prophet who can foretell events, you will 
find that my prophecy will in time prove to be true, when 
Mrs. White's prophecies are crushed. 

He who has the truth has nothing to fear The prophet 
Elijah was not afraid to go against the 450 Baal's prophets 
who were eating at the tables of Jezebel. How the prophet 
had any right to take their lives, when the commandment 
says, "Thou shalt not kill !" I do not know ; but even if I had 
the permission I would not take the life of a single false 
prophet. The deepest desire of my heart is that they might 
have their eyes opened, that they could see how miserable their 
prophetical views look to an innocent bystander. 

As the kings of Israel and Judah intended to go against 
Ramoth-gilead, the king of Israel, Ahab, gathered the prophets 
together to hear whether he should go to battle or not. The 
prophets said unanimously, "Go up ; for the Lord shall deliver 
it into the hand of the king." (1 Kings 22: G.) But Jehosha- 
phat, the king of Judah, said, "Is there not here a prophet 
of the Lord besides, that we might inquire of him?" The king 
of Israel answered, "There is yet one man, Micaiah, the son 
of Imlah, by whom we may inquire of the Lord : but I hate 
him ; for he doth not prophecy good concerning me, but 
evil." (Verses 7, 8.) 


Micaiah was sent for. The kings were seated on their 
respective thrones. The false prophets had promised success. 
The messenger told Micaiah that he should prophecy in har- 
mony with the four hundred. But Micaiah answered, "As the 
Lord liveth, what the Lord hath said unto me, that will I 
speak." (Verse 14.) At first he jested with the king. But 
when the king pleaded with him to tell the truth; Micaiah said, 
"I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have 
not a shepherd." (Verse 17.) As the king heard these words 
he said, "Put this fellow in the prison, and feed him with 
bread of affliction and with water of affliction, until I come 
in peace." (Verse 27.) And Micaiah said, "If thou return at 
all in peace, the Lord hath not spoken by me." (Verse 28.) 

Ahab went up against Ramoth-gilead, but was shot to death 
the following day. The dogs licked his blood, and the chariot 
was washed in the pool of Samaria and the harlots bathed in 
it, as was foretold by Elijah, when Ahab killed Naboth and 
took his vineyard from him. 

A witness who testifies to the truth weighs more in the ears 
of a just judge than innumerable false witnesses. Jezebel's 
450 and Ahab's 400 false prophets weighed less than a grain 
of dust in the scales against two men of God, Elijah and 

Let Mrs. White come with her 828 preachers, 458 local 
preachers, 1,234 city missionaries, and 1,697 book peddlers, 
total 4,217 (and not 4,346, as you have it in your year-book. 
You have reported 129 too many) workers to prove to the 
world their peculiar doctrines. She may, like Jezebel of old, 
pamper them to make them believe in her fantasies. Still we 
will before unprejudiced people show their mistakes in the 
prophecies as easily as we showed that they made a mistake in 
adding up the list of workers so they got 129 too many. . 

To judge colors correctly a person must have his eyes 


open and not be colorblind ; but you poor Adventists have your 
eyes closed. Think if God was permitted to open them so you 
could see in what darkness you are walking! 

The reason why I have taken up this warfare against their 
views concerning the prophecies is this : — 

The Adventists have believed in Mrs. White's visions with- 
out knowledge, but I have tried to understand my power of 
reasoning together with the Bible, the history and real science. 

The briefest description of the differences between us is 
faith, with or without knowledge. 

Adventists ! Your prophetical message has been, is now, 
and will always be to your shame and dishonor, because you 
have let the pitiable fantasies of a sickly woman, which she 
calls visions, blind you, though they are in direct contrast to 
the Bible, history and common sense. 

Adventist preachers ! You kill time only by circulating your 

It gives a person a wonderful feeling of security to have 
the truth with which one can defeat the lie, knowing before- 
hand that truth will gain a final victory and come out of the 
melting-pot seven times purified. 

The Adventists do believe that chapters two and seven in 
the Book of Daniel belong to the same prophecy, and in that 
respect they are right. They have, therefore, asked me, what 
I will do with these two chapters. They believe that the image 
represents Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, calling 
them the four world-powers. If their prophecies had been 
built upon any of these chapters, we could show them they 
are on a wrong track even there. When we understand the 
vision in the eighth chapter, and the correct interpretation in 
the eleventh we have all that is required for a true insight into 
the remaining. As Rome is not the symbol of the little horn 
in the eighth chapter and does not come in as the king of the 


north or the south in the eleventh chapter, we may rest as- 
sured that it has no place in the second or seventh either. 

What is meant by a world power ? The Bible does not say 
that the image represented four world powers, but four king- 
doms. If Babylon is a world power, in which Nebuchadnez- 
zar was the golden head, and after him should come another 
kingdom that is smaller ; then it was a smaller world power. 
If the second kingdom coming up after Nebuchadnezzar's was 
the Medo-Persian, then history must decide for us, if Medo- 
Persia was inferior to Babylon according to Daniel 2: 39. If 
not, the Adventist interpretation of the image is also erroneous. 

These four kingdoms have, owing to their vast extent, been 
ruling over greater dominions and populations than other con- 
temporaneous kingdoms, and had greater power and renown 
than these, but not one of them was all-powerful over the 
known world during the time of its greatness. In that respect 
Rome can be called a world power, but Rome is not represented 
in the image. 

Contemporaneous with Rome were Assyria, Medo-Persia 
and Greece. Media took Assyria and was itself made a tribu- 
tary to Persia 558 ; afterwards Babylon was taken by Cyrus 
538 who also added Oxus, Indus, Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine 
and Mesopotamia to his domains. After Cyrus' death his son 
Cambyses took Tyre, Cyprus and at last Egypt. According to 
the views of the Adventists this is the second kingdom which 
should be inferior to the Babylonian. But now it is as impos- 
sible to prove that Medo-Persia was inferior to Babylon as it 
is to show that the time of the end began A. D. 1798. Vain 
speculations, that's all. 

In the absence of reliable information concerning the num- . 
ber of inhabitants in the various kingdoms we have to limit our 
observations to the area of each kingdom. When Babylon was 
at the- height of its power, since it had subdued the neighbor- 


ing countries, it had an area of about 170,000 square miles. 
Persia alone was 648,000 square miles before' it captured 
Media, that was 150,000 square miles, and Assyria with 100,000 
square miles. After Medo-Persia had taken Babylon 538, it 
had an area of 1,068,000 square miles, or six times as large as 
the Babylonian empire; this was before the other nine king- 
doms were taken. If it were necessary to find the square area 
of all those kingdoms and add to the 1,068,000 miles, we would 
doubtless double the size of this territory. But he who cannot 
see that a kingdom six times as large as another is larger, will 
not listen to reason if it were fifteen times as large. 

"For vain man would be wise, though man be born like a 
wild ass's colt." (Job 11: 12.) 

Uriah Smith admits that Cyrus erected the most extensive 
empire that up to that time had ever existed; but it was in- 
ferior in wealth, luxury and magnificence. (Daniel and the 
Revelation, page 63.) 

We consider the superiority of a country to consist in its 
greater power, influence on other nations, extension of terri- 
tory and a number of inhabitants, but not so much its wealth, 
luxury and magnificence. A very small country may some- 
times put up a greater display than the larger country. 

Ten of the wealthiest men in New York could move to a 
smaller place and live in splendor and magnificence, but that 
fact does not make their abode greater than New York. If 
the description of the kingdoms should fit Uriah Smith's in- 
terpretation, it should have read somewhat like this:' "And 
after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee in 
wealth, luxury and magnificence." But Daniel makes no men- 
tion of the outward splendor, because he had not Persia in 
mind at that occasion. This subterfuge is necessary for the 
Adventists to get a chance of introducing their beloved Rome 
in Daniel's book, though Rome, whether ecclesiastically or 


politically, has no more place in Daniel's prophecies than the 
United States of America. But unfortunately Rome is the 
most important pillar of the "present truth." 

After Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom there should arise a king- 
dom inferior to his. Media broke loose from Assyria B. C. 708, 
and was an independent kingdom for one hundred and fifty 
years. Cyaxares established a monarchy 633; took possession 
of Nineveh 625, and of Assyria B. C. 604. Persia seized 
Media B. C. 558. Media had now exerted great political in- 
. fluence from 633 to 558, a period of seventy-five years. Ec- 
batana was the capital city. (See article "Media" in McClin- 
tock and Strong's Cyclopedia.) 

Cyaxares, the king of Media, overthrew the Assyrian em- 
pire with the aid of the Babylonian king Nabopolassar B. C. 
604; in 560 Cyrus deposed the king of Media, and from that 
time the two kingdoms are spoken of a one. (Int. Cyclopedia, 
Vol. IX, page 654.) 

