What is the Abomination of Desolation?

[Davidstarr]

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.

Again, here is mine:

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.

You would first need to understand the prophecies in Daniel chapters 2, 7 & 8 before attempting to tackle Daniel 11.
And actually the prophecy in chapter 11 includes verses 12:1-3 verse 4 Gabriel tells Daniel to seal the prophecy until the time of the end.
The "time of the end" of course is a much future date than the days of Daniel's life span.
Dan 11:2 is the start of the prophecy and it ends in 12:3.

All 4 prophecies run parallel with each other and mention the same powers, the same 4 nations, the division of the 4th nation, the rise of the antichrist and his persecution of God's people, and culminate in the eternal kingdom set up by God. Except for chapter 2 which makes no mention of the antichrist. And chapter 12 ends right before the 2nd coming.

This could take days (maybe weeks to go through all of this), but without understanding the foundations how could one possibly understand the final prophecy of Daniel?

It would be like entering a movie theater and watch the last 20-30 minutes of a movie. Without watching the movie from the beginning how can you understand the ending?

If you are willing to take the time and go through all this I am willing to share my take on it.

 

[OMC]

You would first need to understand the prophecies in Daniel chapters 2, 7 & 8 before attempting to tackle Daniel 11.
And actually the prophecy in chapter 11 includes verses 12:1-3 verse 4 Gabriel tells Daniel to seal the prophecy until the time of the end.
The "time of the end" of course is a much future date than the days of Daniel's life span.
Dan 11:2 is the start of the prophecy and it ends in 12:3.

All 4 prophecies run parallel with each other and mention the same powers, the same 4 nations, the division of the 4th nation, the rise of the antichrist and his persecution of God's people, and culminate in the eternal kingdom set up by God. Except for chapter 2 which makes no mention of the antichrist. And chapter 12 ends right before the 2nd coming.

This could take days (maybe weeks to go through all of this), but without understanding the foundations how could one possibly understand the final prophecy of Daniel?

It would be like entering a movie theater and watch the last 20-30 minutes of a movie. Without watching the movie from the beginning how can you understand the ending?

If you are willing to take the time and go through all this I am willing to share my take on it.

Its funny he was here and we have accepted his challenge yet he leaves without a word.

 

[PaulThomson]

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 personal masculine singular verb referring to a single male individual

What is the morphological difference in וַיִּצְעַק (wayyiṣʿaq) used as "a personal masculine singular verb referring to a single male individual" and used as "a personal masculine singular verb referring to a single male individual" ?

 

[OMC]

What is the morphological difference in וַיִּצְעַק (wayyiṣʿaq) used as "a personal masculine singular verb referring to a single male individual" and used as "a personal masculine singular verb referring to a single male individual" ?

There is no morphological difference at all,
wayyiṣʿaq is always the same form:
a Qal wayyiqtol 3rd‑masculine‑singular verb.
The form never changes.
What changes is the type of subject the verb attaches to.
In Genesis 41:55, the verb is 3ms because haʿam (“the people”) is a collective noun treated as a single unit acting together.
In Daniel 9, the 3ms verb attaches to a personal masculine singular referent, which cannot be a collective noun.
So the answer is same morphology, different subject‑type, and that difference determines the interpretation — not the verb form itself.

 

[Davidstarr]

Its funny he was here and we have accepted his challenge yet he leaves without a word.

I think perhaps you too could use a refresher course in chapters 2, 7 & 8

 

[OMC]

I think perhaps you too could use a refresher course in chapters 2, 7 & 8

Explain please

 

[Davidstarr]

Explain please

You are off on some of the details in Daniel 11.
It shows lack of understanding of chapters 2, 7 & 8

 

[OMC]

You are off on some of the details in Daniel 11.
It shows lack of understanding of chapters 2, 7 & 8

Again, plz explain don't just accuse, show me where im wrong.

 

[GaryA]

Its funny he was here and we have accepted his challenge yet he leaves without a word.

Don't be like that. People have real lives. And, you never know what thing in their life may have caused a delay in response. And, no one owes anyone a formal 'goodbye for now' statement every time they "pause" from CC until some later time.

His last post in this thread was this morning, for crying out loud. What does that mean for the real intent behind your post above? It tells me a lot about your disposition - you are not here to discuss a topic with a brother - you are in it to 'win' - even to the point of giving/making 'ridicule' simply because another member has not responded as soon as you would have liked to see.

