Evidence Against the French Revolution Interpretation as Written in "The Great Controversy "

 

I am surprised that they even thought to excuse the discrepancy between 1798 and 1793 to state that their testimony continued while they were alleged to be dead, because they were not allowed to be "buried" and therefore the dead were still speaking. While it seems OK for them to use the motifs of the human life and death pattern in this symbolism as it is applied to a material object, they have added the additional superhuman attribute of speaking while they are dead.

But to invoke this excuse, creates yet another discrepancy: By the applied French Revolution interpretation, there is no "finishing" of the testimony of the Two Witnesses. They are alleged to be giving their testimony all the way to 1798, yet they have provided no event before 1798, nor at that time, nor any time afterward that they had ever "finished" their testimony. The overlapping of the time of the testimony of the Two Witnesses, excludes any event that marks the point of their ended testimony.


Introduction

The Seventh-day Adventist church, though beloved by God, has not been free of encumbrances that have plagued it, largely due to the influences of false teachings and internal movements that some have deeply embedded into its body. As William Miller's dream of the man with the "dirt brush" that came in to sweep out all the rubbish that had tarnished the precious truths that we hold, so also must these errant teachings be rooted out of this church before it is able to advance forward through these final days of this earth's history.

It is apparent that the membership believes that it is the best church, and has the best theology, but it is not quite aware that it is also very much encumbered by its own traditions and errant teachings that have crept in over the decades. It is an unpleasant process, but one that the church must go through if it hopes to succeed. It will not proceed with the current state of excess baggage.

This first chapter challenges the French Revolution interpretation of Revelation 11 as it is written in the 15th chapter of the book "The Great Controversy." It demonstrates the many weaknesses and ill-fitting elements that a true interpretation of a prophecy requires, and exposes the insufficient efforts of those who were trying to garner support and find references that were absent in the previous printing. The difficulties are apparent in their progress, and have not much improved over the nearly 100 years since. On the one hand, the alleged history fails to be found that could verify the interpretation, while on the other, the elements of the prophecy are bent and distorted in order to accommodate that meager bit of history that they feel comes close to a fulfillment.

It Serves No Purpose Theologically
While the French Revolution interpretation of Revelation 11 serves to provide no valid theological truth to either the prophecies nor any other principle, that cannot be served by other valid sources from the Bible. It doesn't need a prophecy to demonstrate the vileness of sin, and it unfortunately serves to stand in the way of letting this prophecy find its true place in the entire picture. To say that the Bible and history is not sufficient to display the evils of sin, is to admit that they are not familiar with the many themes of the Bible, for it indeed demonstrates in many places all that they might think that is taught by the lessons they allege are needed in the French Revolution interpretation.

It Forces A Change in the Meanings of All the Symbols it Employs
By forcing it to fit into the French Revolution, it requires the symbols of a beast, which rightly belongs to the identity of the papacy, to be France, or a philosophy such as atheism, which is unlike any other use of a beast in prophetic symbology. Forcing also the identity of "that great city" to be something other than how it is used in adjacent prophecies. It has forced the changing of the meanings of all of the remaining adjacent passages. The failure to put Ellen White's writings in their proper context several decades ago, gave rise to the charges of plagiarism. Clifford Goldstein noted the false elevated status that was given to her writings, based on her prophetic status. He set out to put her writings back in their place, which included being the writings of a human being, who is not infallible, and contains error. To take the view that Ellen White is not infallible, but her writings have no errors, is merely an oxymoron.

Why was it OK for Ellen White to write things about the coming of our Lord in 1844, which were in error, but it is not OK for her to have written anything else afterward that is in error? She and James both admitted to having believed things in error, and laid no claim to infallibility and openly denied being infallible.

The very fact that the search for the supporting evidence for the French Revolution interpretation resulted in a measly scrap of evidence, all the while leaving out every other facet of the prophecy, and the entire lack of any written account from the most reliable surviving records, and the changing of all their symbolic meanings, ought to serve as a red flag that there is something wrong.

If five different sources have all independently demonstrated various discrepancies in the interpretation, it is high time to put it back on the table for a candid examination, and stop making excuses for an error. To leave this as it is written, touting it as truth, then it serves more to prevent the understanding of the true meaning of this prophecy, when the time comes that it should be fulfilled.

The French attack on the Theist beliefs that initiated the French Revolution, was the first strike in the war against Rome for its stronghold it had in their country. With 95% of the population aligned with the Catholic faith, and holding the majority of the property, the French Assembly fought back by nationalizing the churches and then sold them at auctions. Stripping the financial base of the Catholics in France, which escalated the tensions between them.

For Seventh-day Adventists to fault France for their response to the papal oppression they suffered from, is like kicking a man when he is down, instead of becoming the Good Samaritan. The enemy of souls has caused the faithful to look away to its victims, instead of noting who is the real perpetrator. It was the Catholic version of theology that was so abhorrent to the French. If they had been guilty of giving rise to atheism, it would still remain the fault of the papacy, particularly in light of the St. Bart holomew Massacre.

Failure of Supporting Evidence
As I have been examining the texts of Uriah Smith's Daniel and Revelation, and chapter 15 of The Great Controversy, I am finding for myself the same evidence that Walter Rea has charged; the key evidence presented in The Great Controversy, is largely dependent upon Smith's work. Particularly the use of the quote by a "writer" (unnamed) in Blackwood's Magazine that asserts that "the authentic record survives" that "by the decree of her legislative assembly, pronounced that there was no God..." If the "authentic record" is so well in surviving up to 1870, which was 77 years after-the-fact, then why is this same record not found among the host of existing records? Apparently, Crisler failed to find among Smith's sources any viable evidence, or he forgot to look to that same source to find it. Perhaps Crisler should have reported that the referenced account did in fact not exist. Can anyone find the Blackwood's Magazine article and verify the authe nticity of that account by that unnamed writer? Can we put forth to the world such an unreliable and unfindable proof? Other information has come forth from these sources that give also the very dates of the legislative decrees that were alleged to have occurred, but these were not carried over into the quotes either by Smith or White. The two dates given cover a span of 3 years and 7 months and 10 days. But as other prophecies demonstrate a more extreme degree of accuracy, none have been fulfilled at a discrepancy of 40 days off from their mark. Perhaps their inaccuracy would have brought out a red flag in their readers.

If the Two Witnesses are regarded as the Old and New Testaments, then the order of the events of the "finishing" of their prophecy in sackcloth, the finishing of their testimony, the war waged upon them, their killing, and their resurrection, are different as they are alleged to be in the events of the French Revolution, than they are as written in t he prophecy. In short; there is no prophetic/historic alignment. In the attempt to explain why the Two Witnesses were killed before the time of their testimony was supposed to be finished, the verse in Matthew 24:22 is invoked as though it were to be applied to the shortened time of the testimony of the Two Witnesses instead of the lives of the people of France.

Another discrepancy is that Ellen White directly states that; "Yet they continued their testimony throughout the entire period of 1260 years." Which by itself, is very true. But it conflicts with the time of their allegedly being killed. There is no valid reason for the termination of the testimony of the Two Witnesses before their time.