The other kingdom coming up after Nebuchadnezzar, which 
should be smaller, cannot be any other than Media. It was 
prophecied that after the death of Nebuchadnezzar the kings 
of Media should attack Babylon and immediately after the 
death of Nebuchadnezzar the kingdom began to disintegrate, 
until Babylon was subdued by Cyrus 538, when Medo-Persia 
became the third kingdom to have supremacy over the world. 
(Dan. 2: 39.) Dr. Farrar applies the second kingdom to 
Media, and the learned scholarship of our day has almost uni- 
versally accepted this view. 

That Babylon was greater than Media is easy to see. After 
the capture of Babylon 538 the Adventists say that Medo-Per- 
sia is the second kingdom which should be inferior, though it 
was six times larger than Babylon, before it had added nine 
smaller kingdoms to its dominion. 

Nebuchadnezzar was a mighty king, but extremely proud, 


so the Lord had to send him out among the animals in the fields 
to humble his spirit. Cyrus seems to have been a greater man 
than Nebuchadnezzar. 

The capital of Babylon was probably the most magnificent 
in ancient times, but the greatness of a kingdom does not de- 
pend alone upon the size of its capital. 

It was prophecied by Jeremiah 51 : 11, and by Isaiah 13 : 
17, that the Medes should overpower Babylon. Do not think 
that Media was a poor country. -"Behold, I will stir up the 
Medes against them, which shall not regard silver ; and as for . 
gold, they shall not delight in it." (Isa. 13: 17.) It will take 
a long time before this can be said about the Americans. 

The third and fourth kingdoms should be world powers, 
not so the second. Medo-Persia was the greatest kingdom that 
had existed up to that time, about twenty times larger than 
Babylon; therefore, Medo-Persia cannot be the second, but 
must be the third kingdom. 

It is not written in the second chapter of Daniel that the 
fourth kingdom should be divided into ten kingdoms. It says 
that it should be broken to pieces. Greece became such a king- 
dom that could not be melted together. (See explanation of 
Dan. 11.) The Adventists have made a gigantic leap for- 
ward to get Rome in. That is the way they always try to save 
their message ; but Rome is excluded even here. "And in the 
days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom." 
(Verse 44.) Not in the days of these kingdoms, but in days 
when Greece was divided. In the days of these kings God 
set up a kingdom by Judas Maccabus. A kingdom with di- 
vine principles in it, and not of this world. In the days of these 
kings, the same kings who tried to mingle these kingdoms with 
the seed of men, but they could not cleave one to another, even 
as iron is not mixed with clay. Uriah Smith says that 
Charles V (tl558), Frederick the Great of Prussia (tl786), 


Louis XIV (tl715), and Napoleon (j-1821) fill the requirements 
here. It is 355 years, since the first one died and ninety-two 
years since Napoleon died, but Christ did not erect any such 
kingdom in those days. Now they say that it was in the days 
of the kings in the divided kingdom of Rome, and in such a 
case the days of these kings will last as long as the world en- 
dures. In the days of these kings is a definite form ; therefore 
it is certain kings, the same who tried to reunite their kingdoms 
by matrimonies, then God should set up a kingdom. It is the 
people of God that shall have the principles God in themselves. 
The Jews had the first opportunity. Jesus said that- his King- 
dom was not of this world, and as the Jews were not heeding 
his voice, Jesus told them that the kingdom of God was going 
to be taken away from them, and be given to a people which 
bore the fruits of righteousness. 

More than two years ago I saw plainly that Rome does 
not enter into Dan. 7, and least of all the ecclesiastical Rome. 
The Adventists hold the opinion that the new horn which came 
up (verse 20) is the Papacy; but then we ask them to show 
us where in the whole sacred literature a church or religious 
power is signified by horns. Never. 

The seventeenth verse being the explanation of the angel 
gives a deathblow to this view. It reads as follows, "These 
great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise 
out of the earth." These four kings represent four kingdoms. 
If the fourth king represents the Roman empire, then we wish 
to know, who is the king the angel is speaking of ? The fourth 
beast had ten horns. As soon as it said a horn, it means a king, 
and not a kingdom. If these ten kings had ten kingdoms at 
the same time, it is apparent that the ten kings would be con- 
temporaries. Is that according to the explanation of the an- 
gel? "And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings 
that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he 


shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three 
kings." (Verse 24.) 

According to their interpretation these ten kings lived con- 
temporaneously, and the litle horn which arose and subdued 
three kings is the papal power. It is not a power that rules 
the horn, but the horn that rules the power, the kingdom. The 
pope has never been a king in any political sense, except over 
Rome and vicinity. That he exercised royal power and had 
troops at his disposal is undeniable ; but he never was a king in 
the political or exclusive sense, as the prophecy implies. 

But according, to their opinion it is the pope who rules a 
kingdom. Here is no way of escape. As the angel of the Lord 
says that it is a king, they say it is the papacy with all the 
popes from the beginning to our days. Who is now this "a 
king?" The Adventists have this point so beautifully illus- 
trated that when they come to this verse they pull a string, and 
a pope appears^ marching gradually across their diagram and 
overthrow three kings. ' The Huns 493, the Vandals 534, and 
the Goths A. D. 538. When the angel says "a king" it must 
be a person. Was the pope this king who defeated the Huns 
493 ? The first pope came up 538, he led his kingdom (the 
Catholic church) forty-five years before his office came into 
existence. These figures are taken from the .library of the 
"whole truth." 

This is no small horn to the Adventists. Here it is carrying 
on a war A. D. 493, just forty-five years before its existence. 
In Dan. eighth chapter Rome (the horn) is even 452 years old 
at the birth of its father. Then it came up B. C. 1C1, but had 
already been in contact with the Medo-Persian kingdom B. C. 
457 and taken away from the Prince of princes his daily sacri- 
fice, 296 years before its existence. The horn has three natal 
years : B. C. 753. According to that figure it is now 2,665 years 
old. The second, B. C. 161. According to that year it is now 


2,073 years. According to its third birth 538 it is 1,374 years. 
The angel of the Lord says "a king," and the Adventists help 
us to such explanations. It should, according to their views, 
never be called the little horn, but the most amazing horn that 
ever existed. You ought never call yourselves Adventists 
when you have so little respect for the word of the Lord. 

It is the same horn in the seventh as in the eighth chapter. 
The ten kings who came out of the divided kingdoms of 
Greece were Seleucus I, Antiochus I and II, Seleucus II, III, 
Antiochus III, Seleucus IV! 

The little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes who pushed aside 
three kings : Demetrius, Heliodorus and Ptolemy VI. The 
same one who exalted himself against the Almighty, abolished 
the Jehovah worship and his law in Jerusalem for three years 
and a half. The same history, the same man spoken of in the 
eighth, ninth, eleventh and twelfth chapters. The seven first 
ones had heads (were rulers) ; but three who were entitled to 
kingdoms were pushed aside. 

We only touch briefly upon this subject to give an idea of 
how the prophecies intermingle in the book of Daniel. 

We do hot deny that the prophecy might have a double 
meaning in several instances, for many things are repeated ; but 
we must study them together with kings and kingdoms to 
which the angel refers if we are to obtain the right meaning. 
And if we do that, led by God's spirit, aiming above every- 
thing else to find the truth, we never can get the Roman power, 
religious or temporal, to fill any place in Daniel's book. This 
is a fact that will remain when the prophetical truth of the 
Adventists has dried up. 

Elder Mortenson has not yet presented himself for a public 
debate, since he found out that I was in earnest. He thought 
he was going to scare me ; but as long as I live I stand behind 


my promise to give my house to their work when you can prove 
that my twelve items are false. 

Another letter was sent to S. Mortenson from Chicago 
Aug. 9, 1912. 

Elder S. Mortenson, 

Emil Forslund mentioned to me that he had spoken to you 
concerning my circular against your doctrines, and that you 
said I was mistaken about the 2,300 days, as the time allowed 
to Antiochus Epiphanes is too short, only about five years ; but 
Forslund is not sure how it was, so he cannot explain to me 
where you said the fault was. I therefore ask you kindly to 
inform me what my mistake is on that point; and if I find that 
I am mistaken, I am more than willing to acknowledge the 
same and openly retract my mistake through the columns of 
"The Signs of the Time." This is my duty, if it can be proved 
that I have made any mistakes in my calculations. Awaiting 
your reply, I am, Yours truly,, 

Aaron Nyman. 

No answer received. 

S. Mortenson has in the paper made us understand that the 
time is too short for Antiochus Epiphanes, but he has not 
shown in what manner it is too short. It is easy enough to call 
a person a thief if you do not have to prove -it. Antiochus 
Epiphanes came to Jerusalem B. C. 170, and Dec. 25, B. C. 164, 
the temple was cleansed. The 2,300 days that correspond to 
six years, four months and twenty days come in between 170 
and 164. As far as I can see from their way of figuring 
they subtract 164 from 170 and get six years. There remain 
four months and twenty days, Mortenson probably thinks, 
as he did intimate, that the time was only somewhat over five 
years. Let us see. 


