The History of the French Revolution
  Here is wisdom.
Let him that hath understanding count the number
of the beast: for it is the number of a man;
and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Revelation 13: 18


The Dragon's Seven Heads

Las Siete Cabezas del Dragón



  The History of the French Revolution

And Why it is Not the Fulfillment of Revelation 11

The Beast that Ascends from the Bottomless Pit

This phrase is found in two passages in Revelation; chapter 11: 7 and 17: 8.

There is more to the link in the Bible to this 666 man. He is also the "eighth" and the "yet is" and the "beast, that ascends from the bottomless pit." The mini-chiastic pattern in Revelation 17: 8, and 11 demonstrates this parallel identity.

Both are referencing the same event: The papacy, as it rises from the bottomless pit at the coming of the eighth head. It entered this pit in 1798, when the papacy lost its power. It received a wound to one of its heads, which was pope Pius VI.

The passage that makes reference to this ascending beast from the abyss in Revelation 11: 7 is aligned with the end of the seven trumpets, in the time of the sixth trumpet. When the seventh trumpet sounds, Christ comes. These are the last events outlined before that final trump sounds. This parallels the events in Revelation 13: 11-18 and Revelation 17: 11-18.

The killing of the Two Witnesses cannot be according to the interpretation as given by Isaac Newton, Uriah Smith, nor the Great Controversy. The common problem to all of them, is in trying to render a past fulfillment to a prophecy that is yet future.

Two prominent errors immediately arise:
First, 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 the Prophecy.

The order of the placement of the fear that fell upon them in Revelation 11: 11 and by "Who" and how and when, are easily seen when the Prophecy is laid line by line with the historic record; It does not form a match. The alleged interpretation is clearly out of sequence.

The Bible outlines the following order:

A 1,260 year period of the Two Witnesses in sackcloth.
A warning against hurting them.
The Two Witnesses finish their testimony.
The beast ascends from the abyss.
The beast that ascended from the abyss makes war upon them.
The beast that ascended from the abyss kills them.
They lie in the street unburied for three and one half days.
The people revel and party over their death during this three and one half days.
God raises up the Two Witnesses and they stand on their feet, and they ascend into heaven.
The revelers see them raised up to heaven.
Great fear falls on those who see these Two Witnesses raised up.
An earthquake event that marks its end is followed quickly with the seventh trumpet which is the third woe.

As the French Revolution is applied to this whole prophecy, it makes many assumptions and is without any sufficient explanation. Several elements in that interpretation cannot be aligned between the historic record that is alleged to be its fulfillment and the order of the events as written in the prophecy. The "compensatory adjustments" that are used to explain away these differences, makes use of other prophecies and take them out of their appointed time of fulfillment.

The Great Controversy makes clear that the Two Witnesses prophesy throughout the 1,260 years. This would have the Two Witnesses prophesying in sackcloth in 1793, 1794, 1795, 1796, 1797, and up to 1798. Then, it turns around and says that the Two Witnesses were killed in 1793, five years earlier, by the French Assembly during the French Revolution. This "cuts short" the full 1,260 years of the Two Witnesses' Testimony by five years, and to justify this, the passage of the "days shortened" for the elect's sake, as the reason why the killing of the Two Witnesses occurred before 1798.

The other references in the Great Controversy that are made to this "days shortened" do correctly place the time to events that are understood to be yet future. How can the heinousness of the three and one half years (days), render evidence that the days were "cut short" for the sake of the elect?

How was the French Revolution fulfilling the Prophecy of cutting anything "short"? While it SHOULD be cutting short, the days of persecution, it amounts rather to cutting short the days of the testimony of the Two Witnesses

What really gets cut short by the French Revolution interpretation, is the length of the time of the 1,260 year prophecy and the Testimony of the Two Witnesses in sackcloth. For if it is now alleged that these Two Witnesses are still prophesying in order to fulfill their 1,260 years in sackcloth, then they are preaching while dead for 6 or 7 years. This violates the order of the events of the prophecy and different explanation is given to the "cut short" of these days, applying them to the days of the Two Witnesses' testimony and not for the elect's sake; and no explanation is given to explain preaching while being dead.

Neither of which convey them as being persecuted people of God, being saved from the "shortening of the days." It redefines the 1,260 years as actually being 1,255 years. That which the Bible says is "cut short" is not represented by any event from the French Revolution.

The French Revolution interpretation of Revelation 11 asserts that the time of persecution during the 1,260 years was cut short, alleging that it was the Two Witnesses that were killed had occurred before 1798 (1793), but 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 world was not destined to follow in the footsteps of France.

Neither is there any evidence that the 1,260 days that the Two Witnesses spent in sackcloth was shortened by this event.

The question: What does the killing of the Two Witnesses by France, have to do with shortening the 1,260 days of persecution that was carried out by the papacy?

Were those days shortened? No.

Were those 1,260 days completed to their end? Yes.

Did the Two Witnesses prophesy throughout these 1,260 days clothed in sackcloth? Yes.

Did the French Revolution affect the papal period of dominion? No, (not in the sense that could apply to 1793, but Yes in the sense as it applies to the point where France does enter into prophecy; in 1798, in the capture of Pius VI.

France did break the power of the Papacy in 1798, and overthrew the Papal power that held her and the world captive for 1,260 years.

The French Revolution interpretation of the Two Witnesses account is completely untenable. The Two Witnesses cannot be both still testifying up to 1798 clothed in sackcloth and be already dead in 1793.

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

Further alignment problems occur in the events surrounding the three and one half days. They certainly outline that 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. The Bible does not indicate that they give any more Testimony after they have been killed, but that their testimony is finished and then they are killed.

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.

There is no other place in the Bible where a beast is anything other than a political or ecclesiastical entity. 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.

We know that the papacy entered into the abyss in 1798 with the head wound to the Pius head of the papal beast. That same Pius head was the one that was healed in 1929; (Pius XI). After this beast's "head" wound is healed, then comes this eighth head, that is the "yet is". It is this one that ascends from the bottomless pit, and makes war upon the Two Witnesses.

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.

The events portrayed in Revelation 11 and 13 and 17 are all parallel, and share many equal characteristics. They are each another facet of the whole, each passage adding to the greater picture of the events yet to take place.