"The persecution of the church did not continue throughout the entire period of the 1260 years. God in mercy to His people cut short the time of their fiery trial. In foretelling the "great tribulation" to befall the church, the Saviour said: "Except those days s hould be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." Matthew 24:22. Through the influence of the Reformation the persecution was brought to an end prior to 1798." {GC 266.4}

Was this Scripture invoked to excuse the early killing of the Two Witnesses before the end of the 1,260 year period? What for? Was the passage limited to the population of France? For certainly, the "no flesh be saved" cannot apply to the rest of the world on account of the turmoil that occurred in France. The issue that the Two Witnesses were killed in 1793 by the dubious decree, creates a whole new problem; As the prophecy states: Rev. 11:7 "And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them" the prophecy places the killing of them after they have finished their testimony.

That history alleged to fulfill this does not align with this element of prophecy. It alleges to change the killing to before 1798, instead of after as the text reads, and invokes the "no flesh saved" text to justify "cutting short" their testimony.
It is not supposed to be cutting short the testimony of the Two Witnesses, but the days of persecution in the killing of God's people. Certainly the advocates of the French Revolution do not believe that the people of France are the alleged "people of God." But false teachings are not able to get around the apparent discrepancies. The only hope that this error had to infiltrate the minds of the people, is by their presenting of only that evidence that possibly favor their view, and to not mention those elements that are detrimental. However, the fabrication is not able to circumvent all the difficulties. An honest account of history needs no apology for what it offers as the truth.

Not only were the Two Witnesses not yet finished with their testimony in 1793, it is stated without question that they were giving their testimony "throughout" the 1,260 years. To have already asserted that they were killed in 1793, leaves them to finish their testimony up to 1798 while they are dead. What really was at issue was that their testimony was "in sackcloth," and therefore it ought to attempt to show that in 1798, that the Two Witnesses were released from their state of being in sackcloth, for indeed that is what history does show. The only time in which the Two Witnesses will finish their testimony, will be just prior to the close of probation or at that same time, which is just prior to the second coming, which according to the prophecy would also agree with its context. Certainly, no war against the Two Witnesses would make sense if it does not include their end, at the end of time. And that is written in the context of the portion of prophecy that follows; the sou nding of the seventh trumpet. Uriah Smith, has also asserted that the 7th trumpet had already begun to sound. And instead of waiting until the beast to ascend from out of the bottomless pit, The writers have had to create a new beast in order to fulfill this element of the prophecy. France, being itself one of the dragon's ten horns could not directly fulfill the prophecy, so it is alleged that a "new" beast has arisen. This completely steps out of the line of the serial prophecies and fails to show that this "new beast" plays any role in any other prophecy.

I am surprised that they even thought to excuse this discrepancy to state that their testimony continued while they were alleged to be dead, because they were not allowed to be "buried" and therefore the dead were still speaking. While it seems OK for them to use the motifs of the human life and death pattern in this symbolism as it is applied to a material object, they have added the additional superhuman attribute of speaking while they are dead. But to invoke this excuse, creates yet another discrepancy: By the applied French Revolution interpretation, there is no "finishing" of the testimony of the Two Witnesses. They are alleged to be giving their testimony all the way to 1798, and provide no event before 1798, nor at that time, nor any time afterward that they had ever "finished" their testimony. The overlapping of the time of the testimony of the Two Witnesses, excludes any event that marks the point of their ended testimony.

Neither does anyone display evidence that the life and times after the alleged decree in 1793 differed radically from the time before then; for the guillotine was invented and in use from 1789, as well as the government in turmoil.

To base the interpretation upon a decree that was alleged to have occurred in 1793, places the point of interference in the middle of the French Revolution, hence, with all the beheadings and turmoil that was already occurring, there is no specific change in the nature of the day to day events so as to say that were the result of this particular action. It should be noted that in the historic record, there would stand a point of demarcation between the life prior to the 1793 decree and the affect that it should have had on their lives afterward. Neither has anyone demonstrated that there was any change in the life of Revolutionary France after the alleged end of the killing by their restoration decree in 1797. The French Revolution was underway years before and had continued for a few years afterward. You would have to have a blind eye to not realize that in our own country since the late 1800's that there have been far worse incidents of social debauchery than that of the most graphic accounts that were written against the French Revolution. The world's eye is still blind to the evidence that ought to properly come from the governing acts of the French Assembly. Why? Because it is not there. The evidence relied upon is merely hearsay, and does not exist in the historic record where it ought to, if it were indeed true.

So the only evidence sought to prove that they were "killed" is stated to have occurred in 1793, and yet they are still supposed to be giving their testimony up to 1798. This creates an unexplained discrepancy, for which there have been no explanation given.

There is no evidence that the killing of the Two Witnesses five years before 1798, had relieved anyone of death or alleviated any threat to mankind. The Two Witnesses cannot be both still testifying up to 1798 clothed in sackcloth and be already dead in 1793. The Bible does not indicate that they give any more Testimony after they have been killed, but that t heir testimony is finished and then they are killed.

The Prophecy does not allow the French Revolution interpretation of Revelation 11, because it does not present it in the order that historians have applied it; the history they give, does not fit this prophecy.

The Two Witnesses after 1798, are experiencing global spreading of Bible Societies and Mass printing of the Bible. This is giving evidence that the Two Witnesses have come from out of being in a sackcloth experience, and are testifying openly, and far from being "finished."

The identity of the Two Witnesses may have been grossly misapplied. If they are the Two Tables of the Law, then the one would be the Witness of the Laws that are applied to man's relationship to God, and the other Witness would then be the Laws that are applied to man's relationship to his fellow man. It would also be true that the Two Tables of the Law stand "before the God of the earth."

A New Beast, Outside of the 18 Serial Prophecies.
Another serious problem in the French Revolution interpretation, is the lack of explaining how "atheism" is a beast, as there is no evidence of any such thing as a beast called atheism going into a bottomless pit, from where it is written that it comes out of. Atheism is not a beast…beasts in prophecy have always represented a political or religious kingdom. It is unprecedented in Biblical interpretation to make a prophetic beast out of a philosophical belief.
Nowhere is it shown that France or atheism was ever in, or have gone into an abyss in the prophecies. And nowhere in the Bible does it reference atheism as a beast. Beasts uniformly in prophecy, are depicting the specific political kingdoms that other prophecies have also made their parallel alignment. To make it fit the French Revolution, forces the prophecy completely askew from the serial line of prophecies.


Not Believed by the Rank and File

Ranko Stefanovic wrote in his latest commentary that the Two Witnesses are more than just the New and Old Testaments, but are the "embodiment of these Two Witnesses in the persons" of the saints living at the end. The war that is waged upon them is the final conflict that the people of God have yet to face. This would be true whether they be the two Testaments or the Two Tables of the Law. "Here are they that keep the commandments..." Revelation 14:12


Burning the Bible... is France Alone?

