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.
In Hebrew grammar הָעָם (haʿam) is morphologically singular but semantically collective, meaning it behaves as a plural entity in agreement and cannot serve as the antecedent for a masculine singular personal subject in a waw‑imperfect chain; this is why grammarians classify הָעָם as a collective singular noun—singular in form, plural in meaning—and why Daniel 9:26 does not allow הָעָם to function as the subject for וְהִגְבִּיר, because collective nouns do not override the rule of nearest masculine singular personal referent, which in this case is נָגִיד הַבָּא (“the prince who is to come”); your claim that “ha‑yam is masculine singular” is only half‑true—yes, the form is singular, but Hebrew subject‑chain rules do not treat collective singulars as valid antecedents for singular personal verbs, which is why וְהִגְבִּיר cannot grammatically point to הָעָם and must default to the newly introduced prince, unless Messiah were explicitly reintroduced, which the text does not do.
Genesis 41:55 does not overturn the collective‑noun rule because הָעָם (haʿam), though morphologically singular, is treated as a collective subject whose internal plurality is expressed through contextual agreement, and the verb וַיִּצְעַק (wayyiṣʿaq) is not a personal masculine singular verb referring to a single male individual but a collective singular verb referring to the group as a unit;
Hebrew regularly uses singular verbs with collective nouns (e.g., הָעָם, יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִצְרַיִם) when the action is performed by the group as one entity, which is why Genesis 41:55 is not a parallel to Daniel 9:26–27 — in Genesis, הָעָם is the established subject, and no new masculine singular personal noun is introduced before the next waw‑form, so the chain continues naturally, but in Daniel 9:26 the clause וְהָעָם נָגִיד הַבָּא introduces נָגִיד (“prince”), a personal masculine singular noun, which Hebrew subject‑chain rules require as the antecedent for the next masculine singular waw‑imperfect וְהִגְבִּיר unless Messiah is explicitly reintroduced; Genesis shows a collective noun taking a collective singular verb, while Daniel presents a collective noun plus a personal masculine singular noun, and Hebrew always assigns the next singular personal verb to the personal noun, not the collective; this is why collective nouns cannot override nearest personal antecedent in Daniel’s subject chain.
[Waltke & O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, §14.2–14.3]
[Joüon–Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, §136–137],
These are two. I have more but these are sitting in front of me
modern Hebrew is not spoken the same as 1st‑century Hebrew, because modern Hebrew is based on Biblical Hebrew vocabulary, Mishnaic Hebrew grammar, and massive later influences from European languages, while 1st‑century Hebrew (the Hebrew of the late Second Temple period) had different pronunciation, different verb forms, different syntax, and different idioms, meaning I can read the Bible but I do not naturally speak the way people spoke in Jesus’ day. So yes, even I need reference.
Are you claiming here that every single person in Egypt, "the group as one entity", cried to Pharaoh for bread and that Pharaoh sent every single Egyptian to Joseph?
Gen 41:55
And when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people (Ha-YaM, m. s. ) cried (Wa-YiTsaQ, Qal wayiqtol 3 m. s.) to Pharaoh for bread: and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go unto Joseph; what he saith to you, do.
Waltke & O’Connor does not contain a rule explicitly labeled “collective nouns cannot override a newly introduced masculine singular personal subject,” because the rule is not presented as a single sentence but as the combined effect of two adjacent grammatical principles:
(1) §14.2’s statement that agreement follows semantic number, meaning collective singulars behave semantically plural, and
(2) §14.3’s repeated insistence that personal adjectives and verbs attach to personal subjects, not to collective abstractions; the relevant line you’re looking for — the one I referenced — is the part where Waltke & O’Connor say that collective singulars take plural agreement when the semantics are plural, which means they do not function as masculine‑singular personal antecedents for a following verb, and therefore cannot override a newly introduced masculine‑singular personal noun in a subject chain; that is why the rule is in §14.2–14.3 even though it is not isolated as a single sentence — the grammar is stated as a principle of agreement, not as a “thou‑shalt‑not” line.
Oh. So, it doesn't actually state the "alleged Hebrew subject chain rule of yours" as you described it in post #364.
If a waw-consecutive narrative sequence is interrupted by some parenthetical commentary introduced by a non-waw-fronted verb, it generally resumes after the parenthesis with the same subject as was left in the preceding verb in that waw-consecutive chain. The subject of the verb chain can, often does, but does not need to be re-introduced, because the waw-consecutive grammar links back to the preceding verb in the chain and so identifies who the subject is likely to be.