Atheism and the Killing of the Two Witnesses by Political Decree or Physical Burning... Is this Unique to France?


(Miscellaneous unreferenced quotes)

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.. Thousands of valuable Biblical manuscripts were burned in public squares. Many Christians lost their lives for refusing to hand over their Bibles. The aim was to eliminate the presence of the Christian religion by suppressing its normative authority. The reason given by leading philosophers and government officials was that Christianity was largely responsible for the socio-economic crises that were plaguing the empire at that time.

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. Countless Christians have lost their lives for attempting to share the teachings of the Word of God.

The success of ruthless Moslem ruler to uproot the Bible and Christianity is evident in the countries they conquered. For example, prior to the Moslem conquest of the seventh century, the North African countries of Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, were flourishing Christian nations that produced such church leaders as Augustine and Tertullian. Today, Christians and Bible are practically nonexistent in these 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. Each of the above powers in different ways have assailed the Bible by preventing its circulation among the laity.

Catholic Attempts to Prevent the Reading of the Bible

Historically the Catholic Church has been opposed to the translation of the Bible in the common languages of the people and to its circulation among the laity. For example, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229 A. D. forbade lay Christians to possess copies of the Bible. The right to read and teach the Bible was reserved to the clergy.

For centuries the Waldenses faced physical, civil, and economic persecutions at the hand of the Catholic House of Savoy for translating and distributing portions of the Bible. The most cruel massacre of the innocent Waldenses took place in the Italian Piedmont valleys in 1655 by the army of Charles Emmanuel II, the Catholic Duke of Savoy. The whole Protestant world was shocked by this brutal massacre. Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658), Lord Protector of England, protested vigorously and John Milton, his foreign secretary and poet, dedicated this famous sonnet of Paradise Lost to the thousand of slaughtered Waldenses.

"Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold, Even them who kept thy truth so pure of old, When all our fathers worshipped stocks and stones."

Incidentally, it was a Waldensian fellow carpenter who loaned a Bible to my father, while he was still a young devout Catholic. Reading that Bible proved to be a turning point in my father's religious experience, as well as in the future of our family. My father lost that Bible when he showed it to his parish priest, hoping to receive answers to questions raised by reading the Word of God.

The priest abruptly took away the Bible from my father's hands, saying: "This book will breed only confusion and unrest to your soul. Leave it with me."
It is only since the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) that the Catholic Church has encouraged its members to read the annotated Catholic Bible. This recent decision has not significantly increased the reading of the Bible in Catholic homes, because historically the Word of God has been and largely remains an unknown book to most Catholics.

Protestant Attempts to Prevent the Circulation of the Bible. Surprisingly, even Protestant rulers and church leaders have attempted to prevent the translation and circulation of the Bible. For example, Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of London, strongly opposed the efforts of William Tyndale (1494-1536) to translate and publish the Bible in English.

Tyndale, a brilliant Bible scholar trained at Oxford and Cambridge, was greatly distressed by the ignorance of the clergy and laity about the Bible. He determined to educate the English people about the Word of God by translating it in their own language. But, he faced enormous opposition from both secular and religious powers in England. Consequently, he was forced to go to Germany to continue his English translation of the New Testament.

In 1526 the first 3,000 copies of the octavo edition of Tyndale's English New Testament were published in Worms, Germany. When copies reached England, Bishop Tunstall ordered them to be collected and burned at St. Paul's Cross in London. Eventually, Tyndale's New Testament became the basis for the King James translation.

Tyndale was relentlessly attacked for daring to translate the Bible into English. He was attacked not only by London Bishop Tunstall, but also by William Warham, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Thomas Moore, the Chancellor of the English Parliament.

These men sent secret agents to trap him as he moved around from his Antwerp base. He was finally arrested and imprisoned in the Castle of Vilvorde, a few miles from Brussels. Early in October 1536 he was strangled in the courtyard of the castle. The effectiveness of the opposition to Tyndale's English translation of the New Testament was such, that of the 18,000 copies that were smuggled to England, only two known copies remain.

Communists Attacks Against the Bible.

In the past 100 years Communist governments have attempted to discredit the Bible and to prevent its circulation in their countries. They have used both educational and legal measures. Educationally, people have been taught that the Bible is a superstitious fairy tale book to be rejected by enlightened communist minds. Legally, many people have been arrested and imprisoned for attempting to smuggle Bibles into communist countries.

Autocratic political and religious systems feel threatened by the Bible because its message summons people to give priority to God in their thinking and living. When people accept the God of biblical revelation, making Him first and supreme in their lives, they will not give in to the demands of autocratic political or religious rulers who want the absolute allegiance to their persons, teachings, or parties.


The past attempts to suppress the Bible by burning it or banning it, have proven to be futile. Christians have been willing to suffer torture and death, rather than denying its truths which made them free. The Bible remains unchallenged year after year as the world's best seller. It is still the greatest force for the moral renewal of our human society.

Voltaire, the noted French infidel who died in 1778, predicted that within 100 years Christianity would be extinct. Instead, the irony of history is that the Geneva Bible Society used his house and his printing presses to publish copies of the Bible! No other book in history has been so hated, burned, and banned. Yet it still survives today and reaches almost all the people of the world with its close to 2000 translations. Its moral principles still serve as the moral foundation of many societies.

As the new commentary on Revelation by Ranko Stefanovic, he states that the Two Witnesses were not only the New and Old Testaments, but the Word as it was absorbed in men, that we as the people of God were the living Testimony to the world.

Note also that the same reference to the peoples, nation, kings and tongues, signifies as does the Three Angel's message, and the "little book" message, that this event is also global, and not limited to the actions of one country.

To say that France was so important in the prophecies of Revelation that it reserves mention, is peculiar... It is no more than a footnote of a little more than 200 years ago. As for serving the purpose of showing mankind the heinousness of evil and the debauchery of mankind at its worst, I ask; does it really take this as an example to demonstrate to anyone how evil sin is, or what would happen to man without God? If we never heard of the French Revolution, wouldn't we still have a sense of how evil sin is?

There are plenty of other, more significant signs of the nearness of the end than that dark spot of history, so it cannot serve well as a sign of the end.