During the first three centuries some Roman emperors sought to uproot Christianity by destroying the Bible. For example, on February 23, 303 A. D. emperor Diocletian decreed that every copy of the Bible was to be handed over to the Roman police to be burned. With the rise of Islam in the seventh century, the Bible has been consistently outlawed in strict Moslem countries. To this very day, distribution of Bibles is strictly forbidden in Moslem countries. The circulation of the Bible has also suffered from within Christianity at the hands of the Catholic Church, English kings, and Protestant church leaders. More recently, communist regimes also have attempted to prevent the circulation of the Bible and to discredit its teachings. The past attempts to suppress the Bible by burning it or banning it, have proven to be futile, so why would France be any exception? Where have been the judgments that fell upon these nations for having hurt the Two Witnesses? Rome's fall was already predicted by Genesis 3:15, as the bruising of Satan's head. That punishment came because of its bruising the heel of our Saviour. Do they allege that Rome gets double indemnity? Neither can I imagine that the curse for hurting the Two Witnesses would be applied only to the time of the French Revolution.

No Great Theological Contribution by the French Revolution Interpretation
Neither would this passage in Revelation be anything outstanding if it were fulfilled by France in 1793-1797. Were the entire passage deleted, there would be no significant affect on the understanding of the remaining prophecies and of the Gospel. So it serves no purpose in the entire scheme of things. Had there been indicated that contained it in were some really fabulous proofs or evidence to something really big, then it might have been some merit in it, but as it is, we do not have theologians running about raving about how great this whole account is, particularly in the face of the lack of anything credible in the form of tangible evidence. Therefore, the effort to defend this interpretation is not for its own merit, or of uplifting any significant special truth, but of the effort to make Ellen White to be correct at any expense. God forbid that any such poorly written exposition be held up before the people; it would be to our shame. To my knowledge, no one is holding up this interpretation as an excellent example of fulfilled prophecy.

The Spirit of Prophecy speaks concerning this:
" We must individually know for ourselves what is truth, and be prepared to give a reason of the hope that we have with meekness and fear, not in a proud, boasting, self-sufficiency, but with the spirit of Christ. We are nearing the time when we shall stand individually alone to answer for our belief. {Mar 217.4}

We shall be attacked on every point; we shall be tried to the utmost. We do not want to hold our faith simply because it was handed down to us by our fathers. Such a faith will not stand the terrible test that is before us. We want to know why we are Seventh-day Adventists, what real reason we have for coming out from the world as a separate and distinct people." {Mar 217.5}

Does anyone think that the papacy was impugned from the consequences of her actions and the punishments of this very prophecy? Did papal Rome escape this judgment? No, they did not, for in the very moment that the Two Witnesses stepped out of Their Testimony in sackcloth in 1798, that the beast that "was," became the "is not" and indeed this papal beast was killed by Napoleon for the hurt (not a killing, but having covered it in sackcloth) that it levied upon the Two Witnesses. France deserves its proper place in prophecy; 1798. This same beast that held the Two Witnesses in obscurity, by the sa me manner, had itself been plunged into obscurity, by France.

The Catholic church did not like France's revolt against all things religious... are we then to be sympathizers with the church of Rome in condemning France?

To excuse the premature killing of the Two Witnesses in 1793 before they allegedly finished their testimony in 1798 is that the days were cut short, and the verse given in support of this is Matthew 24:22.

These other references from the Spirit of Prophecy, show the correct future placement of this oft referenced time of trouble:
"In the closing period of earth's history the Lord will work mightily in behalf of those who stand steadfastly for the right. . . . In the midst of the time of trouble--trouble such as has not been since there was a nation--His chosen ones will stand unmoved. Satan with all the hosts of evil cannot destroy the weakest of God's saints. {Mar 270.5}

"In those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto th is time, neither shall be. Mark 13:19. The time of trouble such as never was, is soon to open upon us; and we shall need an experience which we do not now possess, and which many are too indolent to obtain. It is often the case that trouble is greater in anticipation than in reality; but this is not true of the crisis before us. The most vivid presentation cannot reach the magnitude of the ordeal. And now, while the precious Saviour is making an atonement for us, we should seek to become perfect in Christ.

"God's providence In the midst of the time of trouble--trouble such as has not been since there was a nation--His [God's] chosen ones will stand unmoved. Satan with all the hosts of evil cannot destroy the weakest of God's saints. {Mar 275.3}

" 'These are they which came out of great tribulation;' they have passed through the time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation; they have endured the anguish of the time of Jacob's trouble; they hav e stood without an intercessor through the final outpouring of God's judgments. `Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among Them.' {Mar 328.2}
" When Jesus leaves the most holy, His restraining Spirit is withdrawn from rulers and people. They are left to the control of evil angels. Then such laws will be made by the counsel and direction of Satan, that unless time should be very short, no flesh could be saved. {1T 203.1}

This time of the war references the time after the beast ascends from out of the bottomless pit. Indeed this is the papacy when the eighth head of the papacy arrives.

Other Passages Are Better At Describing Revelation 11
As for the raising up of the Two Witnesses by God into heaven and the fear that fell upon their enemies that saw Them, the Spirit of Prophecy has this to say:

"While these words of holy trust ascend to God, the clouds sweep back, and the starry heavens are seen, unspeakably glorious in contrast with the black and angry firmament on either side. The glory of the celestial city streams from the gates ajar. Then there appears against the sky a hand holding two tables of stone folded together. Says the prophet: "The heavens shall declare His righteousness: for God is judge Himself." Psalm 50:6. That holy law, God's righteousness, that amid thunder and flame was proclaimed from Sinai as the guide of life, is now revealed to men as the rule of judgment. The hand opens the tables, and there are seen the precepts of the Decalogue, traced as with a pen of fire. The words are so plain that all can read them. Memory is aroused, the darkness of superstition and heresy is swept from every mind, and God's ten words, brief, comprehensive, and authoritative, are presented to the view of all the inhabitants of the earth. {GC 639}

The following passage from Maranatha pg. 286.1, appears to be speaking more accurately of the Two Witnesses being raised back up and ascending to heaven which all the people will be a witness to, and which also would invoke the kind of response that the prophecy speaks of regarding the great fear that would fall on them. While Ellen White, nor those who have indexed her writings never associated the passage in Revelation 11:11, it is obvious to the reader that they are describing a very similar scene.

Chap. 278 - God's Law Appears in the Heavens
The heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself. Ps. 50:6. The clouds sweep back, and the starry heavens are seen, unspeakably glorious in contrast with the black and angry firmament on either side. The glory of the celestial city streams from the gates ajar. {Mar 286.1}
In the temple will be seen the ark of the testament in which were placed the two tables of stone, on which are written God's law . These tables of stone will be brought forth from their hiding place, and on them will be seen the Ten Commandments engraved by the finger of God. These tables of stone now lying in the ark of the testament will be a convincing Testimony to the truth and binding claims of God's law. {Mar 286.2}
Sacrilegious minds and hearts have thought they were mighty enough to change the times and laws of Jehovah; but, safe in the archives of heaven, in the ark of God, are the original commandments, written upon the two tables of stone. No potentate of earth has power to draw forth those tables from their sacred hiding place beneath the mercy seat. {Mar 286.3}
There appears against the sky a hand holding two tables of stone folded together. Says the prophet: "The heavens shall declare his righteousness: for God is judge himself." Psalm 50:6. That holy law, God's righteousness, for God is judge himself." Psalm 50: 6. That holy law, God's righteousness, that amid thunder and flame was procl aimed from Sinai as the guide of life, is now revealed to men as the rule of judgment. The hand opens the tables, and there are seen the precepts of the Decalogue, traced as with a pen of fire. The words are so plain that all can read them. Memory is aroused, the darkness of superstition and heresy is swept from every mind, and God's ten words, brief, comprehensive, and authoritative, are presented to the view of all the inhabitants of the earth. Great Controversy 639 {Mar 286.4}
It is impossible to describe the horror and despair of those who have trampled upon God's holy requirements. {Mar 286.5}

"And great fear fell upon them which saw them."
This is no comparison to the fear that is alleged to have caused the French to rescind their decree. If the "great fear" could be alleviated merely by a decree, then why would that be "great?"