I personally have been sitting at home (while on vacation from work, no less) dealing with a "bug" - since Wednesday - that I [apparently] got from my brother at a family gathering earlier in the week - that he got from a 6-month old grandchild just before that. I have done good just to try to catch up on reading CC threads - mostly restricting myself to just that. And, I am not totally out of the woods yet...

( Oh well - so much for accomplishing anything at all out of the things I had in mind for the last half of last week. )

When I feel like a human being again, I will resume a more responsive deportment - as I have time.

Again - don't be like that - have some patience for people to get back to you if/when they can.

 

[GaryA]

Other than that - sorry for the interruption - please continue - for now, I am enjoying just being able to sit here and read what everyone else has to say...

 

[OMC]

Don't be like that. People have real lives. And, you never know what thing in their life may have caused a delay in response. And, no one owes anyone a formal 'goodbye for now' statement every time they "pause" from CC until some later time.

His last post in this thread was this morning, for crying out loud. What does that mean for the real intent behind your post above? It tells me a lot about your disposition - you are not here to discuss a topic with a brother - you are in it to 'win' - even to the point of giving/making 'ridicule' simply because another member has not responded as soon as you would have liked to see.

I personally have been sitting at home (while on vacation from work, no less) dealing with a "bug" - since Wednesday - that I [apparently] got from my brother at a family gathering earlier in the week - that he got from a 6-month old grandchild just before that. I have done good just to try to catch up on reading CC threads - mostly restricting myself to just that. And, I am not totally out of the woods yet...

( Oh well - so much for accomplishing anything at all out of the things I had in mind for the last half of last week. )

When I feel like a human being again, I will resume a more responsive deportment - as I have time.

Again - don't be like that - have some patience for people to get back to you if/when they can.

He was on the whole time we were. I just learned a bit about your disposition.

 

[PaulThomson]

There is no morphological difference at all,
wayyiṣʿaq is always the same form:
a Qal wayyiqtol 3rd‑masculine‑singular verb.
The form never changes.
What changes is the type of subject the verb attaches to.
In Genesis 41:55, the verb is 3ms because haʿam (“the people”) is a collective noun treated as a single unit acting together.
In Daniel 9, the 3ms verb attaches to a personal masculine singular referent, which cannot be a collective noun.
So the answer is same morphology, different subject‑type, and that difference determines the interpretation — not the verb form itself.

But the Genesis masculine singular Ha-'aM governs a singular masculine verb. So, how can you possibly argue that the masculine singular Ha-'am in Daniel cannot possibly be the noun governing the Hiphil masculine singular "shall cause to destroy".

Your reasoning is circular and fallacious.

 

[OMC]

But the Genesis masculine singular Ha-'aM governs a singular masculine verb. So, how can you possibly argue that the masculine singular Ha-'am in Daniel cannot possibly be the noun governing the Hiphil masculine singular "shall cause to destroy".

Your reasoning is circular and fallacious.

You’re smuggling two different things together and calling it a contradiction.

In Genesis 41:55, there is only one masculine singular candidate—haʿam—so the 3ms verb naturally hooks to the collective noun.
No competition, no ambiguity.

In Daniel 9:26–27, you’ve got:
haʿam (collective, 3ms form)
nāgîd (personal masculine singular)
then a 3ms Hiphil verb.
The rule I’m using is simple, not circular: when a collective 3ms and a personal 3ms stand side‑by‑side, the 3ms verb goes to the personal referent, not the collective. Genesis never tests that rule because it has no personal 3ms rival; Daniel does.

So, Gen 41:55: haʿam → 3ms verb (only option).
Dan 9: haʿam + nāgîd → 3ms Hiphil goes to the personal 3ms (nāgîd), not the collective.
Your Genesis example proves that a collective can govern a 3ms verb; it does not prove it must still do so when a nearer personal 3ms is present.

 

[Davidstarr]

Again, plz explain don't just accuse, show me where im wrong.

I have shown you, in my posts above.
You have persistently stood on the ground of denominational teachings and ignored what the bible actually says.

 

[Researcher]

Thanks @OMC . Let's see what you got...

...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).

This sounds good, although I believe that Daniel teaches that the 'time of the end' begins with the battles of Actium and Alexandria and ends with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. In other words, the time of the end already happened. I will address this in a moment.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed, although you are now paraphrasing and glossing over blocks of verses which can lead to errors.