What I understand from the passage in Revelation 11 regarding the Two Witnesses, is that it corresponds to the same period that is referenced in the last half of Revelation 13, and the last half of Revelation 17, and is a more detailed list of elements that relate to the last "war" before Christ comes. Then the seventh trumpet sounds. The third woe comes quickly after the events under the sixth are done.

I hold to the view as expressed by the current commentary on Revelation as published from Andrews University; The Two Witnesses are the people bearing the Gospel Testimony of the Bible to the world. This involves many people.

The outline of Revelation 11 shows the 1,260 years, that is the same timeframe as is mentioned elsewhere. It shows in Revelation 17 that the time following this "was" is the "is not" time, when the beast's head was wounded with a deadly wound, and is shown as a beast that is not.

Immediately after this period of "is not" it is followed by the "yet is" which is under the eighth head, and Revelation 11 and 13 confirm that this eighth head makes "war" on the remnant, which comprise the people of God that bear this final message to the world.

Yes, France did a terrible thing, but it is not the fulfillment of Revelation 11.

No one has yet shown any linking of France in 1793 with the 1,260 years of papal dominion, nor has it been shown how the days were shortened for flesh's sake, nor that France was ever in an abyss prior to 1793, nor that France is ever mentioned as a beast in Revelation or elsewhere.

The prophecy sets the following order;

After They shall have finished Their Testimony
The beast that ascendeth from the bottomless pit
shall make war with Them
and kill Them.

The alleged fulfillment historic record show that; the Two Witnesses prophesied for 1,255 years
then They are killed in 1793.
Who is prophesying during 1793 - 1798?
It can't be the Two Witnesses, because They're dead, They're killed "after" Their Testimony is said to be finished.

The Great Controversy holds that the Two Witnesses have two different dates for the ending of the Two Witnesses' Testimony: 1793 and 1798.

Not only was the truth still being proclaimed by the Two Witnesses, but the Testimony of the story goes on to validate that fact by asserting the many Bible Societies that sprung up and the widespread publishing that took place in the early 1800s. They were giving Their Testimony all the more and certainly "out of the sackcloth".

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}

I have said that the French Revolution interpretation of Revelation 11 is false, and I still stand on that, and more so now than before, because I have seen the Testimony of the Word (Bible) demonstrate that the fulfillment is yet future, and is also described in other passages of the Bible and in the Spirit of Prophecy, and the elements of the prophecy in Revelation 11 are shown to match those in Revelation 13 and 17 and in the Gospels, and in several passages of the Spirit of Prophecy that do not contain any borrowed literary works of others' errors.

William Miller was also known to have written about the interpretation of Revelation 11, and also applying it to the French Revolution, very similar to his contemporary; Uriah Smith. The article I recently read, was written as an attack on William Miller's views, and they assaulted him in this very area of interpretation, because there were faults exposed, and have shown where William Miller erred in applying "that great city" to two different things.

The flaw in that theology is that it does not remain consistent: An element of prophecy that is interactive and relative to other prophecies, must remain as the same entity within the serial line of the prophecies. Babylon the Great, is "that great city" in all the passages that it is found in. It cannot be France in one prophecy, and the Papacy in another.

Ellen White's writings did not contribute one iota beyond what U. Smith, W. Miller, G. Storrs, had written in avoiding this error, as it was this very error that was exposed in her work as well. So it doesn't matter who writes the errors; if it is an error that is copied, it is still an error. Just because it was written by a Prophetess, doesn't make an error into truth.

There is no difference among us, as to whether the Two Witnesses are the two testaments of the Word, neither is there any doubt that They were obscured in sackcloth for the span of 1,260 years that ended in 1798. On this we all can agree.

We all agree that this obscuring of the Word was perpetrated by the papacy.

So why then, at this same period of time, are people pointing to France, when the papacy has done such despite to the Word for such a long time?

The historians have embellished the anti-religious sentiment and accounts, and the anti-French sentiments were high following the Revolution. Interpreters have erred in giving an historic interpretation to a prophecy that is not yet fulfilled.

Do they 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, that the beast that "was," became the "is not" and indeed this papal beast was killed for the hurt that it levied upon the Two Witnesses.

Did this fact escape all of us?

Yet there is nowhere mentioned in anyone's commentary of how the papal beast had faced the prophetic consequences of its hurting of the Two Witnesses. The very mention of sackcloth, identifies the hurting of the Two Witnesses and everyone knows by whom.

This same beast that held the Two Witnesses in obscurity, had itself been plunged into obscurity. And when this beast under the next legitimate pontificate, presents the eighth head following 1798, arises from out of this bottomless pit, it will wage war again upon the Two Witnesses, and kill Them.

How is it that this will be done?

By the enactment of the Sunday laws, the papacy will have put to death the Word of the Two Witnesses. Their Testimony will have then been completed, and their death permitted to take place.

After the enactment of the Sunday law, the faithful will make haste to escape the cities and towns and flee to the remote places and the wicked will exult in their demise and rejoice in the ridding of earth of the faithful. Thus it is said that they give gifts to one another, reveling in the death of the Two Witnesses.

These references from the Spirit of Prophecy, show the correct 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. {Mar 270.5}

In those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this 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}

None but the hundred and forty-four thousand can learn that song; for it is the song of their experience--an experience such as no other company have ever had. "These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth." These, having been translated from the earth, from among the living, are counted as "the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb." Revelation 15:2, 3; 14:1-5. "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 have 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.

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:

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, 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. 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."

There is a span of two hundred and six years since the French Revolution, but as for the sounding of the sixth trumpet, and the announcement of the second woe, one Witness speaks thus; Revelation 11: 14. The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly. It's been 206 years since the French Revolution. This does not portend to be a quick coming of the third woe, once the second woe is past.

The very events of the last days as recorded in the Word and in the Spirit of Prophecy, hold forth clear evidence that the papacy beast has fulfilled, or will yet fulfill these elements of this prophecy.

Thus it is that the sense of eminent domain regarding the line upon line of the Witness, is correct, and the "beast that ascends from out of the bottomless pit" of Revelation 11 and 17 is indeed the papacy beast, and it will indeed kill Them after Their Testimony is finished.