The words Crisler used to describe the many other volumes of history, was that they "haven't a thing in them that is of any special value to us." This exposes the lack of credible historic works that bore any useful information. This speaks as evidence against the interpretation.


Crisler's Excuses

Crisler: On August 11, Crisler was rummaging through secondhand bookstores in San Francisco, looking for works that might help. He was pleased to find a single volume of the big set Historians' History of the World--the volume covering the entire period of the French Revolution. He felt it was well worth the dollar he paid for it. A few days before, he was working at the Stanford University library, reading up on French history. Of this, he reported: {6BIO 314.1}

Crisler: Examined a good many works. Some works haven't a thing in them that is of any special value to us. There is one work, however, which will help a lot in establishing the soundness of the present philosophy of the French Revolutionary period, as outlined by Sister White, and that is Buckle's History of Civilization in England. {6BIO 314.2}

Negatives: A single volume... if history was so surviving according to the unnamed writer in Blackwood's Magazine in 1870, the n why would the only supporting evidence (loosely applied) come from only ONE source?

Crisler: Buckle is one of the greatest of the philosophic historians; and in his work he makes very plain the fact that prior to any attempt whatever to revolt against the social and political situation in France, there was a determined effort, on the part of the thinkers and, in fact, of most of the educated men of France, to break through the long-established tyranny of the church, which stifled all true reform, whether religious, social, or political. Buckle makes very clear the differences between true Christianity and the religion, so-called, revealed in the lives of the French clergy of that period.--CCC to WCW, Aug. 11, 1910. {6BIO 314.3}

Negatives: Certainly he would say that Buckle was one of the greatest (philosophical) historian, He is considered great merely because he gave some form of words that Crisler could use. Other writers have expressed a different o pinion of Buckle as an historian: "Dubious" as they report discrepancies in his oft divergent views. That is why he is referred to as a "philosophical" historian. Crisler should have seen through the account from Buckle, to realize the true issues surrounding the French Revolution and the oppression by the Catholic clergy, and the revolt against them by the people, of which 95% were Catholic. The Catholic church was draining away the money from the country, until Napoleon stood up and cast the final blow against the papacy by capturing Pius VI in 1798. (Get your CONTEXT correct please! It is NOT about the debauchery caused by Bible burning by peasants or God-outlawing French politicians. If anything, the French politicians are not killing the Two Witnesses, but they were killing the oppressive Catholic clergy, and breaking their stronghold upon their country.)

Crisler: The twenty-four-page chapter in The Great Controversy on the Bible and the French Revolution was a ve ry important one, in which many lessons were brought out showing the ultimate fruitage of rejection of God and His Word. Ellen White in this chapter introduced the prophecy in Revelation 11, concerning the "two witnesses" and the 1260-year time prophecy of the period that began A.D. 538 and ended in 1798. One scholar who in April was asked to read The Great Controversy carefully and point out places that might need strengthening if the book was to accomplish the most good, took exception to Ellen White's interpretation of the two witnesses and the validity of the dates of the 1260-year period. This intensified the need for a careful study of this chapter. {6BIO 314.4}

Negatives: The fact that the one asked was asked because he was a scholar, ought to be given more respect to his answer, than to try to use it as supportive evidence and seek out "strengthening" instead of perhaps coming to the realization, that the charge of "needing strengthening" might also mean "dele ting" the material... because it is false and unsupported. As for being a "very important one" having "many lessons" I ask: has not the death of Jesus on the cross served to demonstrate sufficiently the heinousness of sin? Does not the entire Bible teach what is right and wrong? There is noting more that this prophecy could do in lending support for right and wrong, than what has already been written in the Scriptures and recorded in history. Crisler took the challenge in the wrong direction; trying to use an error to prove something else is right.

Crisler: No occasion was found to turn away from the position taken on the 1260-day (or year) prophecy, but difficulty was experienced in endeavors to document specific actions of the French Assembly in 1793, edicts abolishing the Bible, and then three and a half years later restoring it to favor. Painstaking research failed to disclose such specific legislation, but edicts were found that did so in effect. Crisler found that one of the British lords, in a debate in Parliament as it opened in January, 1794, declared, after reading at length from French documents, that "The Old and New Testament were publicly burnt, as prohibited books." "This," Crisler commented in a letter to W. C. White on October 5, "is quite close to Sister White's declaration, for which we want authentic historical evidence, that 'it was in 1793 that the decree which prohibited the Bible passed the French Assembly."' Crisler continued: {6BIO 315.1}

Negatives: The fact that the material needing "strengthening" coupled with "difficulty... experienced in endeavors to document specific actions of the French Assembly" should serve as a double "red-flag" that the evidence was not sufficient to give this prophecy a proper level of support. Especially in failing to expand the whole prophecy in their examination, and hinging the decision upon one single element; that there was some sort of killing that could be construed from one account. Long forgotten is the idea of that statement: "concerning which the authentic record survives" If the record is so well in surviving, where is the evidence? I ask, Why didn't Crisler realize that the records that do survive, has failed to support the interpretation?

Crisler: You will note, upon examining Sister White's statement carefully, that the act which passed the assembly "prohibited the Bible." Even if we cannot find in the wording of an act these words or words very similar, we can find acts which prohibited the worship of God, or rather abolished the worship of God; and, as was plainly brought out in the British Parliament a few weeks after these excesses in France, the enactments against the Deity were followed by the burning of religious books, including the Bible. {6BIO 315.2}

Negatives: There still is no supporting evidence within the public record of the French Assembly, and the credibility of a neighboring country's Parliament statements cannot serve as an authoritative historic account. This is a pathetic chain of "the game of gossip" goes through at least four parties and all for what? A measly scrap of evidence that is no worse than what the Bible had already suffered throughout its history, and since then. The interpretation proffers the debauchery that existed within that same 3½ years, as the punishment that it was given for doing what they were doing during this same time. It also places the "Fear" that fell upon them within that time, and as the cause of rescinding this ethereal "alleged" decree to reinstate God and the Bible. Where then is the fear that fell upon the people that saw them "raised back up on their feet"? Shouldn't this fear occur according to the prophecy "after" they were raised, instead of "before" they were raised? I ask you to examine the prophecy word for word to show the fear of the people "AFTER" the Two Witnesses were raised back up on their feet. That has NOT been written into The Great Controversy. (Why? Because it is not history yet... it is still future).