From December 25, B. C. 170, to December 25, B. C. 164, 
is six years. How many clays have I taken from the year 
170? We have taken five days. There are eleven months and 
twenty-five days left, a sufficient time to subtract four months 
and twenty days from, and still have seven months and five 
days over. I say in my circular that there is so much time 
over. But yet I am a deceiver even tkere. 

Nyman writes to S. Mortenson again and points out that 
he has handled the truth in a reckless manner in the paper, 
as follows: — 

Chicago, Dec. 24, 1912. 
Elder S. Mortenson, 

Chicago, 111. 

In "The Signs of the Times" for Jan. 10 you have again 
manifested your profound ignorance concerning the prophecy 
in Daniel's eighth chapter. 

Speaking of the restoration of Jerusalem, you say, "The 
next commandment went out from Artaxerxes who gave a 
commandment to the priest Ezra in writing and ordered him to 
put it in execution. (See Ezra seventh and eighth chapters.) 
This happened B. C. 457." 

Here you make a mistake again and cause the people to 
believe in a falsehood. There is not a word in Ezra seventh 
or eighth chapters to the effect that Artaxerxes gave Ezra 
any commandment to restore Jerusalem B. C. 457. Can't you 
read? He beautified the temple and taught the people the 
law. Now I warn you, Mortenson, in the name of the Eord, 
never to write this again, but read these chapters and revoke 
your statements in the same paper, if you do not want to see 
this letter incorporated in the book against the perverted 
prophecies of the Adventists that I am just sending to the 
press, Truth will win at last. Let the. old doctrine go, and 


put your feet on the mountain. In love for yourself and the 
people you are misleading, 

Yours truly, 

Aaron Nyman. 

Another letter by Nyman to J. M. Erickson of the school 
of the Seventh-day Adventists, near Chicago: 

Chicago, Dec. 24, 1912. 
Rev. J. M. Erickson, 


You have written in "The Signs of the Times" for Dec. 10 
under the heading "The Watchtower," in which you try to 
prove that Dan. 11 : 45 is a prophecy concerning the Turkish 
power. If you are so familiar with all the details of the 
prophecy as you pretend to be and say that all men of learning 
who have titles of Doctors, etc., are both blind and deaf and 
that they neither see nor hear, then you ought not to be afraid 
to submit your proposition to an open investigation. 

You try to prove that Turkey fills the requirements of the 
prophecy in Dan. 11 : 45. If I cannot refute your arguments in 
favor of this position, I promise to give you at that meeting 
a note of $500.00 for your school. The note I promise to 
redeem before Nov. 1, 1913. We will appoint seven judges, 
and treat each other in a brotherly way in order to get at the 

I will be responsible for all the expenses, so that will be 
no obstacle in your way. 

In the warfare for the truth, 

Aaron Nyman. 

No answer. If these shepherds had the truth on their side, 
they would soon go against me ; but it is easy to see why they 
dare not show their colors. ' 

S. Mortenson once told me, that Mrs. White had instructed 


the preachers not to offer themselves to debate with other be- 
lievers; but if they are challenged by them, they should take 
up the invitation and defeat their opponents. Why not obey 
the prophetess ? Goliath has been in hiding long enough. 

In answer to my offer in the papers .to give a free ticket 
to the Exposition in Stockholm and back again to anyone who 
could prove from Ezra's seventh chapter that Ezra was com- 
manded by Artaxerxes to restore Jerusalem in B. C. 457, Elder 
A. W. Bartlett of Chicago presented himself for a debate. 
The debate was held on May 5, 1912. The first half an hour 
he followed the old Adventist way of cutting off from the 
measure, then he said that Christ was the anointed prince in 
Daniel's ninth chapter. But he could not show that any com- 
mandment went forth in Ezra seventh chapter to restore Je- 
rusalem. The last ten minutes he spelled "builded" and 
"finished," saying that that was written in Ezra and that 457 
was printed in the margin. Then the Adventists nodded be- 
cause they knew he was right. He spelled Ezra 6 : 14 for them, 
and prevaricated for them when he said it was written in 
Ezra seventh chapter. Several persons told me, among them 
three of my children, that he said the verse he spelled for them 
was taken from the seventh chapter. But when the deception 
was laid bare they were all very displeased. 

After my daughter had read the seventh chapter, she wrote 
a letter to Elder Bartlett and upbraided him for having said 
that the words he was spelling out so emphatically were taken 
from Ezra 7th when he was reading Ezra 6 : 14. He answered 
her that Ezra 6 : 14 is just as much God's word as Ezra 7th 
chapter, and admonished her to let nothing stand in her way 
to believe neither to do away with the year B. C. 457, when 
they built up Jerusalem according to Ezra 6 : 14 and 7th 
chapter, which is the foundation for every Christian's hope of 
salvation. If Jesus did not die and rise again in connection 


with the seventy weeks of the prophecy, then, he says, our 
faith is in vain and we are still in our sins. 

Our debate had nothing to do with the accomplishment 
of the work, but whether the commandment went forth by 
Ezra, and that it is written in the seventh chapter, otherwise 
the "present truth" is an untruth. 

I went immediately to the stenographer I had engaged for 
the meeting and asked him to read what Elder Bartlett had 
said the last ten minutes of his discourse and found that it was 
just what the others had told me before. The words he had 
taken pains to spell out syllable after syllable were taken "from 
Ezra 6 : 14, although he asserted they were taken from the 
seventh chapter. 

It was Elder Bartlett who told me that he believes more 
now in Mrs. White as a prophetess than he ever did before. 
But as long as anyone can believe in her as an inspired pro- 
phetess he is incapable of grasping the true meaning of the 
prophecy. Even the angel Gabriel himself could not persuade 
him. You must give her up first. 

"And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, 
that they which see not might see; and that they which see 
might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were 
with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind 
also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have 
no sin : but now ye say, We see ; therefore your sin remaineth." 
(John 9:39-41.) 

"If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not 
had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin." (John 

Adventists ! Are you going to procrastinate with the 
examination of your doctrines until the day of judgment 
breaks in upon you, then, if not before, you will see your 
astounding errors, 


Now the Adventists say that Satan is against them, be- 
cause they have the truth. 

They say, Our message is founded upon Christ; but we 
have shown from their own writings that it is built upon chron- 
ology, beginning B. C. 457, when they insist that the command- 
mend went forth to restore Jerusalem, saying that this is re- 
corded in Ezra's seventh chapter. But there is not one word 
to that effect in Ezra's seventh chapter, and their whole mes- 
sage falls to the ground with the 2,300 days and all that is 
deducted therefrom. The Adventists who are converted to 
God, and not to old womanish fables, will see this and leave 
them; but the others will, of course, remain. Time will show 
that no system can endure which starts from false and inde- 
fensible premises. 

Their preachers are blind leaders as long as they cannot see 
this. "The ancient and honorable, he is the head; and the 
prophet that teacheth lies he is the tail. For the leaders of 
this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them 
are destroyed." (Isaiah 9:15, 16.) 

I close my unveiling of this deceiving doctrinal system with 
Paul's words to the Galatians (4:15, 16), "For I bear you 
record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out 
your own eyes (when I first came among you), and have given 
them to me. And I therefore become your enemy, because I 
tell you the truth." 


Let the People Know the Truth 

An entreaty to all zvho have read this book, especially the 

pastors of the various Protestant denominations, to help 

me get the facts known among the people. 

I make this final appeal in deepest sympathy for the many 
thousand sincere souls that have been caught in the nets of 
an unscriptural, unreasonable and man-made system of doc- 
trinal beliefs. 

In publishing my two letters against the mistakes of the 
Adventists in Daniel's 8th chapter and against their ingenious 
prophetess, I was criticized for asking the priests of Babylon 
to assist me to circulate them. But I knew beforehand and felt 
in my spirit that the preachers of the "present truth" would 
not help me in making known a circular that reveals the true 
nature of their message and places their system, with the pro- 
phetess and all, under the microscope. It is very unbecoming 
for the Adventists to call other churches Babylon, as long as 
they themselves are the crown of Babylon. 

Were I sure that the Adventists and Russellites would be- 
come agents for this work and circulate it with one-tenth of 
the zeal and energy with which they have spread their own 
erroneous writings, I should not make an appeal to others for 
their assistance. But I am doubting like Thomas. Those who 
follow false prophets see nothing wrong in them, but all that 
they do is right, if it is as irregular as the ways of the fishes 
in the sea. It makes little difference who circulates this book, 
ministers or atheists, only the truth is made known. 

The object of this publication is not to make money or 


amass a fortune. I have a small business giving me enough 
for the support of my family and a little more, so I can afford 
to do this work without looking for material gain. 