There is no evidence written in the word that states that a little before the year 1798 the Two Witnesses would be killed. It has been presumed upon the Word falsely. This and all references to the French Revolution as the fulfillment of this passage in Revelation 11, are patently false. If anyone examines the historic record of the French Revolution, they will find that the historians have embellished the accounts within the Revolution that exploit the anti-religious sentiment, and rather, the Revolution was the result of a nation being forced to exit its feudal system that exploited the poor and favored the rich, and the poor revolted against unfair prices for common commodities and food.

Another point brought up is that Ellen White was "inspired" and "borrowed" from other writers where she saw truth revealed. However, this assertion was not made by her, but by her son. Mind you all, her son was not inspired, and his statements are not sufficient to support the use of borrowed writings, exempting them from all error.

I do not assert that God deceived Ellen White, but that He allowed the use of borrowed material and as in other past times, He has allowed error to be held and believed without taking the means to correct them.

"Actually, during the vision, wholly unbeknown to her, she spoke of what was passing before her. J. N. Loughborough recounted in print the description of the meeting as Bates told it to him: {1BIO 113.3}

"Mrs. White, while in vision, began to talk about the stars, giving a glowing description of rosy-tinted belts which she saw across the surface of some planet, and added, `I see four moons.' {1BIO 113.4}

" `Oh,' said Elder Bates, `she is viewing Jupiter!' Then having made motions as though traveling through space, she began giving a description of belts and rings in their ever-varying beauty, and said, `I see seven moons.' {1BIO 113.5}

"Elder Bates exclaimed, `She is describing Saturn.' {1BIO 113.6}
"Next came the description of Uranus, with its six moons; then a wonderful description of the `opening heavens,' with its glory, calling it an opening into a region more enlightened. Elder Bates said that her description far surpassed any account of the opening heavens he had ever read from any author. {1BIO 113.7}

"A few months later James White wrote:
"At our conference in Topsham, Maine, last November, Ellen had a vision of the handiworks of God. She was guided to the planets Jupiter, Saturn, and I think one more. [Ellen White, neither in vision nor afterward, gave the names of the planets she saw. From her descriptions Bates identified them and James White made use of his identification.] After she came out of vision, she could give a clear description of their moons, et cetera. It is well known that she knew nothing of astronomy, and could not answer one question in relation to the planets, before she had this vision." WLF, p. 22. {1BIO 114.6}

From this account, the number of the moons was given by Ellen White, and regardless of whether the planets were correctly identified, the record shows that none of the nine planets have these numbers of moons.

Jupiter = four moons
Saturn = seven moons
Uranus = six moons

In reality, the following is the current record;

Mercury, no moon
Venus, no moon
Earth one moon
Mars, two moons
*Jupiter, sixteen moons +11 = 27
*Saturn, eighteen moons +2 = 20
*Uranus, fifteen moons +6 = 21
Neptune, eight moons
Pluto, one moon

*these planets have had more moons discovered since these numbers were counted.

Her visions were dependent upon what the people knew at that time, and did not reflect reality, as none of the nine planets have either four, seven or six moons.

Line upon Line:
Revelation 11
1. And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and Them that worship therein.
2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
3. And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.
4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

This contains no controversy regarding its identity and the time of the 1,260 days. It sets forth the platform for the rest of the prophecy. It is paralleled by the "was" time of the papal beast.

5 And if any man will hurt Them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt Them, he must in this manner be killed.
This reflects the "is not" time of the beast.

The "little horn" as the blasphemous seven headed leopard-like beast spake great words against God, and having thought to change the Word of God, did indeed hurt the Two Witnesses. And immediately at the end of the 1,260 years of sackcloth, the retribution of the Two Witnesses upon the papal beast, was the wounding of the head Pius with a deadly wound, and the papal beast begins its time in the bottomless pit as the beast after 1798 "is not". It was a beast that was killed and is not.

6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.
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.

This reflects the "yet is" time of the beast, when under the eighth head, the beast completes the number and the antichrist revealed.

The final war is waged over Loyalty to God through the recognition of and the keeping of His holy Sabbath. The papacy under the eighth head wages this war by working through the ten protestant horns and the two-horned beast to enact laws requiring Sunday observance. The installment of a Sunday law, is an annulment of the Two Witnesses, thus killing Them.

8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

If someone were to suggest to me that these two cities mentioned were a description of the characteristics of the papacy, I would have to agree. Revelation 18: 10 Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. And in verse 16: And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! 17 For in one hour so great riches is come to nought.

This also appears to coincide with Daniel 11: 45 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.

Jerusalem was the city where our Lord was crucified. Do these passages predict that the Vatican will move to Jerusalem, as others have suggested? And from this place, the papacy issues the decree to exalt Sunday? This would be that abomination that maketh desolate, standing in the holy place, and the sign for the saints.

9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.

The reference to the "people, kindreds tongues and nations," does not allow an interpretation that is limited to France. This is referencing a global event, and not one that is just centered in France, in which the rest of the world are merely onlookers.

These are the same groups that the Three Angels' Messages are preached to, and the same ones that we must prophesy again to as spoken by the angel that stood upon the sea and the earth. (Revelation 10). These are the waters upon which the whore sits... Revelation 17: 15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over Them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented Them that dwelt on the earth.

The wicked will have all but destroyed the people of God, and have removed their tormenters from their sight. No one remaining among them will hear the Testimony of the Two Witnesses any more. Their voice had been silenced, their testimony was finished, and they are killed.

11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into Them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw Them.

Satan has made the world to bow to him for the last time, and when all appears that they have eradicated the saints from bearing the tormenting Testimony of the Two Witnesses to their ears, they begin to celebrate the antichrist. Until...the Lord commissions His angels that bear the seven vials of the wrath of God, to pour them out, and the revelers realize that their brief moment of glory has vaporized, and they set out to pursue the remnant. But God has His angels camped around His people assembled in small companies.

12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto Them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld Them. 13 And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven.

The last reference of this passage is that the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to God.
The "Remnant" of God, at this time, will have just experienced the assaults from the "yet is" beast,. They were affrighted, but they also experience the mighty intervention by God on their behalf, then they give glory to God. Then "quickly" the Lord prepares to come to receive His own. The seventh trumpet sounds. The Two Witnesses are revealed from heaven to all the world.

