"more often than not >>>>> error refuting error"
You can say that again - and again - and again.
So many interpretations!
Satan is having a field day, sadly!!
What is the Abomination of Desolation?
- Thread starter Researcher
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
So many interpretations!
Satan is having a field day, sadly!!
I appreciate that. I recognize people are going to have various different interpretations. It's nice to know there are some people here that don't take the personal route of insults, even if we don't agree.Yes, he talks to me like that, too. But - my skin is thick enough - I am not worried in the slightest. One day God will show forth the truth ---
"I can wait..."
I always do my very best to focus on what is being discussed and never target individuals with personal insults, etc.
There are many people on here who I disagree with on certain things; nonetheless, I actually like the person(a).
It is never my intent to create adversarial attitudes/situations/etc. with regard to any member of the site.
If someone on here is my brother/sister in Christ - I consider that to be the most important thing.
So, I try to treat them as such - in the hope of the greatest opportunity for real fellowship.
There is a big difference between confidently stating what you believe and being arrogant to the point of boasting absolute infallibility.
When people get a bit too proud and turn a thread into "nothing but a big argument" - I tend to start getting ready to make an exit - because, at that point, it is just a waste of time to participate - there is no sense in putting up with all of that...
Again ---
"I can wait..."
Not believing the Bible and the prophecies and adding a bunch of heresy doesn't mean you have an interpretation. No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. Jesus and his crucifixion IS the sacrifice, to call this the abomination of desolation is an extreme blasphemy and confusion of both the prophecy of the Apocalypse and the Gospel. Literally Satan helps set up the abomination of desolation alongside the man of sin (the Beast of the Earth).
Revelation 12:7-12
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
Revelation 13:1-4
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
Revelation 20
2 Peter 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Revelation 12:7-12
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
Revelation 13:1-4
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
Revelation 20
2 Peter 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Right on target.
And, of course, Satan can make it APPEAR that a false antichrist has come to distract from the REAL antichrist that is already here...
The four verses are not complicated. Nor is Davidstarr "doing reconstruction" on those verses. Rather, you are not looking at the full picture of the 'grammar of the language' - which is not just about nouns and verbs and clauses - but, includes everything else significant that goes with it - the full meaning based on the 'culture' of the writer, etc.
You seem to be only interested in the words from the Hebrew language 'dictionary' definition of the words. You are missing something. You are looking at a small group of trees and not seeing the whole forest.
The colon in the English of verse 26 is there because the translators saw something in the Hebrew that you are not seeing.
Go read this web page - and, pay particularly close attention to the last section before the 'Conclusion' talking about the 'aside' in verse 26:
Of course - read the whole page - only, I want to direct your attention at this particular moment to that last section about the 'aside'.
You need to "back up" until you can see the whole forest - only then will you understand the full meaning of those four verses.
What the translators “saw” in the Hebrew wasn’t a mystical colon‑shaped revelation — it was the same thing every Hebrew reader sees: a shift in subject when Daniel introduces “the people of the prince who is to come”, which English translators mark with punctuation because English needs punctuation to show breaks that Hebrew shows by syntax and subject introduction, not by sprinkling colons like prophetic fairy dust.
The colon isn’t a secret grammatical signal; it’s just the translators saying, “Hey English readers, Daniel just introduced a new subject,” which is exactly what the Hebrew does — and exactly what your reconstruction keeps trying to undo.
Of course it does... (along with history)
Daniel 9:
24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. 25 Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. 26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. 27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
The commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem occurred in 457 B.C. - putting the start of the 70th week in 27 A.D. and the end of it in 34 A.D. And, Christ was "cut off" (crucified) in 31 A.D.
Your 457 BC → 27 AD → 31 AD → 34 AD timeline is gorgeous — truly a work of prophetic interior decorating — but it still doesn’t come from Daniel; it comes from stapling Ezra’s decree to a math chart and then forcing Daniel’s subject‑chain to obey your chronology. Daniel gives the people of the prince who is to come as the new actor in v. 26, and Hebrew doesn’t let you skip that subject and magically resume Messiah in v. 27 just because your timeline needs Him there.
You can quote the passage all day, but unless Daniel re‑introduces Messiah — which he doesn’t — the “he” who confirms the covenant, stops sacrifice, and brings desolation is the prince tied to the destroyers of the city, not Jesus politely reenacting your 31 AD crucifixion math.
Sacking of Jerusalem, period - that is, if you believe the gospels, at least the synoptic gospels, are consistent.
"“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Matt. 24:15-16)
"“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. " (Lk. 21:20-21)
@OMC - no offense intended, but - I believe that you simply do not understand these things as much as you think you do. And, despite your claims, I believe you are being influenced by things you do not yet see and understand the true nature of. On this issue, we will just have to "agree to disagree agreeably"... (I do agree with you on some other things.)
Please go read that web page I posted a link to earlier and consider it very carefully.
Please go read that web page I posted a link to earlier and consider it very carefully.
“no offense intended” is the classic pre‑game warmup for “you don’t understand the Bible as well as you think you do,” which is fine — but saying I’m “influenced by things I don’t yet see” isn’t an argument, it’s just a polite way of claiming secret insight while waving off the actual textual constraints you don’t want to deal with.
Yes - Matthew 24:15-20, Mark 13:14-18, and Luke 21:20-23a are three separate accounts of the very same discourse - all referring to the very same time-and-event in history.
When you say the insight is “plainly visible for anyone willing to open their eyes,” that’s still not an argument; it’s a claim about perception, not a demonstration from the text. If you believe I’m missing something, then the most helpful thing you can do is name the specific textual feature, pattern, or structural element you think I’m overlooking. I’m not dismissing you, and I’m not assuming secret motives — I’m asking for the concrete thing in the passage you think changes the reading. If you can show that, we can examine it togetherYou have a defense mechanism for everything, don't you?
There is no "secret insight" - it is plainly visible for anyone who is willing to open their eyes and/to see...
Well - have you read that web page yet??? Have you considered it very carefully???
The 'aside' is real - in the 'grammar of the language' - and, when you see it clearly, it will help you to understand it better.
The 'aside' is real - in the 'grammar of the language' - and, when you see it clearly, it will help you to understand it better.
Something else that is real - "I promise you" - you are being influenced by something other than the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.
Please get yourself out of defense mode and accept-and-consider the possibility that you could be wrong about this.
Go read that web page...
Please get yourself out of defense mode and accept-and-consider the possibility that you could be wrong about this.
Go read that web page...
It has a shift - sure - but, that shift is in the form of an 'aside' - which also has a 'return' (from the aside). It is not a permanent shift to a completely new subject that "leaves everything else behind" - instead, it returns to the original subject after the aside. And, the aside "stands on its own" - separate from what is before it and after it.
The document states:Something else that is real - "I promise you" - you are being influenced by something other than the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.
Please get yourself out of defense mode and accept-and-consider the possibility that you could be wrong about this.
Go read that web page...
Hebrew has no grammatical mechanism for an “aside” that breaks antecedent chains.
Daniel does not change subjects mid‑sentence without naming the new one.
The subject introduced in v.26b (“the people of the prince who is to come”) remains the active referent until a new subject is introduced. No new subject is introduced before v.27.
Thus the “aside” theory is not linguistically defensible.