Since I found out that the message, spread in the world 
under the name of the "present truth," was resting upon so 
weak a foundation, it has been a burden upon my conscience 
how I could in the best way instruct them in their ignorance. 
I know it is a hopeless task to speak to their preachers and 
members; they are as blind as the man spoken of in John 9, 
before Jesus opened his eyes. 

In order to carry on such a work as theirs they need a great ' 
deal of money; and as long as they practice the system of 
tithing, demanding that all the members, however poor they 
may be, must pay their tithes, they raise sufficient money to 
propagate their false message. 

It can never be proved that Jesus or his apostles taught or 
practiced the system of tithing; the system belonged to the 
L,evitical priesthood. 

If the members of a church agree to practice it, there is 
nothing to be said against it; but showing with the Bible that 
the poor in the old covenant paid tithes, or pointing out any 
alleged similarity between such practice and the tree of knowl- 
edge, is an Adventist trick, a grand deception to extort money 
of the poor. A beautiful Adventist gospel ! The poor widow 
with a number of children as well as the rich must pay their 
tithes, it is a requirement for obtaining God's blessing, God 
must have his share first. If you take anything from God, 
you cannot count upon his blessing. God does not bless any 
thieves. That kind of reasoning is not uncommon. 

Elder S. Mortenson, the acknowledged head of the Swedish 
Adventist work in America, has published a book containing 
thirty_pages on the system of tithing, in which he is trying to 
prove that it is binding in the New Testament as well as in 


the Old. I published then a pamphlet of thirty-two pages 
against his views and pointed out that he had availed himself 
of all kinds of tricks and falsehoods to prove things that are 
not found in the Bible. 

"The poor must also pay tithes," he says (page 13), "as 
they are obligatory for obtaining the blessings of God. Has 
one no right, then, to ask Mortenson, where it is recorded in 
the Bible that the poor must pay tithes, or if that is the whole 
truth of the subject? It is a penal offence in our land to say 
that a person is a deceiver, unless he can prove it. But I have 
nothing to fear. My pamphlet on the system of tithing has 
closed his mouth, for people say that I have unveiled his de- 
ception. In Deut. 14 : 28, 29 ; 26 : 12, etc., we can read that 
at the end of three years the people should set apart all the 
tithe of the increase and give to the Levite, the stranger and 
fatherless, and the widows. 

When I read the word of God to them, they are warning 
their misled sheep against my errors. But when Mortenson 
publishes a book containing untruths in order to get plenty of 
money, then he is considered the proper person to propagate 
their message, which is built upon fallacious visions and empty 
divinations, as the prophet Jeremiah calls them. 

The annual tithes were exclusively for the priests, he says. 
We read in Neh. 13 : 5 that it was to be given to "the Levites, 
and the singers, and the porters ; and the offerings of the 
priests." Was that only for the priests? 

The tithes that were intended for the widows and the poor 
he calls second tithes. That is not true either. This tithe they 
should use themselves and eat it before the Lord in a place 
which he should choose. If the way were too long, they were 
permitted to sell it at home, and buy the meat and drink they 
wanted when they came to the designated place. (Deut. 14: 
22-27; 12:6, 11, 12.) 


On page fifteen he writes, "Are we going to deny the 
Lord's ownership, and like Adam and Eve, take of what is 
forbidden?" Here he has gone so near the edge of the water 
he has dared without fear of falling in the water. What does 
Mortenson mean by that? The day you take of God's tithe 
you shall die, is evidently his meaning. Your scriptural life 
is in jeopardy, unless you first, lay aside the tenth, set apart 
for the support of the Adventist pastors in order to enable them 
to go around the whole earth and preach Mrs. White's great 
doctrines from the throne of God. 

Such tricks they must use to get enough money for the 
advancement of their fanatical theories. What is the differ- 
ence between the purgatory of the Catholic church by which 
she forces her people to bring in the money? The two great 
factors in the Adventist system are tithing and Mrs. White. 
The holy apostles Paul, Peter, and John would have just as 
little chance to get into their conference as you and I, if they 
did not emphasize the doctrine of tithing. Their papers would 
soon tell the story that they had left the "present truth." 

Some years ago, after Christmas was over, a poor widow 
came to me and asked, if I believed it was a sin not to give 
a tenth of her scant income to the church. She had in her 
poverty laid aside two dollars, but on Christmas Eve she had 
not had a loaf of bread for herself and her children. They 
must go to bed without a particle of food, and she was weeping 
till three o'clock in the morning. The preacher had said that 
God must have his share first. This poor widow did not enjoy 
very much of God's blessing, when she had nothing to offer 
her little dear ones on the very Christmas Eve and had a 
watch-night in tears till three o'clock in the morning. But 
the denomination with the preachers had all the blessing while 
hunger and tears were reserved for the poor widow and her 
brood of wretched children. 


O what a humbug ! to use the name of a benevolent Father 
in forcing the poor to exercise their utmost power in getting 
money together that the denomination shall be able to preach 
its consummate nonsense, aid its prophetess, who has for the 
greater part of her life, preached and prophecied contrary to 
God's word ! 

My heart is aching when I think of the poor deluded people 
who must believe in these things to obtain eternal life. Here 
I could speak of many incidents which would bring tears to 
the eyes of the readers, but space does not permit. 

On page twenty-two S. Mortenson relates what a farmer in 
North Dakota has testified. By paying his tithes he had re- 
ceived such an abundance of God's blessings that it -was sur- 
prising to all. He says, "As I did not know what kind of 
grain to sow that would give the best return, the Lord gave 
me an impression of what would give the best results. Many 
of my neighbors thought I was foolish to sow that kind of 
grain because it would not reward my efforts. But as the 
harvest came, the Lord gave me from three to five dollars 
more per acre than my neighbors received for theirs." 

If the farmer was so superstitious as to believe this, a 
preacher ought to be more enlightened than to believe that the 
Eternal Ruler of the Universe should change his laws to ac- 
commodate a farmer in North Dakota, all because he gave one- 
tenth of his income to the hodge-podge of the Adventists. 
How did the Lord do it? It is easy to understand. The rays 
of the sun were more favorable on his fields, and God arranged 
it so that this farmer happened to get just the right quantity of 
rain and at the proper time, etc. If Elder Mortenson had been 
in the place of the Almighty and had perfect control of the 
laws of nature, we could believe such stories, but not now. 
We have beautiful flowers in our garden, but that depends 
upon the excellent care they receive from my wife. What one 


of their chief leaders says concerning tithing most of them 

believe, though I cannot think they are all equally superstitious. 

What small, perverted ideas of God has Mortenson, but 

great ideas of a system that brings in money for the system! 

"For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according 
to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not." 
(2 Cor. 8 : 12.) 

When anyone reveals their mistakes, they say Satan is 
raging against them who have the truth. But they may blame 
me for the writing of this book and not Satan. Let him have 
a little rest this time. I will release him from all responsibility 
in this matter. I have a better leader than he is. 

I wish that this book had been written with greater ability ; 
but as a plain business man I have not had the advantage of a 
liberal education. Therefore, I shall ask you who have better 
discernment, who notice my inaccuracies in language and com- 
position, to overlook these faults of minor importance. Of one 
thing I am certain : I have hit the mark I have been aiming at. 
I don't think anyone can refute the statements or arguments 
brought out. The correct facts are here, and I have made a 
logical use of them. Their interpretation of Daniel's pro- 
phecies is false; and that is what I intended to prove. 

If I were a rich man, I know what ways to go to bring 
the facts before the public; but as I have spent my resources 
as far as safety permits, I am compelled to appeal to every- 
one who loves truth instead of error to help me sell this book. 
The Adventists who now live will in all probability stand by 
their denomination in spite of all the light that is shed upon 
their path, and prefer to walk in darkness; but if their errors 
became more fully known, it would not be so easy to deceive 
others. As I have said before, there are many good and dear 
souls among them whom I do love, and with whom I would 
like to speak, but they dare not discuss these things with me. 


Seeing how deceived they are, my tenderest sympathy goes 
out toward them. 

There is no doubt in my mind, however, that the real facts 
in the matter will be made clear to them, and that truth will 
win, even though her progress be slow. The Adventists have 
now about 4,217 workers, among them 1,697 colporteurs who 
go from house to house selling their books. They sell about as 
many doctrinal works as all the other churches combined. The 
people all over the land ought to be fortified against this in- 
sidious pestilence that walketh in the darkness, so they could 
invite the bookpeddler and ask him to show them in what 
verse in Ezra's seventh chapter it is said that Ezra received 
any commandment to restore Jerusalem in B. C. 457, and 
Mrs. White's book agent would soon get his walking paper' 
from that town. 