Crisler: In one French source, the original French of which we hope to find soon, it was announced that the Popular Society of the Section of the Museum had "executed justice upon all the books of superstition and falsehood; that breviaries, missals, legends, together with the Old and New Testaments, had expiated in the fire, the follies which they had occasioned among mankind." {6BIO 315.3}

Negatives: ....And where did all these Bibles come from? Was it not the "Catholic" church that was responsible for apprehending all the Bibles that were put to print since the days when the printing presses first began? Did they not themselves openly exhibit their opposition to the people holding for themselves the Scriptures? Since the Clergy in France felt threatened by the people's possession of any Bibles, wouldn't they also make certain to add to the bonfires any copies that they could get their hands on? Was it "France" or the 95% Catholics that reigned there responsible for the Bible burnings? The "sackcloth" charge against the Catholics fits well for the 1,260 years, but at the end we see that the Catholics succeeding in getting the world to point the finger at France instead of themselves.

Crisler: I wish you might have the privilege of reading the statement which the Rev. Dr. Croly makes concerning this period. It is in his work Croly on the Apocalypse.... Dr. Croly takes the position squarely that the enactments of the French Assembly abolishing all respect and worship of God, in fact abolished the Bible; and reasoning thus, he holds to the same exposition of the two witnesses of Revelation 11 that is given in Great Controversy. {6BIO 315.4}

Negatives: Now who is an authoritative source of theology that "WE" call "Reverend"? A Reverend Dr. Croly? Now this is a bit of circular support going on here. Ellen White gets her material from Smith, who gets his material from Croly, DUH! this isn't rocket science here... OF COURSE he agrees with Ellen White, for that is the ultimate source from which she copied! DUH again! That is why I say Crisler is making EXCUSES! It is bootstrap theology.

Crisler: His statements are very much to the point; and even if we cannot find an express law against the Bible, or prohibiting the Bible, we can still go far toward defending the position taken in Great Controversy. {6BIO 315.5}

Negatives: The fact that there is any concern at all that the position "needs defending" in the face of all the other negative issues that surrounds this interpretation should serve to prove that the lengths that some will go in their effort to support a false interpretation. They cannot allow a false interpretation to "stain" their revered prophetess, so they must at all costs prove the error by turning it into truth. Personally, I believe that Ellen White is a true prophetess, but I do not regard her as infallible, and above the possibility of having copied error.

Crisler: In January, 1911, Clarence Crisler reported that there were a few references in the French Revolution chapter that they had not yet found. Two days later he wrote of receiving a report from Brother Vuilleumie r, a denominational worker in France, that gave "one good passage on the restoration of the Bible at the close of three and a half years," which was highly prized (DF 84d, CCC to Guy Dail, Jan. 3, 1911). {6BIO 316.1}

Negatives: Again, it comes down to one more tiny bit of evidence. Lacking again, is the record in the French Assembly or whatever French Political structure that existed then, since the Revolution was plugging one system after another, from year to year with another system. What evidence is given by these writers that offer proof that what they wrote, did in fact occur? The Biblical rule of "TWO" or more "WITNESSES" to establish a fact has apparently flown out the window.

Crisler: Elder Conradi has given, in his Die Offenbarung Jesu, more proof in connection with the prophecy of the two witnesses of Revelation 11 than has any other of our Biblical expositors.--Ibid. {6BIO 316.2}

Crisler: Through January and most of February it w as hoped that with research both in Europe and in America there would be found the exact edicts of the French Assembly on the abolition and reinstatement of the Bible. It was not forthcoming, and on February 26, Clarence Crisler wrote to W. A. Colcord: {6BIO 316.3}

Negatives: NO..... EVIDENCE.... WAS...... FOUND. The duly recorded minutes of the French Assembly failed to provide any evidence. They could not find what was not there in the first place.

Crisler: In the search for the original sources of passages quoted in the chapter on "The Bible and the French Revolution," we were led into a more extended inquiry than we had at first anticipated entering into. . . . We have not found every quotation given in the chapter, but many of them we have found, and verified. {6BIO 316.4}

Negatives; It is not just a matter of just "finding quotes" but of finding and VERIFYING them as authentic and valid. No apparent effort was demonstrated that they s ought to VERIFY the authenticity of the source material. In fact they proved that it did not exist.

Crisler: Crisler then explained that "in order to keep a record of our findings," the staff at Elmshaven had made many notes. Some of these were included in five manuscripts on the French Revolution chapter. Where definite verification could not be found for the crucial statements in The Great Controversy, the wording was modified. The statement as it appeared in the 1888 edition read: {6BIO 316.5}

Crisler: It was in 1793 that the decree which prohibited the Bible passed the French Assembly. Three years and a half later a resolution rescinding the decree, and granting toleration to the Scriptures, was adopted by the same body.--Pages 286, 287. {6BIO 316.6}

Crisler: The wording in the 1911 edition reads: It was in 1793 that the decrees which abolished the Christian religion and set aside the Bible passed the French Assembly. Three years and a half later a resolution rescinding these decrees, thus granting toleration to the Scriptures, was adopted by the same body.--Page 287. {6BIO 316.7}

Crisler: This brought the crucial statement well within the limits of what could be proved from reliable historical sources. There was actually little change in intent, but rather a more precise wording. Ellen White was anxious for this, that the book might serve unquestioned in the widest possible reading circles. On this point, Crisler, in a letter to Guy Dail in Europe, stated: {6BIO 317.1}

Negatives: The fact that there is an admission that "definite verification" could not be found for "crucial statements" should have served to indicate that the chapter be eliminated entirely from The Great Controversy, but instead, they chose to change the wording so as to avoid exposing their weaknesses.

Crisler: In all this historical work, we are eager to have the manuscripts that may be submitted, given the most searching tests. We need never be afraid of historical truth. {6BIO 317.2}

Negatives: Not afraid of historical truth? That is so hypocritical! And then he made an observation, one based on his painstaking research over a period of half a year. "Painstaking research"? Truth, as I have witnessed, in my writing of the interpretation of the number 666 was never painstaking! I could hardly keep up with the writing of the words once the vein of truth was tapped. It came forth like a gusher, so much so that I have written in my book saying that "it wrote itself!" Out the window goes William Miller's rule of interpretation that "prophecy and history must agree" by the efforts of Crisler, who would search the world for a few measly word scraps he calls evidence, that cannot eve n be verified. It's all hearsay....

Crisler: We would do well to avoid accepting the conclusions of some of the more modern historians who are attempting to rewrite history so as to shape it up in harmony with their philosophical viewpoint. We find it necessary to exercise constant vigilance in this respect; and this leads us to set considerable store by the original sources, or **fountainheads, of history. {6BIO 317.4}

Crisler: At this point Crisler offered his own testimony of what he saw of God's guiding hand in the writing of The Great Controversy: {6BIO 317.5}

Crisler: The more closely we examine the use of historical extracts in Controversy, and the historical extracts themselves, the more profoundly are we impressed with the fact that Sister White had special guidance in tracing the story from the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, down through the centuries until the end. No mortal man could have done the work that she has done in shaping up some of those chapters, including, we believe, the chapter on the French Revolution, which is a very ***remarkable chapter, in more ways than one. {6BIO 317.6}

Negatives: (Note the double-asterisk footnote below)

Crisler: And the more we go into these matters, the more profound is our conviction that the Lord has helped not only Sister White in the presentation of truth, but that He has overruled in the work of other writers, to the praise of His name and the advancement of present truth. {6BIO 317.7}

Negatives: It does not bode well with extending the "guiding hand of God" to other writers, merely because they seem to be supportive of Ellen White's work. It smack of "bootstrap theology" to derive support from the same sources as was quoted. Verifying evidence comes from independent sources.