I said the rule is the combined effect of semantic number (§14.2) and personal agreement (§14.3), which together mean a collective singular cannot function as a masculine‑singular personal antecedent for a following verb.
Your appeal to a “parenthetical interruption” in a waw‑consecutive chain simply ignores the fact that Hebrew does not treat waw as a magic subject‑reset button: once a new masculine singular personal subject is introduced, the next waw‑imperfect defaults to that subject unless the prior subject is explicitly re‑activated.
That is the point — your rule about “resuming the same subject after a parenthesis” only works when the parenthesis does not introduce a new personal subject, but Daniel 9:26 does, which is why your reading breaks the actual subject‑chain mechanics rather than applying them.
Hey Mr. AI...
Does interpreting "the prince that shall come" in Daniel 9:26 as being synonymous with "Messiah" violate any basic rules of Hebrew grammar?
Cool, thanks!
Does interpreting "the prince that shall come" in Daniel 9:26 as being synonymous with "Messiah" violate any basic rules of Hebrew grammar?
Cool, thanks!
But it certainly violates the entire Bible in context and otherwise.
Researcher hey, what have you researched? How to get AI to agree with you? When I was young we had these things called books. I know, so many words, but you would actually walk away with, oh my, knowledge. What a thing. You should try that.
1) No this is not the Messiah. He does not destroy the city and the sanctuary. You have to read the entire verse in it's context.
2) It does not say, "the prince that shall come". It says, "the PEOPLE of the prince that shall come". It is this "prince" sending his People to come and destroy the city and the sanctuary.
3) It says, "shall come", future tense of the events depicted in the 70 week prophecy. As in AFTER the 70 weeks are over.
This would be Rome destroying Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD.
Verse 27 then finishes up the last of the 70 week prophecy.
I have given you several requests now to show us your Daniel 11 verse-by-verse breakdown and interpretation as I have done. So far, you have avoided said requests.
I am going to put forth this challenge once again to you and the others here such as...
@GaryA
@douggg
@Davidstarr
@SonJudgment
@cv5
@Lovette
Etc. Etc.
- Show us your Daniel 11 verse-by-verse breakdown and interpretation.
- Demonstrate to all of us here how you arrived at your conclusions.
A Daniel 11 Verse By Verse Commentary 2026 09 05 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
A detailed verse by verse commentary on chapter 11 of the Book of Daniel.
archive.org
Just like in math class when you had to show your work and prove you weren't using a calculator, you should be able to show the world the same method of hermeneutics/exegesis in precise detail.
@douggg . I notice you often request timelines in a chart. The PDF I provided has exact dates down to the year for every verse. I now request the same from you.
Show us your homework people. Prove to the world that you are not cheating.
For those new to the thread or haven't been following along, here is a quick summary:
The OP has provided an extremely precious and valuable, once in a lifetime gift of a verse-by-verse breakdown and interpretation of Daniel 11. There is nothing like it out there.
Said breakdown and interpretation is such a Revelation and game changer that practically everyone here is now stuck in 'cognitive dissonance' mode and refuses to show us something similar that they have done themselves.
It would seem that not a single person has ever bothered to do a verse-by-verse breakdown and interpretation of Daniel 11, yet we are supposed to "take their word for it" that they have it interpreted properly.
My suggestion to all of you here is to never believe anyone that has not done their homework and due diligence.
Again, the document can be downloaded from here:
Said doc marks an important time in history when someone finally had the guts to do what no one else had the courage or wherewithal to do.
If it survives, this thread will be viewed as historical one day.
You're welcome.
The OP has provided an extremely precious and valuable, once in a lifetime gift of a verse-by-verse breakdown and interpretation of Daniel 11. There is nothing like it out there.
Said breakdown and interpretation is such a Revelation and game changer that practically everyone here is now stuck in 'cognitive dissonance' mode and refuses to show us something similar that they have done themselves.
It would seem that not a single person has ever bothered to do a verse-by-verse breakdown and interpretation of Daniel 11, yet we are supposed to "take their word for it" that they have it interpreted properly.
My suggestion to all of you here is to never believe anyone that has not done their homework and due diligence.
Again, the document can be downloaded from here:
A Daniel 11 Verse By Verse Commentary 2026 09 05 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
A detailed verse by verse commentary on chapter 11 of the Book of Daniel.
archive.org
Said doc marks an important time in history when someone finally had the guts to do what no one else had the courage or wherewithal to do.
If it survives, this thread will be viewed as historical one day.
You're welcome.
Daniel 11 is a walk in the park. Dead easy.I have given you several requests now to show us your Daniel 11 verse-by-verse breakdown and interpretation as I have done. So far, you have avoided said requests.