14. The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.
15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
16 And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and Them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

As concerning the many references to the time of trouble in the Spirit of Prophecy, it cannot be disputed that it has been applied to the future, as well as these same passages referenced to apply to the past. I did not create this conflict, but I only followed out my conviction from reading the Word, where it has given the indication of what this ascending beast from the bottomless pit was, and when it was to occur. It also appears that in reference to this, there is also much supporting evidence from the Spirit of Prophecy. It only presents this point of conflict from this passage that is of her, not being directly inspired, but has "borrowed" from other writers. This is indeed a part of the prophecy which God has kept hidden until the time of identifying the 666 beast was to be understood. 2Thessalonians 2: 6 - 8. Though the motifs of the Two Witnesses are seen raised up to heaven and revealed to the world are carefully described by Ellen White, she makes no reference to Revelation 11 as its predicted fulfillment.

I see no harm at all in the discarding of the Great Controversy account of the French Revolution. It is "borrowed material" and where it presents such conflicts, the "inspired" portions should clearly be retained and the "borrowed" should be discarded.

According to the French Revolution interpretation, the beast is shown ascending from the bottomless pit.

Now every other mention of this place of abyss, is accompanied with an identifying of going into it and coming out of it. Here we have a beast, alleged to be France...

Where is it shown that France has entered the scene, and how long, and what for, was this French abyss?

This is grabbing a beast from out of nowhere, thus being its first introduction into Scripture, and never mentioned again, and plays no significant role in the last day events, that we all know are papal or papal related.

Then, this beast disappears into oblivion with no consequence to France after their assaulting action against the Two Witnesses. Has France been killed as they were? (All the while, this papal beast is in an abyss, and has remained there since 1798, waiting to come out of this abyss.)

It's the Bible that I expect to reflect the interpretation. The explanation of the French Revolution does not address all the elements within the prophecy. Words are also added to it that the Bible does not say.

The disunity is in the use of the passages supporting the interpretation, by the SOP, and applied differently in other parts of the SOP. The conflict is within the SOP itself.

Says George Croly: "The `Two Witnesses' are the Old and New Testaments. . . . "When they shall have finished Their Testimony," (that is, "in sackcloth.") (As elsewhere expressed persecution was shortened before the period itself expired.)

Who was dispensing this persecution for 1,260 years?

Does the passage in Matthew 24: 22 pertain to the very last days in the last year or two of time before the second coming? Or to a period of time of about two hundred or so years before the end?

How is it that the shortening of the days were to preserve man's life on earth, is to be perceived as the "slaying" of the Two Witnesses that was to occur before the end of the 1,260 years, instead of after as it reads in the Scripture?

The "event" was predetermined by the prophecy to be 3 and one half days (or years), and was to occur "after" the 1,260 years...or "after" they finished their testimony that occurred for 1,260 years from 538 through and up to 1798. But they are killed before 1798. Hence the conclusion must be rendered that says they were not in sackcloth when they were dead, nor could they be prophesying, or they would be considered as not actually being dead. So why are we to presume that the Bible says that they prophesied in sackcloth for 1,260 years, but this actually means 1,255 years? (1,260 years minus 5 years, 538 A.D. to 1793 A.D.)

The interpretation presumes upon certain elements that it asserts as facts;

The Two Witnesses are the Old and New Testaments.

The Two Witnesses prophesy for 1,260 years in sackcloth. Only? or even shorter than their allotted time because they are killed in 1793???

How can they perform their prophetic time of Their Testimony if they die before Their Testimony is finished???

"When they shall have finished Their Testimony," Smith presumes upon the understanding that the Bible has finished its Testimony "BEFORE" the end of the time of the 1,260 years, and offers a poor exegetic to support it as fact.

It does so by invoking another verse of Scripture that gives no indication that it is speaking of the same timeframe, or that they are addressing the same issue. Does the context of Matthew 24: 22 show it to apply to the time around 1798?

It presumes upon the association of the end of the 1,260 years with France or with atheism when we all know that it was the Papacy that held those years in dominance, and now the ire of that beast is conferred to France, as the beast that ascends from the bottomless pit.

It presumes that the Two Witnesses are to prophesy only in sackcloth, and not afterward. Yet history shows and it is even acknowledged that the Two Witnesses are seen giving Their Testimony in a greater way afterward in the Bible Societies that formed after 1798. It presumes that the finishing of Their Testimony occurred BEFORE the time of Their Testimony in sackcloth is ended.

It actually cuts off five years from the time of their prophesying to say that Their Testimony is "finished" and are "killed".

I say how can this be?

Which element of this sackcloth and persecution of 1,260 years is to show that the days are shortened or flesh would not be saved? Was it the persecution of the papal dominance that the Reformation had been beating quite successfully against, or the French abolition of the Bible that purportedly occurred in 1793?

(Please excuse my many redundancies in this document)

Was the life of man on earth threatened by the French Assembly? Was the whole world on the verge of following France's footsteps?

Does the Bible still prophesy today outside of this sackcloth? And has Their Testimony really been finished, yet?

When the Bible Societies and widespread publication in the presses began after 1798, does this fit the interpretation of the element of prophecy that states; "And after three days and a half the Spirit of God entered into Them, and great fear fell upon them which saw Them?

Did the publication of the Bible put great fear on those who were the recipients of the Bible, or cause fear to the papacy? Or to those that burned them?

What is the difference between the Two Witnesses "stand upon their feet" after their death and their "ascending up to heaven in a cloud"?

How can these Two Witnesses be exalted after they were killed, after Their Testimony was to be finished? If they are exalted as stated; being widely published, is that not then a continuation of Their Testimony... out of their sackcloth experience?

This whole interpretation of Revelation as it has been explained in Uriah Smith's book is full of contradiction and amalgamation of Scriptures that do not give any clear evidence of accuracy, but require contorted explanations in order try to fit history in order to justify the interpretation.

Even before placing this interpretation up against a competing theory, it already begins to fail the test of sound Biblical principles.

It places the killing before the time of its prophesy in sackcloth is over, a time when we are told that it is giving its Testimony.

It presumes that the Two Witnesses do not prophesy after their time of being in sackcloth. The Bible does not reference the finishing of Their Testimony with the period of the sackcloth. What Scriptural evidence is there that is supposed to prove this as fact?