When they come and plant their tents in the neighborhood 
of your churches in order to catch your members in their 
nets, you should know the weak points upon which their pro- 
phetical message is built and you will be able to make so 
.many holes in their windbag that they would lose all power 
in your community. And, remember that their only means of 
growth is -by bewildering members of other churches. Babylon 
has always been their fattest hunting grounds. The literature 
against this peculiar form of error is yet small and compar- 
atively unknown. Only two authors, as far as I know, have 
gone to the bottom of the questions in dispute, viz., I. Nyquist 
and A. F. Ballenger, with a few arguments that take the breath 
from the message. I have also read a few monographs by 
American authors against Mrs. White's false visions, giving 
rise to a fierce controversy causing many to leave them. But 
in spite of this there seems to be room, not to say a demand, 
for a book of this nature, because it is more complete in its 
scope and deals with the doctrines in detail thereby aiding the 


general reader who is less familiar with their system and the 
scripture upon which it is supposed to rest. That is my only 
excuse for the many repetitions which occur. My only aim 
has been to make everything clear. 

All I ask is that the reader takes up this study with a mind 
free from bias and prejudice, just as a juryman must listen to 
a case in the courts. Study it carefully. If you derive any 
benefit from the Book, lend it to someone else ; and help me to 
have it circulated in places where the Adventists are most 
active in their pernicious propaganda. Any net income from 
the sales will be donated for some benevolent work that is 
worthy of support. I do not look for any personal gain. My 
business is more than sufficient to take care of my temporal 
wants, in spite of the time that I have spent on this work. 
Whether the reader believes me or not, I am more interested 
in the spiritual welfare of people than in their money. 

The book is meant to be free from all party and sect in- 
terests. I have only tried to present the truth from a biblical 
point of view, aided by the incontrovertible facts of history. 
Unprejudiced Christians can read it without harm to their own 
religious convictions. I have held that consideration all the 
time before my mind. It is only two sadly mistaken sects 
that are the objects of a scathing rebuke and a murderous 
criticism whose zealous propaganda is harmful in its effects 
upon innocent people and hindering the progress of the real 
kingdom of God. Their foundation is false, their methods 
insidious, their reasoning illogical, and the results of their 
proselyting dangerous to many souls. They should be vigor- 
ously opposed everywhere. 

When the light shines, the message of the Adventists and 
Pastor Russell's false chronology will disappear, and let us 
thank God for the ridance. 


My work, my prayers and my tears are not in vain. When 
I hear that souls have come out of the darkness by reading 
this book I shall rejoice. And when my weary spirit has gone 
to its reward and this aching heart is resting for ever, then 
there will be others who will take up this work with more 
ability and skill and spread the light to those who are ensnared 
in this net of errors. 

My last prayer and desire is that we may all live such lives 
that we gain access to the tree of life, and go through the gates 
to the home that is eternal, where our strifes and errors are 
banished for ever. 

Till that day comes, 
"Let us then be up and doing 
With a heart for any fate, 
Still achieving, still pursuing, 
Learn to labor and to wait." 


It is about half a year ago since the Swedish edition of this 
book was published, but J. M. Erickson has not yet ventured to 
attack more than one of my points, thereby showing his in- 
ability to defend his position. 

On July 16, 1913, Erickson delivered a lecture on the sub- 
ject, "How God uses mathematics to lead people to Christ." 
I thought when his handbills came out : he will certainly now 
bring in his 2,300 days, and I was not mistaken. He cut off 
the 490 years from the 2,300 clays. It really hurts me to see 
people sitting there swallowing his hodge-podge believing that 
is the "present truth." 

I sent to Erickson a registered letter and asked him if he 
wanted to submit this question to a public investigation either 
before the general public or his own people; but he remained 
silent. Then I published a circular containing the following: 

"A fine opportunity for the Adventist pastor, J M. Erick- 

"As before God who knows both truth and error and who both Erickson's and my heart, I wish to ask Rev. J. M. 
Erickson once more, if he is willing to bring proofs to his 
mathematical calculations that he spoke about on July 16, and 
show that the 2,300 days in Dan. 8 : 14 are so many years which 
began B. C. 457 and ended A. D. 1844, and that the seventy 
weeks in Dan. 9 : 24 also begin there. This is the foundation 
of the prophetic message of the Adventists. We may select 
seven judges outside of any denomination : Erickson to select 
two, I two, and these four select three. When these judges 
say that Erickson is right, I promise him to take possession of 
my property, 1050 Wellington Ave., Chicago, thirty days after 
such decision. The remaining part of the mortgage I promise 


to pay myself. Moreover, I promise to give Erickson a note 
of $200.00 at the meeting to defray his moving expenses, if he 
desires to move here, and besides that he may draw $10.00 per 
week from the Nyman Extract Co., as long as he lives. The 
papers to be made out legally by a U. S. court before the debate 
is held. To stand before an audience and force the hearers to 
swallow a lot of nonsense is not hard, as long as no one is per- 
mitted to contradict the speaker or point out his false state- 

I think this was a fine opportunity for Erickson to increase 
his small income which, according to his own words, is less 
than that of a street-sweeper. If he had dared to accept this 
challenge and won the debate, what rejoicing that would have 
caused in the camp of the Seventh-day Adventists ! The prop- 
erty is worth over $5,000.00. 

Considerably stirred up on account of this circular he tries 
once more, in the columns of "The Signs of the Time," to 
show his skill in arithmetic, and at the same time he got an op- 
portunity to give vent to his displeasure with those who are 
so densely ignorant that they cannot see his undisputable truth. 
He writes among other things, "The seventy weeks are cut 
off from the 2,300 days which are mentioned in the vision in 
Daniel's eighth chapter. Some say this is a falsehood, as the 
2,300 days are a measure which cannot be divided. The only 
thing from which time can be cut off from is the time that 
arises from the movements of the earth and of the moon. This 
objection is a striking evidence of the .fact that such people are 
absolutely incompetent to examine the commonest thing. It 
shows they have a very small head, even if it appears to be big. 
They have got hold of some fixed idea they cannot leave but 
must defend at all events. Their views are so narrow that I 
am almost ashamed of refuting them. But in order to show 
how valueless their reasoning is, I am going to give them some 


attention. First in regard to the measure and the assertion 
that it cannot be divided. A measure can be divided and must 
consist of smaller parts, if one does not speak of the smallest 
part of a measure. A year as a measure is a unit, but can it 
not be divided in several component parts ? A day is a certain 
measure of time, but it can be divided. How silly to bring up 
such nonsense and demand that we should learn something 
from it! Concerning the second part of the question that we 
have no other time to cut anything from than the time which is. 
No, that is clear. Do not the sun and the moon measure the 
time between B. C. 457 and A. D. 1844? And has not God a 
perfect right to divide this time as he pleases, or shall a mortal 
being in this year of grace 1913, come and correct the Al- 
mighty? There is a pope in Rome who presumes he can alter 
everything, even the commandments of Christ; but these latter 
days have shown that there are more fools than he. No, 
gentlemen, in spite of all your protests Dan. 9 : 24 says that 
seventy weeks are cut off from a longer period of time." 

These are the words of Professor J. M. Erickson and here- 
by he thinks he has proved that he can cut off a measure. We 
are not presumptuous enough to correct any mistakes of the 
Almighty, for we believe in his omnipotence, but it is the mis- 
takes of the Adventists we - are after. If a head has larger or 
smaller dimensions matters very little. The important question 
is whether they have anything in their heads, a brain that can 
think. That Erickson's brain suffers, in an appalling degree, 
from a total absence of gray matter he has shown time and 
again; but it would be unjust of me to attack him because he 
is ignorant, as ignorance is no sin. I would only prove that 
I was just as ignorant as he. 

When I in the book show with indisputable facts that one 
cannot "cut off" a certain measure, then Erickson answers by 
referring to the dividing of a measure in its component parts. 


Erickson is blind, or he would understand that when we speak 
of a certain time we mean the years, months or days we have 
taken or cut off from the timeline which arises from the earth's 
movements around its axle or the sun. It is evident that both 
the seventy weeks in Dan. 9 : 24, is a certain measure, a certain 
time, that shall be cut off from that line, and the 2,300 days in 
Dan. 8 : 14 must be taken from the same line. You must not 
cut off the 490 years from the 2,300 days. The message of the 
Adventists is a failure, and they ought to see their mistake. 

Let us suppose that the chief of police in Chicago is going 
to reorganize the police force. He asks Erickson to be the 
measure according to which the new police officers are going 
to be measured. Erickson is placed against a perpendicular 
wall. A square is put on top of Erickson's head. The officers 
must be as tall as Erickson, who is the standard measure. The 
standard measure which is of Erickson's height can be divided 
in smaller parts, from the heels to the knees, to his hips, to the 
chin, yes be divided in the smallest possible measurement; no 
one has denied that. But the important question is this : In 
how many places can we cut off Erickson ? Can you not see 
yet, that there is a difference to divide a measure and cutting 
anything off from a measure? Just as Erickson would forbid 
any one to cut off any part from him, just as surely does science 
forbid the Adventists to cut anything off from the 2,300 days, 
as they are a certain measure. Let the false sanctuary theory 
fall first as last, because you cannot defend it without laying 
bare your amazing blindness. May God take pity on you, 
brethren, before it is too late. 