I am going to put forth this challenge once again to you and the others here such as...
@GaryA
@douggg
@Davidstarr
@SonJudgment
@cv5
@Lovette
Etc. Etc.
Again, here is mine:
- Show us your Daniel 11 verse-by-verse breakdown and interpretation.
- Demonstrate to all of us here how you arrived at your conclusions.
A Daniel 11 Verse By Verse Commentary 2026 09 05 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
A detailed verse by verse commentary on chapter 11 of the Book of Daniel.archive.org
Just like in math class when you had to show your work and prove you weren't using a calculator, you should be able to show the world the same method of hermeneutics/exegesis in precise detail.
@douggg . I notice you often request timelines in a chart. The PDF I provided has exact dates down to the year for every verse. I now request the same from you.
Show us your homework people. Prove to the world that you are not cheating.
Sorry but there are far more important chapters to develop.
And given the signs of the times, focus is very relevant.
I will remind you I have no system I'm attempting to defend. I'm not a preacher. The scripture defends itself.
1. Big-frame of Daniel 11
Label: Core claim, Daniel 11 is a continuous historical sequence from Medo‑Persia through Greece into the Seleucid/Ptolemaic conflicts, then into a final king who pushes all the way to “the time of the end” (Dan 11:35, 40).I’m not treating it as random symbols; I’m treating it as straight history prophecy because the chapter itself does.
2. Daniel 11:2–4 — Persia → Greece → fourfold split
Label: v.2 — Persia Dan 11:2 — “Three kings… and a fourth… richer… stir up all against Greece.”Text: Persia, multiple kings, one especially rich, stirs up Greece.
Conclusion: This matches the Persian line culminating in a king like Xerxes who attacks Greece.
Label: v.3 — Mighty king Dan 11:3 — “A mighty king… shall rule with great dominion… do as he wills.”
Text: Single dominant king after Persia, tied to Greece (from v.2).
Conclusion: Alexander the Great.
Label: v.4 — Broken, four winds Dan 11:4 — Kingdom broken, divided to four winds, not to his posterity.
Text: Sudden break, fourfold division, not to his children.
Conclusion: Alexander’s empire split among four generals, not his sons.
3. Daniel 11:5–20 — Kings of South and North (Ptolemies vs Seleucids)
Label: v.5–9 — South strong, North stronger Dan 11:5–9 — King of the south strong; one of his princes stronger; alliances, betrayal, invasions.Text: Ongoing conflict between “south” and “north” with specific marriage‑alliances and reversals.
Conclusion: Ptolemies (Egypt, south) vs Seleucids (Syria, north). The details (daughter, alliance, betrayal) fit the Berenice/Antiochus history.
Label: v.10–13 — North pushes back Dan 11:10–13 — Sons of the king of the north stir up war, overflow, return, stronger forces.
Text: North regroups and invades repeatedly.
Conclusion: Successive Seleucid kings pressing south.
Label: v.14–20 — Intrigue, taxes, brief reigns Dan 11:14–20 — Many stand against the king of the south; “robbers of your people”; a raiser of taxes who is broken “within few days.”
Text: Political intrigue, oppression of the covenant people, a tax‑focused ruler with short life.
Conclusion: Fits the later Seleucid line, including rulers like Seleucus IV (tax raiser, short reign).
4. Daniel 11:21–35 — The “vile person” and persecution of the covenant
Label: v.21 — Vile person Dan 11:21 — “A vile person… shall come in peaceably and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.”Text: A contemptible ruler who gains power by intrigue, not normal succession.
Conclusion: Antiochus IV Epiphanes as near‑term fulfillment.
Label: v.22–24 — Sudden rise, deceit, small people Dan 11:22–24 — Arms overflow; prince of the covenant broken; he works deceitfully; becomes strong with a small people.
Text: Overthrow, covenant leader struck, deceptive growth from small base.
Conclusion: Antiochus’ rise and his attack on the Jewish leadership.
Label: v.25–28 — War with the south, lies at one table Dan 11:25–28 — War against king of the south; both kings speak lies at one table; end not yet.
Text: Military conflict plus mutual deceit; but the prophecy says this is not the final end.
Conclusion: Historical wars with Egypt, but the text signals we’re not at the ultimate “end” yet.
Label: v.29–31 — Abomination, profaning the sanctuary Dan 11:29–31 — He returns; indignation; forces profane the sanctuary; take away daily sacrifice; set up abomination.
Text: Direct attack on the temple, removal of sacrifice, abomination in the holy place.
Conclusion: Antiochus’ desecration of the temple (near‑term), but language also anticipates later “abomination” language (Dan 12; Matt 24).