Crisler: Our brethren in years past have used many quotations, and, as a general rule, the Lord surely must have helped them to avoid making use of many extracts that would have led them astray. Of course there is still a great deal of room for improvement, even in a book like Elder U. Smith's Daniel and Revelation. But not so much needs to be done, as might have had to be done, if the Lord had not given special help to these various writers.--DF 84d, CCC to Guy Dail, Jan. 3, 1911. {6BIO 318.1}
Negatives: This is definitely relying upon the arm of flesh. To admit there is "room for improvement" does not bode well for a source that is not verifiable, and still use it as the primary support.

Negatives: As I read the above quotes, I am repulsed by their final word which is not based upon the Bible, but upon "various writers" who are alleged to have received special help from the Lord. And in thinking that "Surely God would not lead us astray..." which is built upon the writings of men quoting other men, ad infinitum? I want to know that the "brethren" have quoted the Scriptures, and not other men. Certainly it is not God that has led them astray, as they demonstrate that they have done a fine job of leading themselves astray. History has here repeated itself.

**Fountainheads...
If history cannot be found to supp ort evidence for a particular interpretation, it is alleged to be because history has been rewritten. But if history can so easily be rewritten, how then can it be relied upon to be a veritable source to show any fulfillment of any prophecy? If you make history to be so unreliable, how then can we be assured that your view of history is correct, if it was not written in all the other historic accounts that are still in abundance today?

Truth is not built upon a measly scrap of evidence that was provided by one dubious historian named Buckle. In comparison, the interpretation of the number 666 as I have shown, demonstrates an enormous abundance of tangible evidence and alignment. In this French Revolution interpretation, there is a dearth of any reliable evidence, whereas there is an abundance of other factual evidence of what the French Revolution was all about, that does not lend one stitch of evidence, that it has fulfilled anything regarding the prophecy of Revelat ion 11. If we as a people are going to expect that the world accept our views on any interpretation of a prophecy, then we had better be able to show an abundance of evidence in support of it. And that, in support of ALL of the elements within a prophecy and not in just one single facet, while leaving all the other elements untouched.

The very fact that they had so much trouble finding one single piece of evidence, should have been a red flag to tell them that what they thought it could be, simply was not possibly the correct interpretation. "Pad words" are not sufficient to replace tangible evidence that should be found in abundance in history. Their "striking fulfillment" is not "striking" at all but rather more strikingly a non-fulfillment, not even fulfilled in the least sense. "Striking" was one of the very words used by Uriah Smith, to pad his explanation, because it was weak in its support. Ellen White copied the whole concept and choice words from Uriah Smith, and no viable evidence from outside Smith's book has been forthcoming.

***Remarkable chapter...
How so? These are empty words; Their entire search for a proof, hinges on one single element of the prophecy, the "killing" and "raising up" of the Two Witnesses, as per the burning of the Bibles in France. Now what about all the other elements within this prophecy? None of them have any historic evidence that aligns with this prophecy. "In more ways than one." How so? The lack of credibility in their "first" way, is so pathetic, and lacking in genuine verifiable evidence, and the complete absence of any suggested "second" way, gives me no reason to accept that position. They are deluded into thinking that they have given a reasonable answer. Let these come and "touch" the tangible and verifiable evidence that I give, and learn what true evidence looks like!

Carefulness in Presenting New Views
" All should be careful about presenting new views of Scriptu re before they have given these points thorough study, and are fully prepared to sustain them from the Bible. Introduce nothing that will cause dissension, without clear evidence that in it God is giving a special message for this time." TM 106.3

"But beware of rejecting that which is truth. The great danger with our people has been that of depending upon men and making flesh their arm. Those who have not been in the habit of searching the Bible for themselves, or weighing evidence, have confidence in the leading men and accept the decisions they make; and thus many will reject the very messages God sends to His people, if these leading brethren do not accept them." TM 106.4

"Others present an array of objections to any new view; and when these objections are plainly answered by the words of Scripture, they do not acknowledge the evidence presented, nor allow themselves to be convinced. Their questioning is not for the purpose of arriving at truth, but is intended merely to confuse the minds of others. " TM 108.2

Some no doubt will say that because this book challenges the interpretation that is put forth in The Great Controversy, that it must be a fulfillment of the last great deception of Satan to make the Spirit of Prophecy of "no effect." They ask; "How can I pick and choose what was inspired or not?" To which I say that Ellen White never claimed inspiration for every word she wrote. Thus, if a passage of what she wrote cannot be determined that it was not inspired, then how can it be determined that it was? The reply would be "But there are many places where she wrote `I was shown' or `I saw.' To which I say; "OK, so there you have the evidence for that passage that it was inspired. But as for the rest of them, it remains to be proven." Since no one can lay the claim that all of the works that she wrote were inspired, then either the means by which to discern which ones were and which ones were not should be manifest, or it must be confessed that there is no means to make this deter mination for any passage.

Certainly the statement by Smith in saying that "Nothing but the appalling results of the rejection of the Bible could have induced France to take her hands off these witnesses" (p. 502, Para. 6.) should have come with such evidence that the three and one-half years that transpired between 1793 and 1797 should reflect this evidence of such said result. Otherwise, the French Revolution which began in 1787 and ended in 1799 would just appear as a revolution of changes in its government, and rioting among the peasants against the nobles. It would appear that the punishment and horrible results of their actions were occurring before and after the specified times that are stated to have occurred in just the three and one-half year period.

Merely citing a dubious decree and its rescinding does no justice to the fulfilling of this prophecy, it ought to give evidence that would match the words used to describe it; that it caused visible evidence of appalling results. It is no wonder then that the decree and its rescinding have no evidence that they ever existed, as it also fails to demonstrate the visible evidence of its effects.

From Steve Howard : I can agree with you most of the way here. After looking at it more, there are some problems. I have already stated that I think what was said about the identity of the two witnesses is not correct. In Smith's book Ch. 11 pg. 490 he cites George Croly as an authority for his interpretation. Anyone know anything about him?

Traditionally, we as a church have not understood the Two Witnesses very well. One reason for this is that EGW is unusually silent on the whole subject. We have really not much to fall back on except good scholarship.

To understand who they are, we must build a good foundation starting with Ex 37:17-22. I am not going into detail of how it was made and so forth, but what is important to note here is that this piece of furniture is made of gold, but is made to resemble an almond tree. All of the blossoms, fruit (almonds), branches etc are parts of a tree. If you look up the language, you will find that these words are indeed the ones used to describe living things. This has traditionally not meant much to us as a church, but as a biologist, it means much to me. There some object lessons we can learn because of this, but that is not the subject here. The important thing is that this lampstand is meant to represent a living tree. EGW is silent about the lampstand, except to say that it illuminated the Holy Place. At this point however, it appears to be only a piece of furniture with one important point for us, all of the lamps burn simultaneously and continuously.