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.

The above is where your glossing over the critically important verses of Daniel 11 to 13 leads to a fatal error. You have failed to understand that Antiochus III the Great does not make it past verse 13.

Here is the detailed breakdown:

Daniel 11:10 - But his sons shall be stirred up, and shall assemble a multitude of great forces: and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through: then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress.

But his sons shall be stirred up…:
'His sons' refers to the sons of the king of the North, Seleucus II Callinicus, whose sons were Seleucus III Ceraunus and Antiochus III the Great.

…and shall assemble a multitude of great forces…:
The assembling of a great army signifies the preparation for significant military campaigns. Historically, Antiochus III, known for his military prowess, gathered substantial forces to reclaim territories lost to the Ptolemies.

…and one shall certainly come, and overflow, and pass through…:
The imagery of advancing "like a flood" suggests an overwhelming and unstoppable military campaign. Antiochus III's campaigns were marked by rapid and decisive movements, reclaiming territories in the Levant.

…then shall he return, and be stirred up, even to his fortress.:
The "fortress" likely refers to a strategic stronghold or city, possibly in the region of Coele-Syria, which was a contested area between the Seleucids and Ptolemies.

Daniel 11:11 - And the king of the south shall be moved with choler, and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north: and he shall set forth a great multitude; but the multitude shall be given into his hand.

And the king of the south shall be moved with choler…:
This phrase refers to the king of the South, Ptolemy IV Philopater, who was king of Egypt at that time, being advanced to the crown upon the death of his father Ptolemy III Euergetes. The 'rage' indicates a strong emotional response, likely due to previous conflicts or provocations.

…and shall come forth and fight with him, even with the king of the north…:
The King of the North is Antiochus III the Great.

…and he shall set forth a great multitude…:
The “multitude” being the army of Antiochus III the Great, which was severely defeated at that place. This is supported by Daniel 11:12, where we read of the conduct of the southern king after his victory.

…. but the multitude shall be given into his hand:
The “large army” of the North is “delivered” to Ptolemy at Raphia, fulfilling the prophecy with literal accuracy. This defeat forced Antiochus to withdraw from Coele-Syria and return to Seleucid territory north of Lebanon.

Daniel 11:12 - And when he hath taken away the multitude, his heart shall be lifted up; and he shall cast down many ten thousands: but he shall not be strengthened by it.

And when he hath taken away the multitude…:
This suggests a significant military victory, where the king of the South, Ptolemy IV Philopater, achieves a substantial defeat over his enemies, likely the forces of the king of the North, Antiochus III the Great. The forces of the king of the North (Antiochus III) are seized and removed after their defeat at Raphia.

…his heart shall be lifted up…:
Ptolemy IV Philopater becomes proud and arrogant as a result of his success.

…and he shall cast down many ten thousands…:
The casting down of tens of thousands indicates a large-scale battle with heavy casualties, emphasizing the might and ferocity of the conflict.

…but he shall not be strengthened by it:
Despite the resounding victory, Ptolemy IV Philopater gained no lasting strength. Within a few years his moral decay, heavy taxation, and internal unrest wiped out the advantage.

Daniel 11:13 - For the king of the north shall return, and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former, and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches.

For the king of the north shall return…:
After the death of Ptolemy IV Philopater, Antiochus III the Great formed a secret pact with Philip V of Macedon to partition the Ptolemaic Empire. Thus, Antiochus III the Great shall return and perform another invasion of Egypt along with Philip V of Macedon.

…and shall set forth a multitude greater than the former…:
Once more Antiochus III the Great attacked the Ptolemaic province of Coele Syria and Phoenicia, and by 199 BC he seems to have had possession of it before the Aetolian leader Scopas recovered it for Ptolemy. But that recovery proved brief, for in 198 BC Antiochus III the Great defeated Scopas at the Battle of Panium, near the sources of the Jordan, a battle which marks the end of Ptolemaic rule in Judea.

…and shall certainly come after certain years with a great army and with much riches.…:
This all happened some thirteen or fourteen years after the battle of Raphia, when Ptolemy V Epiphanes, a mere child, had succeeded his father, Ptolemy IV Philopater. Antiochus III the Great took advantage of this weakness. This verse marks the end of Antiochus III.