Label: v.32–35 — Those who know their God, time of the end Dan 11:32–35 — He corrupts with flattery; people who know their God are strong; some fall “to try them… to the time of the end.”
Text: Faithful resistance, martyrdom, purification, explicitly tied to “time of the end.”
Conclusion: Near‑term Maccabean resistance, but the text deliberately stretches the pattern forward to the end‑time.
5. Daniel 11:36–45 — Final king at the time of the end
Here’s where I see a shift: same pattern of arrogance and persecution, but the language goes beyond Antiochus.Label: v.36–39 — King exalts himself above every god Dan 11:36–39 — King does according to his will, exalts himself above every god, speaks marvelous things against the God of gods, prospers “till the indignation be accomplished.”
Text: Absolute self‑exaltation, global arrogance, tied to the completion of God’s indignation.
Conclusion: This goes beyond Antiochus into a final anti‑God ruler (cf. 2 Thess 2:3–4).
Label: v.40 — Time of the end, king of north and south Dan 11:40 — “At the time of the end” the king of the south pushes at him; king of the north comes like a whirlwind.
Text: Explicit “time of the end,” large‑scale military conflict.
Conclusion: End‑time configuration, not just 2nd‑century BC.
Label: v.41–43 — Glorious land, many countries, Egypt’s treasures Dan 11:41–43 — He enters the glorious land; many countries overthrown; Egypt and its treasures under his hand.
Text: Wide territorial control, including Israel and Egypt.
Conclusion: Final ruler with broad geopolitical reach.
Label: v.44–45 — Tidings from east and north, final end Dan 11:44–45 — Troubled by news from east and north; goes out in fury; plants his palace between seas and holy mountain; “yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.”
Text: Last campaign, location near the holy mountain, sudden end with no helper.
Conclusion: Final destruction of this end‑time king, matching the pattern of the “little horn”/final opponent in other passages.
6. How I arrived at these conclusions (method)
Label: Step 1 — Let the text set the sequence I start with Daniel 10–12 as one unit.The angel says he will show “the truth” (Dan 11:2) and walks straight through history—no gaps are stated in the text.
So I treat it as continuous unless the text itself signals a shift (e.g., “time of the end,” language that clearly overshoots Antiochus).
Label: Step 2 — Anchor the obvious identifications Persia → Greece → fourfold split (Dan 11:2–4) is already given in Daniel 8.
So I lock those in as fixed points.
The kings of north/south then naturally map to the main post‑Alexander blocs around Israel: north = Syria/Seleucids, south = Egypt/Ptolemies.
Label: Step 3 — Match detailed events, but let Scripture’s own “end” language control The marriage alliance, betrayals, tax‑raiser, vile person, abomination, resistance—all have tight historical matches in the Seleucid/Ptolemaic era.
I accept those as near‑term fulfillments.
But when the text says “to the time of the end” (Dan 11:35, 40) and describes a king exalting himself above every god and ruling until God’s indignation is finished (v.36), I let that language push me to see a final pattern‑fulfilling king, not just Antiochus.
Label: Step 4 — Keep Daniel 11 consistent with Daniel 7, 8, 9, 12 The arrogant king in Dan 11:36–45 lines up with the little horn/king who exalts himself in Daniel 7–8 and the end‑time oppression in Daniel 12.
So I don’t isolate chapter 11; I read it as part of the same prophetic spine.
Here’s my entire source list for this project.
All the Daniel 11 identifications rest first on Scripture itself.
The continuous sequence in Daniel 2, 7, 8, 10–12, reinforced by Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Maccabees,
Jesus’ use of the abomination in Matthew 24, and the final‑king parallels in 2 Thessalonians 2 and Revelation;
The historical anchors come from classical sources like Herodotus, Xenophon, Arrian, Diodorus Siculus, Polybius, Plutarch, Appian, Livy, and Josephus, which document Persia’s kings, Alexander’s rise and fall, the Diadochi split, and the Seleucid–Ptolemaic wars;
The Antiochus IV material is grounded in 1–2 Maccabees, Josephus, Polybius, and Diodorus, while the ancient interpreters who recognized the shift in Dan 11:36–45 include Jerome, Theodoret, and Jewish apocalyptic texts like 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra;
Modern historical reference works (Cambridge Ancient History, Oxford Classical Dictionary, Walbank, Grainger, Bickerman, Peter Green) supply chronology only,
And modern Daniel commentaries (Collins, Baldwin, Miller, Longman, Steinmann, Keil & Delitzsch, Jerome) supply cross‑references, not doctrine.