Next the lampstand is mentioned in Zech 4:1-6, 11-14. Now there is an additional element given to the lampstand, it has a bowl with tubes that feed the individual lamps "atop the lampstand". The bowl is fed oil by two olive trees. I don't know if you noticed anything strange about the lampstand in Exodus, but I did. It had no leaves, or in biological terms, no energy source for the lamps. Where the leaves should have sprouted from, there were only knobs. As a botanist, I would have used another word, nodes, the places where the buds are on a stem. The message "not by might , not by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord of Hosts. I have said the two lampstands are he same. However the commentary in vol 4 pg 1094 says "the symbolism is evidently borrowed from the candlestick in the sanctuary...The present candlestick is not like the former, however, and has its own lesson to teach." Our commentators make a differentiation between the two, which dates back to Haskel's The Cross and its Shadow. However in 6T 11 we read "In Zechariah's vision the two olive trees which stand before god are represented as emptying the golden oil out of themselves through golden tubes into the bowl of the sanctuary. From this the lamps of the sanctuary are fed that they may give a continuous bright and shining light. I contend that although EGW did not see this as an issue, she did see the lampstand in Zech as the same as that of Exodus.

It is true that these passages had a different lesson to teach. But it is also true they had an additional lesson to teach concerning the original lampstand. We are not our own light. The most important lesson for the purposes of our discussion however is that the church would not be spread by conquering other lands. This was a favorite method employed by Catholicism. Our own history here in the Americas is rife with these examples. Conquer, replace the language and customs, then incorporate into the Catholic church. This is one of the forms of church state relationships that we see in prophecy. This, by its placement just before he New Testament, is a type of prophetic message concerning and against a church that would incorporate people by force.

The next time we see the lampstand in Scripture is in Revelation 1:12-13 where we see seven separate lampstands with Jesus in the "midst." The commentary vol. 7 page 739 states: "The reference here to seven golden candlesticks in the holy place of the earthly sanctuary. Obviously, however, these differ materially from the seven-branched candlestick of OT times, for John saw Christ walking about among them..." However as I pointed out before, the original lampstand represented an almond tree. The supposition in the commentary is that the heavenly should represent the earthly in every detail. However, Hebrews tells us that what was here was only a shadow, a figure of the true. In Isaiah 11:1 There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots.
Jesus is clearly called the Branch. In John 15:5 Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches. In this passage, descriptive of a grape vine this time, Jesus is the central branch or vi ne from which all the other branches spring forth. He did not mean this in a literal sense, but used it to illustrate a point. In the case of the lampstand, we can apply the name of Jesus, the Branch, to the illustration of the lampstand in Revelation 1. He is the Branch in the midst of the branches. If this is truly the case, we could hardly literally have Jesus grafted to lampstands. Being here in the midst fulfills the conditions of the "figure of the true." For the first time in Revelation 1:20 the lampstands are identified as the churches.

This brings us to Revelation 11 with two lampstands and two olive trees. Again the commentary is fairly silent and cites "The Great Controversy" saying that these lampstands are the Old and New Testament. Uriah Smith says the same thing, quoting the same verses from Psalms 119. The problem I have so far is that according to our scholars there are now three different sets of lampstands in the Holy Place, with no symbolism at all attached to the original lampstand in the Holy Place in the earthly or heavenly sanctuary. We have to ask then, of what was the original a shadow of? The other thing that stands out is the similarity between the lampstands in Rev to those of Zechariah. One thing that has been pointed out in the commentary is that there is a different number, seven vs. two. So how can they be the same, though similar in both passages?

The answer lies in the historical nature of the churches of the lampstand. We have embraced the dual nature of the prophecies of the churches of the lampstand. They constitute seven periods of church history complete with four types of apostasy, seven admonitions and praises for what was happening in each church period. There is one important verse here for our discussion in Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore where you have fallen from and repent and practice the first works; or else I will come unto you and remove your lampstand out of his place, except you repent. We know from history that the first church, as well as the next four churches afterward did not repent. I am suggesting that their lampstands were removed out of their places in the sanctuary in heaven and that then that left only two. At this point, I am suggesting that the two witnesses are two of the churches. Does EGW concur with this?
Let us go back to the passage in 6T and pick it up where it left off. "In Zechariah's vision the two olive trees which stand before God are represented as emptying the golden oil out of them selves through golden tubes into the bowl of the sanctuary. From this the lamps of the sanctuary are fed that they may give a continuous bright and shining light.
So from the anointed ones (the olive trees) that stand in God's presence the fullness of divine light and love and power is imparted to His people." (His church) I have supplied the material in parenthesis because in reading it this way it makes sense and coincides with other Scripture concerning what the lampstands represent. It shows that The Holy Spirit, symbolized by oil, flows to his people who give light to the world. It shows also that Jesus is also in the midst of his churches. The alternate view is that we have three sets of lampstands in the Holy Place all meaning separate things, with the first meaning almost nothing.

Now let us briefly discuss an apparent disagreement between myself and what it says in The Great Controversy. I am not placing myself above God's messenger nor trying to cast doubt upon her ministry. I have looked at the earlier Great Controversy contained in Spiritual Gifts vol 1. In this version, chapter 11 and the contents of the later version do not exist. It is also fair to note, that there is some things in the earlier version that do not exist in the later version. We may speculate that Uriah Smith may have had some undue influence. I don't know and will leave that for others to decide. Steve Howard.

The "beast" in the serial visions in Revelation always refers to the papacy, unless otherwise indicated as in Rev 13:11. However, when it comes to the 15th chapter in The Great Controversy, that changed to a fabricated beast that they do not even rightly apply to France as a kingdom, but etherealize it to a philosophy and call it a "NEW" beast; atheism.

But it does not stop there. The term "that great city" as all should know to be Babylon the Great, as it is use in Rev 18, has also been symbolized away to become something else that is completely askew from what it really is. It is not France or Paris or atheism.

The earthquake in all other prophecies are relating to real genuine earthquakes, and this too has been symbolized away. It is much harder to fudge this with the assertion that history has obliterated that evidence, for in fact, if it did not happen, well, it just didn't. History does not show any such earthquake, so it get a symbolic meaning.


So why does Revelation 11 get the freak treatment?

Because nobody likes to admit that Ellen White copied an error from Uriah Smith, who copied it from George Storrs, and "Reverend" Dr. George Croly. So why is it that the copycat history is so blatant and available, but the "Assembly" of France along with the rest of the world have no recordable evidence to support the F.R. interpretation, so it is blamed on historians "re-writing" history. That is utter hogwash. There is plenty of history recorded, and no, there is no one out to destroy "EVIDENCE" that simply wasn't there in the first place. It is a lame cop-out to blame historians for the lack of evidence that cannot be found to support the F.R. interpretation.

I have put out all this to the White Estate, to other very sincere pastor friends of mine, and any and all people who have any answers and not one has ever produced one iota of genuine evidence that I expect to come from a true and honest interpretation of a prophecy. Instead I get a whole string of compensatory adjustments that creates such explanation that are completely askew from the serial line of the visions. It is all twisted and changed. There is simply no getting around it with such lame excuses and lack of genuine evidence. Instead, more and more compensations are needed to sustain the lie. It simply is not true.

History shows that the French Revolution occurred, that is no doubt. It is also true as such that religion played a role in it. But it is not nor can it ever be used (properly) to be the interpretation of, or the fulfillment of Revelation 11. Efforts to prove this only digs deeper holes. History book have NOT been greatly modified. It works for everything else, so why is it excepted for the F.R.? Because there never was any such history.