IMPORTANT NOTES:
Antiochus III the Great invasion of Greece in 192 BC, supported by the Aetolian League, ignited the Roman-Seleucid War. Despite initial successes, including the defeat of Ptolemaic forces at the Battle of Panium in 198 BC, Antiochus was eventually defeated by the Romans at Thermopylae in 191 BC and then decisively at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC. As a result of his defeats, Antiochus was forced to sign the Treaty of Apamea in 188 BC, losing vast amounts of territory west of the Taurus Mountains to Rome and its allies, like Rhodes and Pergamon. Antiochus III the Great died in 187 BC.

Daniel 11:13 marks the end of Antiochus III the Great!

I will now address more of your comments in my next post.

 

[Researcher]

Continuing with my comments:

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).

Once again, you paraphrased many verses which has led to errors in your interpretations. This is why I requested a 'verse-by-verse' commentary. In other words, each individual verse must have its own interpretation. This is the only way to properly see where things go right or wrong.

Now, look at the very first thing you wrote:

...Many stand against the king of the south...

That is one of the most critical phrases in the entire chapter of Daniel 11 as far as chronology is concerned. As I stated earlier, Daniel 11:13 is the end of Antiochus III the Great. How do we know? Because after him "Many stand against the king of the south". The verse is teaching us that a great deal of time has now passed!

How long does it take to raise an army and attack a king? Obviously, this takes a while. Now multiply that by 'many' and you can see that the timeline has now jumped many years ahead. Most likely, we are looking at decades ahead. This means that Daniel 11:14 is now about Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the new king of the north. Antiochus III the Great is long dead by then.

You then glossed over the Maccabean Revolt!

Here is the breakdown:

Daniel 11:14 - And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

Notes: Commentators are generally in agreement up to this verse. SDA introduces Rome, while other denominations keep going with Antiochus III the Great. It is apparent that neither side has it correct.

And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south…:
The timeline now jumps ahead to somewhere between 170 BC and 160 BC. Many have tried to stand up against the King of the South. A significant amount of time has passed since the previous verse. Antiochus III the Great is long dead. Antiochus IV Epiphanes becomes the new King of the North.

…also the robbers of thy people…:
The is the beginning of the many heresies committed by Antiochus IV Epiphanes leading up to the Maccabean Revolt. 'Robbers of thy people' can easily be linked in all kinds of ways to that particular time period of betrayal, blasphemy, civil war, liberation and so on.

…shall exalt themselves to establish the vision…:
This is very strong language. The vision is referring Daniel's prophecies, specifically the return of the Messiah. There are factions trying to force it all to come to fruition before the appointed time! Again, this is Maccabean Revolt language being used.

…but they shall fall…:
Since God makes things happen in His time, the forcing of prophecy, which included the infamous 'swine event', was a failure. The same thing is now happening in modern times. A false, so called 'Third Temple' may be constructed in the near future to once again force Daniel's Abomination of Desolation prophecies to come to fruition. History repeats itself. Spoiler alert: The Abomination of Desolation has already happened!!!

 

[Researcher]

Continuing with my comments:

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).

Again, you did not do a verse-by-verse commentary which would have exposed your mistakes.

Let's keep going with the verses:

Daniel 11:15 - So the king of the north shall come, and cast up a mount, and take the most fenced cities: and the arms of the south shall not withstand, neither his chosen people, neither shall there be any strength to withstand.

So the king of the north shall come…:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes (King of the North) begins his first campaign into Egypt and against its King of the South, Ptolemy VI, in 170 BC.

…and cast up a mount…:
Large earthen ramps (agger) and elevated wooden siege towers to overcome high defensive walls were commonly built during this era.

…and take the most fenced cities…:
Many fortified cities were taken.

…and the arms of the south shall not withstand…:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes managed to conquer all of Egypt except for the heavily fortified capital of Alexandria.

…neither his chosen people…:
King Ptolemy VI (Antiochus's nephew), his 'chosen people', was taken prisoner and set up as a 'puppet' ruler.

…neither shall there be any strength to withstand.:
Egypt's traditional ally, the Roman Republic, was bogged down in the Third Macedonian War and could not intervene.

Daniel 11:16 - But he that cometh against him shall do according to his own will, and none shall stand before him: and he shall stand in the glorious land, which by his hand shall be consumed.