In the aforementioned paper for August 26, 1913, Profes- 
sor J. M. Erickson had another article trying to defend their 
astounding errors. He makes this definite assertion, "He who 
cannot see that it is written in Ezra's seventh chapter that a 


commandment went forth from King Artaxerxes to restore 
Jerusalem is blind." 

On account of this statement I had a meeting in Verdandi 
Hall, 5015 N. Clark St. In a circular that had been sent out 
several days before $1,000.00 were promised to anyone who 
could read the verse in which Erickson's statement was sub- 
stantiated, he himself having the first chance. The meeting 
was well attended, but Erickson was not there. A check for 
$1,000.00 was fastened to the diagram, an opportunity, was 
given to anyone who could stand up and read from Ezra's 
seventh chapter that Ezra received a commandment to restore 
Jerusalem and the note had been his. No one had anything to 
say. I read the seventh chapter slowly, verse after verse, but 
we all came to the conclusion that Erickson and the denomi- 
nation he represents are blind and leaders of the blind who can 
make such bold assertions. 

In the summer of 1913 I visited their Swedish school near 
Chicago. There I met the president of the school, G. E. Nord, 
an old time friend of mine. He treated me as a brother, though 
he was sad that I had left "the present truth." 

"Will you admit, Brother Nord," I said to him, "that you 
teach that the 2,300 days in Dan. 8 : 14 begin B. C. 457?" He 
answered in the affirmative. "Will you admit that you teach 
that the seventy weeks in Dan. 9 : 24 also begin there, and that 
Ezra received a commandment the same year by the Persian 
king Artaxerxes to restore Jerusalem?" He said yes. I took 
out a certified check for $500.00 promising to give that to his 
school if he could find the verse where it was written. A Bible 
was sent for, but to find anything to that effect in Ezra's sev- 
enth chapter was just as impossible for him as for anyone else. 
He commenced to make the usual explanations, but I knew 
them before, and the check went back into my own pocket. Is 
it not the height of folly and blindness to hold fast to a thing 


that has no foundation in the Bible and try to build a prophetic 
message upon it pretending it is the present truth. 

You are beaten to a frazzle, Adventists, and sooner or later 
you will be compelled to admit it. 

Under the heading "A Liberal Offer," Elder S. Mortenson 
had an article in their paper inserted three different times con- 
taining an offer that was good for one month. There is only 
one question in his sickening article that is worthy of observa- 
tion. It will be noticed in the following letter to him. 

Chicago, Sept. 30, 1913. 
Elder S. Mortenson, 

Chicago, 111. 
I have read your article under the heading "A Liberal Of- 
fer" appearing the last three weeks in "The Signs of the 
Time." People have come to me and said that you have 
promised $10,000.00, but I have pointed out to them that it 
does not say so. You say, "We can promise at least $10,000.00 
if it is biblical." If I had wings I could fly, but now I have 
to be content to walk. If Mortenson has $10,000.00 he can 
give away that amount, otherwise not. Your liberal offer does 
not imply that you will give away the $10,000.00 but to admit 
in "The Signs of the Time" that you Adventists have been 
mistaken, if anyone can show that the 2,300 days in Dan. 8 : 
14 are literal days which were fulfilled in the persecution of 
Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jews, and that this time 
should begin B. C. 143 (Syrian time), or B. C. 169. The pope 
of the Catholics could offer a similar promise, if any protestant 
can show him that their doctrines are not infallible. How many 
do you think would believe that the pope would condemn his 
own belief when he is to judge in the matter himself? The 
proofs should be sent to you, and then you are to decide if they 
are conclusive. Just think what a liberal offer you have made." 


You liken those to gamblers, wrestlers and pugilists who 
offer large amounts of money ; if any one can disprove their 
statements with the Bible. But is there any wrong in offering 
a sum of money to the person who can show you a thing you 
wish to learn ? Gamblers and their likes set up a sum against 
an equal amount, and that is wrong, according to my opinion. 
Come to my home, Mortenson, and read from Ezra's seventh 
chapter the verse which says that Ezra received a command- 
ment from the King Artaxerxes B. C. 457 to restore Jerusa- 
lem, and I shall not say like you that I could promise, but I do 
actually promise to give $1,000.00 to your school, if you can 
do it before November 1 this year. You read the verse where 
it is written and I give you the money. Sin is transgression of 
the law" says the word of God. ' What commandment did I 
trespass against now? If it is not written in Ezra's seventh 
chapter then you know, Mortenson, that the foundation of the 
prophetic message of the Adventists is false. They have in 
such a case given a false testimony for sixty-eight years, and 
you ever since you came among them. To lie is a sin, but to 
give you $1,000.00 for your school if you can read for me the 
verse from Ezra's seventh chapter where it is said that Ezra 
received a commandment in B. C. 457 to restore Jerusalem, 
cannot be proved to be wrong. If I were a multimillionaire, 
I could not for the sake of my conscience give a cent to your 
school where the greatest part of the error is preached. 

He who has the truth dares something; but you dare not 
go against me if you got the millions of a Rockefeller. This 
proves that you see how unreasonable your doctrines are. But 
you deceive your ignorant members when you in your writings 
act like the fox when he is trying to steal a chicken and the 
cat when he is lurking in the grass to catch the bird. Why not 
appear in the light like a man and defeat me in a public dis- 
cussion, in the presence of witnesses and competent judges, who 


can decide who is right ? Such a conduct would be creditable 
in comparison with your cowardly cringing. 

We will briefly show you if you have any faith in the words 
of the angel Gabriel that the 2,300 days in Dan. 8 : 14 are a 
certain time during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes 
against the Jews. 

The kingdom of Alexander, Greece, was divided in four 
parts. The division dates from the battle at Ipsus B. C. 301. 
From one of the four a new horn should come that is a fact. 
(See verse 9.) Antiochus III the Great ascended the Syrian 
throne at the age of fifteen years, B. C. 223, that is a fact. 
Antiochus Epiphanes was his second son, that is a fact. The 
divided kingdom of Greece lasted from Alexander's death B-. 
C. 323 to B. C. 30, that is a fact. At the end of their kingdom 
the new horn was to arise, that is a fact. The last half of their 
kingdom is between B. C. 176-30, that is a fact. Some time 
between B. C. 176 and B. C. 30 the little horn was to come up, 
according to Gabriel (verse 23), that is a fact. This new horn 
is a fierce and malevolent king (same verse), that is a fact. 
You have written in the "The Signs of the Time" for Jan. 28, 
1913, that the angel Gabriel compares this power to a fierce 
and mean king. This is not according to facts, but contrary to 
the truth. The angel says, "And in the latter time of their 
kingdom, when the transgressors have come to the full, a king 
of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall 
stand up." (Verse 23.) Does the angel compare him to a fierce 
king, understanding dark sentences? We answer no. It says 
here he is the king. There is a difference to resemble a thing 
and to be a thing. To support your views you have made the 
angel Gabriel say things he never did say; and about three 
years ago you wrote that Gabriel said that Rome was the little 
horn in Daniel's eighth chapter. You have written several 
falsehoods about me, and you will probably delay in squaring 


this up till the morning of eternity. But you ought to be a 
little more careful when you deal with the words of the angel, 
for he is no heretic which you insist that I am, and it is with 
the words of the angel you refute your own erroneous doc- 

We have now found the right time and that the new horn 
was a person, a king ; but we have not yet found the beginning 
of the 2,300 days, though we have come to the years B. C. 176- 
30. The 2,300 days are mentioned in connection with the deeds 
of the king; that is a fact. But as the king, according to the 
words of the angel, did not come up before B. C. 176, his deeds 
cannot begin before that time, and it is just as impossible that 
the 2,300 days, which came up on account of his deeds, can 
begin before the deeds; that is a fact. The angelic hosts of 
heaven and all the philosophers on earth with the whole priest- 
hood of the "present truth," with their prophetess Mrs. White 
at their head, cannot disprove my position that the 2,300 days 
did not begin before B. C. 176, and not B. C. 457 as the Ad- 
ventists say. Either the messanger from heaven, the angel 
Gabriel, or the Adventists are deceivers. There is absolutely 
no way of escape from this conclusion. In Dan. 8 : 10-12 a 
record is given of the works of the little horn. This horn is a 
king and there is no change of kings. 

