Before we get to far into this, I want to look at where this historic version of seven ages came from and why many believe this way.
We know this came before Uriah Smith as you can see the same language in William Millers writings.
The
red horse denotes blood and carnage, and has reference
to the times of persecution in the days of Nero and
other Roman emperors, and answers to the same time
as the Smyrna church.
William Miller - The Midnight Cry - Tuesday Dec 13, 1842 Number 22 - 4th page - 3rd paragraph
Not sure who wrote this but he is referring back to William Miller's writings.
See Miller's Lectures, page 110-117.
"Rev. 9: 1. And the filth angel sounded, and I
saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth; and to
him was given the key of the bottomless pit."
(and it is added "he opened the bottomless pit."
"After the downfall of Pagan Rome, and the rise
of the anti-christian abomination, Mahomet propagated a religion which eventually came from
the bottomless pit;
The Day-Star - Volume 8. - Cincinnati, Saturday, November 22, 1845. - Numbers 7&8 - 1st page - near the top of the third column
I heard one guy (Ed White) mention this back to Keith and Gibbons.
Searching for something on that pertaining to the seals I ran into this page on the historic view.
The names mentioned there are Campegius Vitringa, Alexander Keith, and Christopher Wordsworth which all call back to the 1700's.
I just want to bring out our historic view is not nothing new, it came before Ellen White or Uriah Smith or even William Miller.
But yet when we question this belief many want to come back and say it's inspired.
Maybe it is, but it sure did not come from the SDA pioneers or Ellen White, this came long before them.
And just because Ellen White sponsored Uriah Smith's book or the Charts does that mean everything in them is to be taken as inspired from God?
The best argument for this belief that I've found is that God is continuing the same pattern we saw in Daniel.
So we keep getting added information on the timeline of events, this time starting at the time of John and going through till the end.
Which sounds good but I would argue it seems like they are reaching out far to get scripture for the Churches, Seals & Trumpets to line up with their timeline.
One thing maybe Uriah Smith did possibly come up with is our main historic view on the Ottoman Empire.
Looking at history and the timing taken from this quote below from Uriah Smith leads us to around
History gives the following facts : When
the French were driven out of Egypt, and the
Turks took possession, the sultan permitted the
Egyptians to reorganize their government as it
was before the French invasion. He asked of
the Egyptians neither soldiers, guns, nor fortifications, but left them to manage their own
affairs independently, with the important exception of putting the nation under tribute to
himself. In the articles of agreement between
the sultan and the pasha of Egypt, it was stipulated that the Egyptians should pay annually
to the Turkish government a certain amount of
gold and silver, and six hundred thousand
measures of corn, and four hundred thousand
of barley.' "
"The Libyans and the Ethiopians," "the
Cushira," says Dr. Clarke, " the unconquered
Arabs," who have sought the friendship of the
Turks, and many of whom are tritbutary to
them to the present time.
Verse 44. But tidings out of the east and
out of the north shall trouble him ; therefore
he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and
utterly to take away many.
On this verse also Dr. Clarke has a note
which is worthy of mention. He says : " This
part of the prophecy is allowed to be yet unfulfilled."
(Uriah Smith - Thoughts on Daniel & Revelation)
Historic's use Miller's Rules of Bible Interpretation to backup their belief on Turkey or the Ottoman Empire.
Here is the one they like to quote.
Miller's Rules of Bible Interpretation
12. To know whether we have the true historical event for the fulfillment of a prophecy. If
you find every word of the prophecy (after the figures are understood) is literally
fulfilled, then you may know that your history is the true event. But if one word lacks a
fulfillment, then you must look for another event, or wait its future development. For God
takes care that history and prophecy doth agree, so that the true, believing children of
God may never be ashamed (Psalm 21:5; Isaiah 14:17-19; 1 Peter 2:6; Revelation 17:17;
Acts 3:18).
But this makes no sense to me cause at the same time Uriah Smith is preaching Turkey William Miller is preaching France.
Daniel 11:42, "He shall stretch forth his hands also upon the countries ; and the land of Egypt shall not escape." " Hands " signifies power ; and what country on the globe did not more or less feel the effects of Bonaparte's power ? Egypt, surely, did not escape ; for all Lower Egypt was conquered by his arms. 43, " But he shall have power over the treasures of gold, and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt." Bonaparte, in his conquest of Egypt, levied contributions upon the inhabitants of the country sufficient to support and pay his troops, and brought away much with him. " And the Libyans and Ethiopians shall be at his steps." When he first went into Egypt, he landed his army on the coast of what was anciently called Lybia, and his last battle was fought in Upper Egypt -what the ancients called Ethiopia. So both of these places were at his steps, although neither of them was fairly conquered, as was Egypt.
(Miller's Lectures - The Midnight Cry - Vol 1 - Number 21)
From I understand comparing France to the Ottoman timeline, using the same scripture verses, you can see that France is fulfilling up scripture before the Ottoman's.
So if that is the case how can you use Miller's Rules of Bible Interpretation.
France happens before the Turkey.
William Miller had an interpretation before Uriah Smith.
William Miller used up all the same verses Uriah Smith did.
William Miller if you ask me seems more clear than Uriah Smith's interpretation of the final verses of Daniel 11.
So if you are true to Miller's Rules of Bible Interpretation than William Miller should win with his interpretation since it came first.
But if you read Matthew 24 you can clearly see many things in the Bible have a dual meaning if not more.
My problem is that the Pioneers tried to use up all the scripture on prophecy.
Because of that you use up all the scripture and leave nothing for the end times when that is primarily what I believe Daniel and Revelation are for.
In conclusion, I strongly disagree that we can't use passages from Daniel 11 and 12 and the Churches, Seals, Trumpets in a future setting.
They may like to say we already have an interpretation so there is no need to look further.
But there is a chance that your interpretation is wrong (specially when the SOP says little about it) or that there could be a dual fulfillment.