David Roush wrote in defense of the F.R. interpretation:

"Has anyone read the books called " Memoirs of the Prince of Talleyrand"? It is five volumes printed by "The Napoleon Society" in 1895.
I have the originals is an autobiography about His life not only and a member of the royal family in France but as his life as a Bishop of the (un) holy Roman Catholic Church. He goes into much detail about how the (un) holy Roman Catholic Church was greatly involved in the country and how it controlled the government around the time leading up to 1798 and after. He even recites some of the laws in which he wrote as a Bishop.

The last time that I read these books I was amazed that I could see what the founders wrote about (including Sister White) on this time frame in these books.

We should remember that what we have as "history" books today has been greatly modified from that which was called "history" books in times past. It has been distorted and changed today. Using today's history it is hard to find much of what was once known." David Roush

Let me explain it like this David;
I do not want to know that you are "amazed" that you "could see what the founders wrote about (including Sister White) on this time frame in these books.” I want to see quoted precisely what you read that is so amazing. It is the difference between "saying" it and "demonstrating" it.

Today's history is no different from yesterday's history.

Nobody is out to sabotage history, or the record of it. The researchers today have the exact same records, unadulterated, and veritable copies of the original documents that were created in that same time. If you discredit the veritable record of history, accusing it of being rewritten; then which authoritative source will you depend on to prove anything?

Think about it: is this not the proverbial "catch 22" syndrome?

"Written history is unreliable... I'LL tell you what history was!!!"

The accounts of history are reliable for all other historic evidence, why would it be so occluded or eclipsed here?

In the midst of the book of Revelation (ch.11) there is this prophecy, that produces no profound theological truths from what was written about it, or that is, according to how it was interpreted. If you think otherwise, reply with exactly what the grand theological truths come out of that interpretation. Use quotes, and not personal opinions. You may add your opinion afterward.

I did not know that I or anyone ever forgot that history books were modified; it is not something to be remembered until it has first been established and told. This assertion is more groundless than the unreliable written history.

These sentiments are not new; Crisler had already stated that:

Crisler: "We would do well to avoid accepting the conclusions of some of the more modern historians who are attempting to rewrite history so as to shape it up in harmony with their philosophical viewpoint. We find it necessary to exercise constant vigilance in this respect; and this leads us to set considerable store by the original sources, or fountainheads, of history." {6BIO 317.4, 1911)

I think that it becomes very obvious that the ones attempting to rewrite history are those who are dissatisfied with the lack of any credible historic evidence to support their views, and readily shoot themselves in the foot, or cut off the branch they sit on, in response to their poor results. If the evidence was not able to be found in 1910, what better sources would you think are available today?

Crisler talks about the "evidence" but he never cited its source nor quoted it. That is why I termed the heading of this passage of his that I quoted, in chapter one of my next book as; "Crisler's Excuses" It is a lame excuse for the lack of finding credible evidence; Blame it on all the historians of the world, who have miraculously obliterated all record of the original evidence.

And even if you do produce the most reliable and solid evidence, you will still not be able to take that perfect evidence and demonstrate any alignment to the words of the prophecy.

No one has ever explained the "fear that fell upon them" from an account in history.


Prophecy; the fear comes AFTER

The time that the people were to be giving gifts and reveling and making merry, is the exact same time that the "historic" evidence of that alleged "fear" took place. The prophecy places the fear AFTER the 3½ years... AFTER the Two Witnesses were "raised up on their feet" and AFTER they ascended into heaven, then great fear fell upon them that saw them.


The alleged historic fulfillment show that the fear comes BEFORE

But instead, because they were alleged to have seen that their wicked ways led to such degradation, that they changed their legislative acts to rescind their former decree abolishing the Bible, BEFORE the end of the 3½ years and as the cause of raising them up. Smith wrote: "Nothing but the appalling results of the rejection of the Bible could have induced France to take her hands off these witnesses " (p. 502, Para. 6.)

You begin to see that even with the most historic record, though it were perfect, still cannot be aligned to the words of the prophecy. I want either the tangible solid evidence for proof, or the flat out admission that it is not there. The French Revolution does not align or match with the vision prophecy in Revelation 11.

It has also been noted by me that the issues surrounding the years before the French Revolution, and the years that followed, that there is and was a considerable amount of ilk going on within France, for a long time. The historical record of the less-than-perfect society of France is well noted.

Now if all the ilk of France were concentrated into a 3½ year period "after" 1798, then it would be a likely candidate for the fulfillment of Revelation 11.

Then there is the "Egypt" -- "atheism" association in the efforts of writers who have tried to link the two as the explanation of that part of the prophecy in Revelation 11, but the effort fails to be convincing. But so long as it remains outside of the intended meaning, no amount of explaining will make it into the truth, if it is simply not the intended interpretation of the prophecy. Only the truth will be capable of rendering the correct interpretation.

The demonstration gives no proofs beyond a simple statement like "A" = "B" and not a complete association like "A" = "B" and the "A" of 4 matches the "B" of 10, and both 4 and 10 show a direct connection. I would call it contextual continuity. False interpretations demonstrate difficulty of a perfect alignment, and fail to be contiguous and fail to integrate with the context of their adjacent setting.

False interpretations therefore grab at whatever it hopes to find, that could be construed to fit. And when the whole prophecy is treated this way, with all the parts assigned to something, it sacrifices the continuity of the prophecy, and stands outside of the mainstream of how prophecy and its symbols are interpreted.

This will be the invariable result of those attempting to give an interpretation of the fulfillment (in historic form) of the prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled.

Since their real fulfillment has not yet taken place, the strongest proof against a false interpretation, cannot yet be presented, because it has not yet been fulfilled, and not yet revealed.

So everybody who has something to say about what God has not yet revealed, is always going to lead to confusion. And if people force an historic interpretation upon a future prophecy, it will always be in error.

If people are saying that "atheism" is something that was invented in France, and didn't exist before, suggesting that it was something new that arose as that beast from the bottomless pit, a "NEW" power, apparently has misread Psalms 14: 1 ...The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Atheism = "There is no God."

Atheism is not a new beast, nor was it in France in 1793, as being a new manifestation of an evil power from beneath. The Bible gives ample evidence of this philosophy of "no-God-ism" in King David's time, to discredit the notion that it represents the rise of a new beast.

"Say-so" statements are not demonstrations that use verifiable, and tangible evidence.

There is no doubt at all that there was a revolution that took place in France. We read of the atrocities of the times of the Romans that is far more barbaric than France ever was. Roman threw Christian into arenas and let loose the lions on them. France dabbled with debauchery, had centuries of "slaughter" and cut heads off. But what happened in France, is not the epitome of the example of the wages of sin. It doesn't qualify itself on that to become the fulfillment of Revelation 11.

Neither is it the questions that they try to create an answer that is so bad, but the complete absence of answers to some questions that they care not to admit that they can't answer.

#1 the synchronicity of the history of the French Revolution, does not match the prophecy of Revelation 11. Dysynchonicity is what is given instead. To excuse this dysynchonicity, the interpretation is given such "pad" words as "an exact and striking fulfillment" when in fact the complete opposite is true.

 

# # # # #