The thirteenth verse reads, "Then I heard one saint speak- 
ing, 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?" In other words, How 
long shall the fury of the fierce king be against the host that 
was given to destruction on account of transgression and which 
had come to the full in the latter days of the kingdom of the 
four kings? The answer is given in the fourteenth verse, "Un- 
to two thousand three hundred days : then, shall the sanctuary 


be cleansed." Can this time begin before the king, before his 
deeds, before the holy ones had spoken to one another? 

Now you complain, Mr. Mortenson, in your writing that 
you have been called blind and a leader of the blind, because 
you are unable to accept such a view. This is not a matter of 
faith. A person who wants to teach others and cannot see 
that the little horn is a fierce king and comes before the 2,300 
days is either stoneblind or a bigger hypocrite than those over 
whom Jesus pronounced his eightfold woe. If you cannot see 
that 2,300 days are mentioned in connection with the deeds 
of the king, and that the king did not arise before B. C. 176, 
and that neither his deeds nor the 2,300 days can be before 
him, then you are stoneblind. And if you see it — which I and 
a large number of others think you do — but still adhere to the 
errors of your sect, then you are one of the biggest hypocrites 
that ever has walked on the earth. You are one of the two. 
God knOws you. 

Have not the Adventists built their prophetic doctrine upon 
the 2,300 days and changed this time to years which began 
B. C. 457 and ended A. D. 1844? 

We have here only shown the words of the angel from 
the Bible and from history that the 2,300 days were a certain 
time during the fury of the fierce king against the Jews, and 
that the time cannot begin before the king himself, and that 
he did not appear before B. C. 176. 

Your whole sanctuary theory is hereby exploded. If my 
proposition is false, then the angel Gabriel is the cause of my 
errors, for it is his words I have quoted. • 

Study the explanation of the angel instead of the visions 
of Mrs. White, and the scales will soon fall away from your 
eyes. My book against your astounding errors proves plainly 
that this king is Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He came from one 
of the four. He waxed as the angel said the little horn should 


grow, and he did the works spoken of in verses 10-12 at the 
right time; and after that time, being six years, four months 
and twenty days, the sanctuary was clea'nsed by Judas Macca- 
beus in the 148th year of the Greco-Syrian calendar. They 
commenced their chronology B. C, 312, and if we subtract 148 
from 312 we get the year 164, and not 165 as you have it in 
your writing. In the year 164 the sanctuary was cleansed, and 
there the 2,300 days end, which were a certain time of the 
furious reign of the king. Mortenson now asks, if we can 
force a period of six years, four months and twenty days be- 
tween the years 143 and 148 of their time, for three from 
eight leave us only five. This is the only straw you have to 
save you in this storm. You admit that if we can do that, we 
have proven that Antiochus IV Epiphanes fills the require- 
ments of the prophecy. The Adventists who so strenuously in- 
sist that we shall follow the Bible and study the context have 
here thrown both the scripture and context overboard, and try 
to defend their fantastic doctrines with a single number from 
one of the Maccabees. According to your opinion this year 
should overthrow the Bible and the word of the angel Gabriel 
as well as all historians who say, that Antiochus was in Jerusa- 
lem B. C. 170. The year 143 in their chronology is 169 accord- 
ing to ours. The temple was plundered in 170, says an author 
who wrote the story under the eyes of Antiochus when he was 
in Jerusalem. 

Who comes first in the course of time, the little horn or the 
2,300 days? The Adventists say the days come before, and 
the time for their beginning cannot go further back than B. C. 
176. To argue against my evidences on this point is as use- 
less as to raise a ladder toward the sun in order to turn him 
out of his place. I rejoice in my Lord and Saviour that there 
are others who can see how perverted your doctrines are, even 
if you cannot see it yourselves. If you could read the letters 


I have received from those who have read my book, you would 
sit up and take notice. People outside of your communion 
have said that the Lord has sent me to show you the light, 
while you as a people reject the help you get. Only yesterday, 
I received a letter in which the writer says that God has, 
through his Spirit, sent me to give you the right key to the 
eighth and ninth chapters of Daniel's book. 

An elderly widow in another church has read my book:. 
She said to me that she could never imagine that your doctrines 
were so empty and hollow. She said, "I have studied the book 
and compared it with the Bible and find that they harmonize in 
a wonderful way. Why do not the Adventists see that the 
2,300 days cannot come before the deeds of the little horn, 
when a seventy- four years old woman can see this ? But the Ad- 
ventists have not been to able to discover this fact in sixty-eight 
years, and yet they warn their sheep against errors. The Ad- 
ventists are the 144,000 who shall sit upon thrones in heaven and 
judge the world during the thousand years. A judge must not 
be blockheaded. What your denomination is good for is hard 
to see, but you are absolutely impossible as judges. You would 
in all probability condemn all who do not swallow your pecu- 
liar doctrines. 

It is just as easy to refute your false explanation of the 
seventy weeks in Dan. 9 : 24-27. There is no mention of the 
restoration of Jerusalem in B. C. 457. There is not a word of 
it in Ezra seven. The angel who spoke to Daniel in the year 
538 said that the time should be counted from the moment the 
word went forth to restore Jerusalem. "Went forth" is past 
time. The word had already gone forth B. C. 538 and not 
first B. C. 457. 

The difference between your and my argumentation con- 
sists herein, that I above everything else cling to the explana- 
tion of the angel; that is to me of greater importance than 


anything else. You stick to a single number, a year taken from 
an apocryphal book, and if you cannot get the various parts to 
harmonize, you suggest that it is safer to throw overboard the 
word that was quoted by the Lord Jesus and his apostles. But 
according to good exegesis it is a rule that what has been di- 
vinely revealed has a greater value than anything else. 

Do not think for a moment that I am angry with you. My 
eyes were dim with tears when I wrote this letter and thought 
of the poor people who are led astray. 

How glad I should be if I heard some day that you had 
found out that the prophetical message of the Adventists is 
false; I believe I would weep and dance in sheer joy for half 
a day. 

Now, Mortenson, if you can, go and preach against the 
errors in my book and in this letter. Provided your heart is 
not dead, the Spirit of the Lord and the truths in this book 
shall follow you on your journeys and in the pulpits, to a cer- 
tain day when the Lord no longer will be mocked. We cannot 
do anything against the truth, as you will find at last. 

In the interest of your own welfare and in that of the poor 
people you lead astray, I am, 

Aaron Nyman. 

Eld. E. Pihlquist who has been a missionary to China over 
twenty years has made an extract from a journal he wrote 
twenty-five years ago when he began his career as a bookseller 
for Mrs. White. He says he did not know the foxy nature of 
the Adventists when they were selling books. The first day he 
visited thirty families and sold only one book. He showed the 
picture of Mrs. White in the beginning of the book, and told 
them it was an Adventist book printed in Battle Creek. His 
associates told him he was a fool, and his superior ordered him 
to stay at home for a couple of days to learn the art of selling 


Adventist books. Here follows a sample of the instruction he 
received: "Hold the book in your own hands when you are 
representing it. Cover the picture of Mrs. White and do not 
show that the book is printed in Battle Creek. Do not mention 
it as Adventist book, if you can avoid it. To all questions 
which may hinder the sale you may give an evasive answer. 
When they ask you what sect you belong to, say that you are 
free as the bird, seeking only God's glory and that you are on 
the way to heaven.. Speak as little as possible about sects, and 
least of all of the Adventists. Try to find out what denomina- 
tion the people next door belong to. If you meet a Lutheran 
sho whim the picture of Luther, if it is a Methodist say a good 
word about Wesley. If you meet a Baptist speak to him about 
baptism etc. When you hand the book to the purchaser leave 
the house as fast as you can that he won't have time to find out 
what church you belong to. The contents of the book which 
is the revelation of God through "the Spirit of prophecy" will 
give him the necessary light upon "the present truth." How 
does this appear to you ? Is that a true picture of the 144,000 ?" 
He who deals in false goods must use such methods to get 
them out in the market. The prophecies of the Adventists 
have never and will never have any chance if they are laid 
under the microscope and are studied in the light of God. The 
average duration of a generation the Adventists say, according 
to Ps. 90 : 19, is seventy to eighty years ; and that the genera- 
tion which saw the falling of stars in 1833 shall live till Jesus 
comes. In 1886 "the Spirit of prophecy," Mrs. White, visited 
Sweden. She said then that God had shown her, there was no 
mistake in her explanation of Matth. 24: 34. She said, "Christ 
will come within a period of eighty years, dated from 1833 in 
the autumn, so we have now only twenty-seven years left for 
our work." If we add eighty to 1833 we get the year 1913. 
The time for the coming of Christ is now past ; therefore God 


or Mrs. White must be mistaken. The best thing you can do, 
my Adventist friends, is to turn your backs to your Seer with 
all her prophecies, for the longer you remain in her company 
the greater your shame will be to have been her blind followers. 
Remember the words of Isaiah 9 : 15, 16, "The ancient and 
honorable, he is the head ; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he 
is the tail. For the leaders of this people cause them to err ; 
and they that are led of them are destroyed." 