It presumes that the time of their prophesy was cut short because man's life was endangered, yet does not demonstrate any threat to man but uses it as and excuse to place the Witness killing before the time allotted by the prophecy.

Was it the Testimony of their prophecy that was the threat to man and thus necessitated their death?

What is cut short? The days. Why? Because man's life is threatened with no flesh being saved unless the days are shortened.

How are the days cut short? By the killing of the witness, shortening their days of Their Testimony?

It is not at all logical to place the saving of threatened flesh with the shortening of the Testimony of the Two Witnesses, as being the same thing. This interpretation of Smith does not fit the prophecy of Revelation 11... not one iota of it fits.

Did fear fall upon man that saw Them stand on Their feet after They were killed and raised?
The Two Witnesses; The Old and New Testaments...
Prophesy in Sackcloth from 538 to 1798

Do They Finish Their Testimony in 1793 or 1798?
Or at the end of the Investigative Judgment? Or at the End of Man's Probation or at the Second Coming?
Are they Killed in 1793?
Are raised up again on their feet in 1797?
Ascend to heaven in a cloud?
Cause great fear when their enemies beheld Them?

Imagine the French Assembly, seeing the horror that they caused in abolishing the Bible in 1793...Is this that fear that is to come upon them that see them raised up onto their feet again? Or is it merely that acknowledgment WHILE they are presumed dead, of the consequences of their legislative actions? Do you propose that they felt the same AFTER they rescinded their death-to-the-Bible decree, while the Two Witnesses are allegedly being "RAISED UP". If "FEAR" is being drawn into this picture, I see it as being drawn on the wrong side of the line of time, separated by Their being raised up. The French Revolution interpretation says they had fear before they were raised up, and The Scripture says that they had fear after they saw that God had raised them up.

The French Revolution interpretation has alleged this order of events; the killing of the Two Witnesses, the people's fear, the raising up of the Two Witnesses, and then the Two Witnesses finish their testimony in sackcloth.

The killing of the Witnesses is applied by Smith to occur before the 1,260 days, because if the 1,260 days were to run their full course, man's life on earth would end... no flesh saved. But didn't the 1,260 years run its full course? What was the grand threat that hung over man? What did the "KILLING OF THE TWO WITNESSES" in 1793 have to do with shortening of the days for man's sake?

The statements supporting the French Revolution interpretation of Revelation 11 as written in the SOP, in Uriah Smith's Daniel and Revelation, and by Croly and Storrs, and all who have "COPIED" these passages are all in error, because the entire premise upon which this interpretation was built was in error. No amount of "TWISTING" of the facts can make them fit the specifications of the prophecy.

The Bible reads:
1. Two Witnesses preach in sackcloth for 1,260 years
2. They come out of this sackcloth after 1798, and preach openly
3. The Two Witnesses finish Their testimony
4. The beast ascends from the bottomless pit (The papacy)
5. The beast makes war on the Two Witnesses
6. The beast kills the Two Witnesses
7. The Two Witnesses are raised up again by God calling Them
8. The Two Witnesses ascend up to heaven
9. Fear falls upon them that see them raised up by God
10. The second coming

The French Revolution interpretation goes like this:
1. Two Witnesses preach in sackcloth for 1,260 years
OR... 1,255 years in sackcloth and are killed early.
OR... They miraculously are still preaching five years after they were killed.
2. They come out of this sackcloth after 1798, and preach openly
UH... fear? after being raised?
3. The Two Witnesses finish Their testimony
UH...1793 or perhaps at the end of their sackcloth time; 1798
4. The beast ascends from the bottomless pit
Atheism, not mentioned in any prophecy.
5. The beast makes war on the Two Witnesses
Absent, no war is depicted apart from the killing alleged in 1793.
6. The beast kills the Two Witnesses
Burning the Bible, enthroning the "Goddess of Reason."
7. The Two Witnesses are raised up again by God calling Them
Foreign Bible Societies spring up
8. The Two Witnesses ascend up to heaven
Widespread publishing of the Bible
9. Fear falls upon them that see them raised up by God
UH... that happened when the people saw what a mess they made when the Bible was outlawed. Back up to 1797, a year before they finish their experience in sackcloth.

My Bible prophesies in and out of sackcloth. Today, my Bible is not in a sackcloth. Its Testimony is still not finished. The papal beast has not yet ascended from its bottomless pit. France does not have the power to kill the Bible. The Bible, as a book, is not subject to death. The lives of those who are giving their voice to the Testimony are targets of the war and death.

Elijah, Moses, Daniel, Isaiah, John the Baptist, and Paul were the men of the voices of the Testimony of the Two Witnesses. This Testimony is heard again in the writings of Ellen White. It is to be heard again before the Second Coming by yet others (plural) according to the Bible.

What is the beast that ascends from out of the bottomless pit? If it is France or atheism, then what is the bottomless pit that it ascends out of?

Is the bottomless pit some grand denial of God as the Pharaoh of Egypt who said; Who is this God that I should hearken unto? How would coming OUT of this pit appear? Admission of God?

Did France ascend out of this pit of denial and then kill the Two Witnesses?

Did France or atheism ascend out of anything resembling a bottomless pit?

Smith defines the bottomless pit as an atheistic power having "no foundation". Nov 1 1793 France declared itself atheist.

Smith writes that; ``Thus in just three years, and a half, the witnesses `stood on their feet, and great fear fell upon them which saw them.' Nothing but the appalling results of the rejection of the Bible could have induced France to take her hands off these witnesses.'' (This was first written by George Storrs May 4 1843 and Ellen White was only beginning her ministry. She was decades away from writing this into her Great Controversy).

Examine this in relation to the Scripture: "AFTER" the Two Witnesses were raised from the dead by God, then fear falls on them that see this happen. Smith and Storrs have it as the fear that they saw of the effect of the dead witnesses upon their society was the invoking action that "resurrects" Them. In the prophecy, the fear comes after the Witnesses had been resurrected, whereas Smith and Storrs have the fear manifested as before They were resurrected, AND as the cause of their resurrection. These two applications of what happens before and after is what Smith and Storrs have skewered their interpretation. Neither has any line upon line of Scripture been invoked referencing the beast that ascends from out of the bottomless pit, though the reference is indeed found in Scripture. How can anyone say that France is the striking fulfillment of Revelation 11? There's nothing "striking" at all in any part of it. It's a long tome of many unfitting elements.