Notes: Scholars have great trouble with this verse. They try to fit Antiochus III the Great into this prophecy; however he does not fit and the scholars admit it. The common interpretations greatly contradict actual history.

But he that cometh against him…:
But he, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (King of the North), that cometh against him, Ptolemy VI (King of the South).

…shall do according to his own will…:
This is a special phrase which signifies absolute, unchecked tyranny. It describes a ruthless ruler who acts entirely on his own desires, unanswerable to human laws or divine authority, and whose military conquests initially succeed because no one can oppose him.

…and none shall stand before him…:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes would soon began his second phase of the Sixth Syrian War into Egypt, aiming to decisively conquer and annex the Ptolemaic Kingdom.

…and he shall stand in the glorious land…:
As a consequence of this campaign, Antiochus IV Epiphanes will find himself going into the Glorius Land, i.e., Judea once again.

…which by his hand shall be consumed.:
This is a reference to all of massive turmoil in Judea that led to the Maccabean Revolt.

Daniel 11:17 - He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom, and upright ones with him; thus shall he do: and he shall give him the daughter of women, corrupting her: but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.

He shall also set his face to enter with the strength of his whole kingdom…:
The verse jumps briefly ahead in the timeline to describe events that will happen after Antiochus IV Epiphanes returns humiliated from his *second* Egyptian campaign (described in verse 18). The deposed Jewish High Priest Jason launched a coup oust his rival, High Priest Menelaus. This enraged Antiochus IV Epiphanes who deployed substantial military force against Judea, triggering the Maccabean Revolt.

…and upright ones with him; thus shall he do…:
Fierce internal rivalries and violent civil strife in Jerusalem heavily drove conservative, observant Jews to align with Seleucid-backed Hellenizing factions to protect their political and financial power.

…and he shall give him the daughter of women…:
This is a widely mis-translated and mis-interpreted verse based on bias and 'copy-cat' eisegesis. The phrase is actually describing a faction of pro-Seleucid, Hellenized Jews who actively collaborated with Antiochus IV Epiphanes to solidify his control over Judea, referred to here as 'the daughter of women'.

…corrupting her…:
History is replete with accounts of all the atrocities and corruption that happened during that time period.

…but she shall not stand on his side, neither be for him.:
Thankfully, Judea, the daughter of women, would not stand on the side of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Neither will she be for him.

Daniel 11:18 - After this shall he turn his face unto the isles, and shall take many: but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease; without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.

After this…:
Jumping back to verse 15, 'after this' is referring to time right after Antiochus IV Epiphanes (King of the North) led his first campaign into Egypt against Ptolemy VI (King of the South). It was around this time that Antiochus IV Epiphanes caused major upheaval in Judea.

…shall he turn his face unto the isles and shall take many…:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes begins his second campaign against Egypt, taking the island of Cyprus and various parts of the coastlands.

…but a prince for his own behalf shall cause the reproach offered by him to cease…:
This was viewed as a 'reproach' or insolence by the Roman Republic. As a result, the Roman ambassador Gaius Popillius Laenas famously forced Antiochus to withdraw his forces by drawing a circle in the sand around the king, demanding a withdrawal before he stepped out.

…without his own reproach he shall cause it to turn upon him.:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes reluctantly withdrew and was bitter. He then turned this bitterness against Judea, ultimately resulting in the Maccabean Revolt. The reproach of Antiochus IV Epiphanes was consequently turned back onto himself.

Daniel 11:19 - Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land: but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.

Then he shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land…:
Antiochus IV Epiphanes was on a military and plundering campaign in Persia/Elam when his forces suffered defeats. Around the same time, he received infuriating news that his armies in Judea had been defeated by the Maccabees. He tried to urgently rush back to his capital in Antioch to restore order and his authority, but he fell gravely ill and died on the way in the city of Tabae (modern-day Isfahan, Iran) in 164 BCE.

…but he shall stumble and fall, and not be found.:
The way in which Antiochus IV Epiphanes died is debated. Interestingly, one rumor is that he stumbled and fell from his chariot. He would later succumb to the injuries. Not only is this the end of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the Book of Daniel, but it is also the end of the 'Prince of Grecia' era and the belly and thighs of Brass.

From this point forward, the Book of Daniel transitions into the alluded to 'Prince of Rome' era and the legs of Iron. The reign of the Little Horn of Daniel 8 begins.