H (B Ifl O 
CO ■* W M 

6si8 a V 


• V M M 

tH *t3 


tH cd 



o o n co 

Dan. 8: 
11 must 
D. 2139 

E o 



w8i - a'v 

o \p 

O X 






in 3 O 


86£I a 'V 



rt . 

J3 ^ 
to C 


2 tj . 

<-, ° " 

J3 M 

B cd 

B a) o 


3 -w co 

+rf tu 

* § 



O en w 
CO rt S 

to -a 

03 ^ 

* s 


CM Ph C 

M S «>' 


.3 « 

3 end 
sts say. 
r with 


o . S 




<! ot 








id the 
s and 
the s 

uld n 

. Whi 










Lysimachus — Thrj 

Cassander Gree 

Seleucus — Syria . 
Ptolemy — > Egyp 

The time of thi 
here, the Adventl 
Alexander any wa 
Persia here? 















iwer in question ai 

hen the Adventist 

"the cleansing of 

oning of the 2,300 
61, then Rome co 
it came in among 
ays Mrs. Ellen G 




o. o 

•^ H tfl 


paAo-iisap tuarEsruajC '0A 'CI '"V 


1— 1 


U « y 
- g E 

ujoq sniii 'Ofr "CI *V 



CU ■«• 

orn gives occasion to the 
in among the Jews in B 
B. C. 457, or 296 years b 
s the hub in their mesSi 

^BtJtio jo maiq 9H.L 











If Rome is 
so many y 
vance the 1 

E.?Bp OS **SOUI f> 'SJiC 9 

*9I-0AT *o *a m 

The latter 

The time 

of the 





T9i o - a 


^ Jh (m C 



to -M 


japuvExarv jo in -cap aqx — ggg 



The little h 
that came 
referred to 
This year i 

9093 JQ \Z2 

V +j « 

Xf .B 

CD +J 

tj £ 'd 
» » 2 
•0 u 



jo lujod SupJB^s asrBj 9iij, 


o a 

'ejSjadC-opaM — 8SS 

to o 
!h d t, 
tH !» P. 

•auioH jo uojj'Bpunoj an,!, — SSZ 

1 0) V 

S^K » 






<* 1 



2 P 

bo -t-j qj 
J3 CL, 

■b M "^ 
8 3 ., bo 
O g C 

° J3 S*g 

•o •*- o 



s 5 .§ a 






ft b „ « 









J -a \ 
• c 1 

33 c3 1 

_i»S ^v 


-^ / 





r- y 






b- \ 

d L_ 

> ■ 1 

pq / 



<J m \ 

i— i <£> \ 




w pq yf 












- ,£ 







^ o \ 


Oh m \ 


O d 1 

w pq / 






Q'S \ 


* — • 



6 tf 


O rt 

« w 






*o *a atuoa 


















'uosjad 3j;a aijj^ 






•g S J3 rg 2 « 

1 0° § o» 

(DM « ■" U 

5; •— to _ to u 

* ■" 11 C u rt 

"^ fi to ■«< nl 

O T3 g „„ to 



V ^ 05 (J 05 U 

.. J- •?, nl 

00 Jd 


x *• 00 .a i> 

c t; S -5 ■* 


the be 


ation c 
ance l 1 
horn vt 
B. C. 

CO • 
bj "O 
C ° 





to it 


2 -2 

8 S 

•a « is .2 „ . 

O 5!" 

M O 

> £ 




me i 

f-1 P. 


(Read ex 

* -. 
c J 3 
■d •» 

250 days 
ording to 
the finan 
y that Ro 
e deeds as 
their mes 


i-i ™ 

:urbance of the 
jr 2004; but ace 
uld have caused 
ower. They sa; 
61, but began th 
of the pillars of 
person, himself. 


•0 £ 
3 » 

.a * 2 ftrt u •> 

tu CU tu * n 

soil 'a 'V 

H tu M .5 01 ,„ u 

8: 2 

08si a v 

jsijiio jo nj-iia 

sz 'o 'a 

jojaduig; UT3UIOH 'srusnSny 

S9-96 "O 'S — IIIX snqoonuv 
































COSS aS'BiI 'I 'I°A) 

*9T-SiI 'O '3 
saaBqdidg AI snqoopuv 

S1I-18T - '3 — AI sncmaias 

COSS a 3va 'I -ioa) 

i8I-SZZ D '3 
}-eaJO ail} m snuooijuv 

SZZ-9ZZ 'O '3 — III snonaias 

C1ZS 93^4 'si -IOA) 
9ZZ-9tZ "O "a — II snonajas 

COSS 33^1 'I 'PA) 
9fZ-I9Z 'O 'a — II smiDOijuv 

(•OSS aSBd 'i -ioa) 
I9Z-08Z 'O '3 — I snqoonuv 

C1ZS 33^<I 'SI 'IOA) 
08Z-ZTS 'O '3 — I snsnaias 

}dX3a — i jluisioja 

pi38p sitn uodn nmq ej S}su 

-U8APV 91(1 JO 33T3SS8UI atJX 

C89Z 3313d 'zi -[OA) 
15-08 'D 'a IX *ui3[0}d; 

V ul H O 

S'Sl 3 

+-- o 

si S* 

r 3 c ^ c 
H S >, «s 


^ rt. C • 

Dl OX. 

i £ =a o 

» S g - 

■a § d 

O O <» 

P. ft O ' 

•sau^tidida smioonuy 

OXOUn SIH miAl JT3A1 p^H 

C8SZ 33Bd 'zi -ioa) 
'9H-T8I O 'a — IA jfuiaicua; 

S6I 'I isjvedoaio oj papjBjM 
C89Z 93Bd 'zt -IOA) 
'T8I-S0Z 'D a — A Xuiaiojd 

CiSZ 33-ed 'zi -ioa) 
'SOZ-ZZZ 'O '3 — AI Xuiaiojd: 

CiSZ aSBd 'zt -[OA) 

•zzz-m - o 'a— in ^uiaioia. 

CiSZ 33Bd 'zi -ioa) 

•ifz-ssz 'o 'a — ii Auiaioja 

C99Z 33ud 'zi -IOA) 
■S8Z-SZS 'O '3 — I ^uiaiojj 

•Bi-i^g — I enonatas 

BiuopaoBM 'aoaajo — japuBSS^o 

joutpi "Bisv 'aoBjqx — smjoBuiis^ 

■* co i o 

t- mio 



Tt< rJH \Oi 

to n oi 

CO -tf 


7* 1 + H* 

"* +- "* 

w I 

■* 2 


9* a v 







88 a V 


•**!»0 }o ipjjg ai^x 

68 D a 







set apart 
time the 
orth, it 
le king 




g « 

53 bo 

t— » CO 


D en 

l- OJ 

2 E 





9^ 'o a 


3 ; 




U r- ^ 4J « 

<l> .ii 


■ 4_l 


shall be 

from th 



must b 




o •£ . 

-* 3 

. .a 










PQ « 








G W 




'sjaip[OS. aq; 





0) +J 


2 o 

-4-1 -t 1 









ao Xjai}Eq 3qj 

to O 

E -3 
E < 

5 ^ 


jo luBinfpB aq} 


O aj 

Q. in' 

£ ,h 



O +J 

E - 



M C3 


jaaujo AuEduioo 

puB jfjajjBq aq; 




2 * 

CD J- 
qj en 

+-> to 
OJ rt 
-t-< N 

o ^^ 

.■a w 

CO '-' 






qOB3 jo jaiqa aq} 



w o - a 


is s 

•• E 

■* -*-■ 
• - <u 

CO j; 





4s**D 'a 



-Sip XjB}ip.UI qOE3 
UI ]BJ3U33 aqi 






l-H -"tl 









-pjo aq} jo J3J 


'6IS D 





-SEUI IBJ3U33 aq; 



'98S "D 





2ui3j aqi uiojijj 

OT :9 

ejz^) q 


poo ^ 













*9i -o -g 




oii 'o a 




's3UEH<Jidj[ snipopuy 3;) uPc[ 3H1 Oil '0 '3 

paaspjnui \\\ sbiuq (psiuioue) }s3ud qSiH 3l P Til '"0 '3 



















o £ 



O rt 

-^ tB 

B |h 

c B 







.B .B 

- ^ - m 

£ 2 





> 6 

- <U ° U 
C V J- y 

2 u s-, -t; 



" 60 

+-» tn 
rt rt 







CD <y 

w y, 


« X 

S &S 

■siu-iCq 3duU(J paiuiouB aijx '9SS "a 


(•0t:6S'-!3r'X:TB4z3) U9f ijSviojm pjOA s.piol 'SOQ-O'S 

'pBasj jo pog