"Two Dogmas of Empiricism" (which is reprinted in "From a Logical Point of View"), show that nearly any statement can be made to fit with the data, so long as one makes the requisite "compensatory adjustments."

If you examine the parallels of the papal record, with the prophecy of the seven heads and the number 666, it should be observed that there are virtually no compensatory adjustments. It demonstrates rather a very simple and straightforward approach to the interpretation. Only the first element of considering that the number 666 was related to the numbers found in the papal record, could possibly be construed as speculation, but after examining that record, it readily yielded forth the elements from its history, a whole long list of straightforward and simple matches resulted. When the whole line of matched elements are seen completely, it also demonstrates internal unity and continuity. The linear fulfillment of all the elements in a contiguous testimony changes the first element from a matter of speculation to a matter of certainty.

The interpretation of Revelation 11 to be the French Revolution, is chock full of "compensatory adjustments". I assert by the Word of God that the interpretation of Revelation 11 as having met its fulfillment in the experience of the French Revolution is entirely false.

Occam's Razor: The simplest explanation of two or more competing theories is the preferred interpretation.

The "discovery" of this research was first of one element, but from there, the Bible and history dictated what direction the prophecy intends it to have, and it was followed by a host of more Biblical elements that confirmed the study as present truth.

My challenge arose as a previous continuum of findings (match after match, of the elements of the papacy, and the prophecy that depicts this beast. Before and after that passage in Revelation 17: 9, 10 is Revelation 17: 8 and 11.

Note the following parallel;

Group 1
verse 8(a) The beast that thou sawest was,
verse 11 And the beast that was,
verse 8(b) ...behold the beast that was

Group 2
verse 8(a) and is not,
verse 11 and is not,
verse 8(b) and is not

Group 3
verse 8(a) and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit
verse 11 even he is the eighth, and is of the seven
verse 8(b) and yet is

Group 4
verse 8 and go into perdition
verse 11 and goeth into perdition


Notice that in groups 1, 2 and 4, are all verbatim identical in the verses, but group 3 shows three different facets of what we are to understand, is also three things that are identical. The beast, at this time, ascends from his bottomless pit, and this is the eighth, that follows after the seven, and this is also the "yet is," placing it at its time.

Verse 11 includes the repeating of; to whom the mark of the beast is given, as also stated in Revelation 20: 15, and in Revelation 14: 9, 10. It reads; ``and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,...'' and it finishes with an epilog as noted in 8(b) redirecting back to the original; ``when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.'' This last sentence sets the foundation of the whole period represented by the beast. The ``yet is'' is ``the eighth'' that follows in succession after the seven, and it is he who ``ascends from out of the bottomless pit.''

This final sentence is the template pattern of the whole of the two texts; it is discussing the beast and how it appears. The ``was'' is from 538 to 1798, the ``is not'' is from 1798 to the end of the seventh head, and the ``yet is'' is the time of the eighth head until he is destroyed at the Second Coming. The eighth head is the next legitimate pontiff following John Paul II. In Revelation 11: 7 - 13 it shows that the final elements of the prophecy are at the terminal end of the second woe. And the third woe that follows quickly, is the beginning of the sounding of the seventh angel's trumpet announcing God's fully restored eternal reign.

So the challenge is this;

How can the French Revolution be the fulfillment of Revelation 11?

The passage Revelation 11: 7 reads;

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.

It matters not what one thinks the seven heads are, all have to explain how this reference "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit" from Revelation 11 and "shall ascend out of the bottomless pit" from Revelation 17, is not linked, because the context of Revelation 17 is definitely near the terminal end of time. The eighth head is identified with the ascending beast from the bottomless pit. Revelation 11 is also depicting the time just preceding the end, as it reads: v14. "The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly." The third woe is the seventh trumpet, and Revelation 10: 7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. The Two Witnesses ascend into heaven just shortly before the Second Coming.

If the ascending from pit beast of Revelation 11 is atheism, or "France" then it needs to be explained how it is a different pit, or a different time, because as it appears to me, both Revelation 11 and 17 refers to the same future context:

Any French Revolution application leaves a 200 year gap in the prophecy that requires that there be two pits and two different beasts.

I do not consider that the two passages of the ascending beast are referring to two different things. I believe that Revelation 11 is also end-time prophecy with the death of the Two Witnesses at a future time.

Place along side each other, the passage of Scripture, and the claimed fulfilling elements of the French Revolution. I do not see any "striking fulfillment" at all, but a whole long list of misfit twisted-if-needed explanations, that ignore specific elements;

"And when They have finished Their Testimony" Did They only prophesy for the 1,260 years and then quit? Did They only prophesy in sackcloth? If the Two Witnesses are the New and Old Testaments, then has Their Testimony been finished...yet?

Do you begin to see the inconsistencies?

The laws of the French that rescinded the Bible for three and one half years was actually three years and seven months, but no reference to the dates are listed in the Great Controversy.
My understanding of prophecy is far more accurate than that. Thirty days is not insignificant in pinpointing prophetic events.

The problem exists also in the before and after. Even if considering that 1793 was the beginning of the three and one half days, why does this occur before the 1,260 years are up and not "After" according to the prophecy?

In my judgment, before and after issues play major factors in determining whether or not any specific point in history is the precise fulfillment of a specific prophecy.

I reviewed the passages of Revelation 17: 8, 11 and Revelation 11: 7 and showed them to a member of some Jewish Messianic Christian denomination, (Sabbath-keeping). When I told him that some believe that Revelation 11 refers to the French Revolution, he got a puzzled look on his face and said: "They do? Why?" he saw the direct parallel as shown between Revelation 17: 8 and 11, and agrees that the 8th is the beast without a doubt, and that it is the papacy and that this eighth is yet future. He also understood that the wording: "the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit" is of the same identical beast and of the same (last generation alive) time.

The first title that I gave the first booklet I wrote on the number 666, references the principle that was observed by William of Ockham. He coined the term "Occam's Razor".

The principle of "Occam's Razor" is that things ought not to be multiplied needlessly, and the simplest explanation of competing theories is the preferred. His principle has been used extensively in the establishment of truth. But when all the theories are in on end time issues, 1888 +/-, then what do we do with truth that God had not given until 1997?

In every other direction I looked regarding my research, I saw an even blending in, to the understanding that Ellen White left with us. But as the research grew deeper, it confronted this obstacle; The "ascending beast."

Then when I encountered the "ascending beast" reference, and apply the rules of Scripture, it suddenly leaps out as a conflict with the SOP. The conflict exists in the time that Scripture shows the event to be as different than the SOP. Bible = future for "ascending beast" and SOP shows it past: 1798 +/-.

So I ask; Show the understanding from Scripture and parallel it with the SOP interpretation. Give it an "Occam's" test; write the simplest explanation. I didn't assemble the Bible nor frame the words of the SOP, but the "ascending beast" reference is there and is found in only these two places.

This passage is referring to a future time. It cannot be the French Revolution. It does not fit. (In regard to SEVERAL of its aspects).

While all agree that the time of the Two Witnesses preaching in sackcloth ends at 1798, my opponents presume upon the Bible to make the time of the 1,260 days (years) less than 1,260 years. How they can do this and still say it "fits" is beyond any sense of reality.

The Two Witnesses are killed AFTER They have finished Their Testimony. They do not preach from their state of being dead.

If 1793 was their last point in time when They preached, then that must mark the end of the 1,260 days (years). (IF, and ONLY IF it is again presumed upon the prophecy that the preaching of the Two Witnesses occurs ONLY in sackcloth.)

The Bible does not state that the Two Witnesses preach only in sackcloth, but that their preaching in "sackcloth" occurs for a period of 1,260 years. God does not state that after He raises Them up, that They resume their preaching... This is what They are seen doing in such a greater force after 1798 than before.

When God raises Them up and their enemies behold Them, THEN fear falls upon those that see Them. It is not the fear of what has happened in France that is the raising of Them up by God. If it were, then it would be their own fear that preceded their being raised, and it would be an act by them and not God that raises Them.

There lacks also the precedent for any beast shown in prophecy to represent such a thing as atheism, which is not even a kingdom. It is a philosophy or belief. Beasts are not philosophies or belief systems. A beast may HAVE a philosophy or belief, but that does not constitute a beast. No other such use is applied to any other prophecy in this manner.

And if the people just keep on believing that mis-fit "brick-in-the-wall" they will surely MISS the real intended meaning of this prophecy when it does happen.

They of the People, Nations, Kindreds and Tongues... Not for just the people of France. ALL people, nations, kindreds and tongues will see this happen.

It is to these same four categories that the Three Angels' Messages are preached. There are three other references to these groups, which all of these references signify a WORLD WIDE affair.

In light of the fact that Revelation 11 lies right in the sixth trumpet and just preceding the seventh, places it directly in the place in time where Revelation 17b and Revelation 13b is; (future). The beast that ascends from the bottomless pit is the same in both Revelation 17: 8 and Revelation 11: 7. The time intersects, and the text phrase intersects. How can anyone show that these are not the same?
As in imminent domain, the research I have done, directly involves Revelation 11, and the French Revolution interpretation of it, stands in the way of letting this prophecy disclose its true interpretation.

In all the interpretation I have given in regard to Revelation 17 was straightforward, and simple, and guided by the passages of the prophecy Themselves. It is no different in Revelation 11. And the reliability of the pre-existing views of Revelation 11 is no different than in Revelation 17.

What I have shown here is that I follow the Biblical connections already in the text.

As we approach the last crisis, it is of vital moment that harmony and unity exist among the Lord's instrumentalities. The world is filled with storm and war and variance. Yet under one head--the papal power-- the people will unite to oppose God in the person of His witnesses. {Mar 187.1}

1798 to the present is what comprises the time of the beast as "is not" and is also the time of the bottomless pit. The beast that rises from this pit, regains its former power, unites with its ten horns for an hour, and kills the Two Witnesses. The Two Witnesses are living and deliver the prophecy of God at the end. Their Testimony comes to its finish just before the day of judgment. Until then, the Testimony of the Two Witnesses continues as They do now.

This is what is spoken of when the Scriptures say that then will be a time of trouble such as not since the earth began, nor will there ever be again. (So why is this reference used as an "apology" for the explanation of the French Revolution??? Was that time the most horrible, and that it will never be that bad again? ...days shortened? Past or future???)

Furthermore, a reading of that chapter goes on and on and on, paragraph after paragraph haranguing on the vile character of the people in France. Anti-French sentiment was high then (when she "quoted" these things) as it is now. Is this Ellen's writings or borrowed beliefs from other writers? The chapter on the "Two Witnesses" is not included in the new Great Controversy. The White Estate does not believe that because she quoted D'Aubigne that his words were inspired or that it makes his interpretation correct. Wylie, Smith and Isaac Newton are also heavily quoted.

The validity of the French Revolution interpretation was challenged on a forum, and one person has stepped forward to post this information that he, and others have accepted as the final answer. The person posting this seems to fail in discerning the extreme damage he has caused in exposing the fact that there was an absense of any viable source material when the copied material was used, and, upon finding something from this obscure historian whose own reputation has caused others to completely avoid him in any reference, have not hesitated to use that historian's work, and, Ellen White rewrote her passages to accommodate this discrepancy, in order to make it appear as valid.

This searching for evidence "after-the-fact" is by no means, an honest search for truth, but of a pathetic search for apologetics so as not to appear that an error was made.

Crisler's Excuse

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}

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}

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}

The twenty-four-page chapter in The Great Controversy on the Bible and the French Revolution was a very 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}

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}

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}

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}

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}

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}

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 Vuilleumier, 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}

Crisler also wrote:
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}

Through January and most of February it was 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}

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}

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}

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}

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}

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}

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}

And then he made an observation, one based on his painstaking research over a period of half a year: {6BIO 317.3}

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}

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}

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}

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}

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}

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, adinfinitum? I want to know that the "brethren" have quoted the Scriptures, and not other men.

If history cannot be found to support evidence for a particular interpretation, it is alleged to be because history has been rewritten. But if history can so easlily 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 measley scrap of evidence that was provided by one dubious historian named Buckle.

***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 their 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.

Carefulness in Presenting New Views
"All should be careful about presenting new views of Scripture 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