What is the Abomination of Desolation?

  • 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.
You have to maintain consistency when dealing with bible prophecy. Obviously Medo-Persia conquered Babylon. Grecia conquered Medo-Persia. So why isn't the 4th kingdom that comes after Grecia the one that conquered Grecia?
Daniel’s chain stays inside Greece, so the fourth kingdom must come from Greece, not conquer Greece. Daniel 8 says the final horn comes “out of one of them”—one of the four Greek divisions—so the fourth kingdom is a post‑Grecian fragmentation, not Rome. Conquerors don’t define Daniel’s sequence; origin does.
Claiming it is not the next world-controlling empire after Grecia goes against the pattern shown in the prophecy itself where each kingdom had conquered the one before?

Now you have replaced what the prophecy states with your own assumptions and embellishments.

It is no wonder you cannot understand the other prophecies in Daniel.
Daniel never says the next kingdom is “the one that conquered the previous”; he only says each kingdom arises after the former, and the only place he gives an actual origin rule is Daniel 8, where the final horn must come “out of one of” the four Greek divisions.
That means the fourth kingdom must descend from Greece, not replace Greece by conquest, because Daniel’s own wording ties the final kingdom to Greek fragmentation rather than to the next global empire.
Your pattern is historical, but Daniel’s pattern is textual, and the text itself never defines kingdoms by conquest—only by arising in sequence and, in the case of the final one, by coming from Greece
Now you have replaced what the prophecy states with your own assumptions and embellishments.
If I were replacing the prophecy with assumptions, you’d be able to quote a verse that says, “each kingdom is the empire that conquers the previous one”—but there isn’t one.
It is no wonder you cannot understand the other prophecies in Daniel.
The only reason you’re saying I “can’t understand Daniel” is because I refuse to let your pattern override Daniel’s words.
We have maintained a friendly conversation thus far. Please refrain from accusations, just show where you disagree and we can discuss it.
 
You are ignoring specific details in the prophecy.
I am not ignoring anything - you are misinterpreting what is actually being said.

Verse 41 specifically says the kingdom becomes divided. It does say into two kingdoms. Does not hint how many kingdoms it divided into. But obviously it became divided.

Verse 43 specifically shows they will not unite into one kingdom again. "Iron does not mix with clay".
Verse 44 specifically shows they are still in this divided state when God sets up His eternal kingdom.
Your text in Rev 17:12 is not proof of a one world government. It still shows separate kings/kingdoms reigning for a time (the Greek word is hora) with the beast.
No - verse 41 does not specifically say the kingdom "becomes" divided (like split-in-two); rather, it says that the kingdom "shall be" (a/the condition or state of it [being]) divided. Pay attention to the "And whereas thou sawest" ... "shall be divided" ... "there shall be in it" ... "forasmuch as thou sawest" language pattern in the verse.

Verse 43 only shows that the iron and clay will not mix - there is no 'again' - only 'incompatible'.

In verse 44, the words 'these kings' does not apply directly to the description in/of verses 41-43 (because it is talking about a singular kingdom) - it may only be applied to the toes. In other words, the iron does not split into iron-and-clay; and, each foot and each toe is composed of the same iron-clay mixture.

If you want to say (as a matter of progression) that "two feet become ten toes" - okay - but - at no point does the 'iron' kingdom actually "split" into multiple kingdoms (as such) - the multiple "parts" (the toes) are divisions within the same original/singular 'iron' kingdom - not separate kingdoms that split off from the original/singular 'iron' kingdom - only, the clay has been added into the same original/singular 'iron' kingdom.

Nothing "splits" with regard to the kingdom; rather, something is added to the kingdom - the clay. The toes are 'divisions of' the kingdom and not separate kingdoms split off from the original 'iron' kingdom.

Revelation 17:

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.


The beast is the 'iron' kingdom - the rest is added to and not split off from the original/singular 'iron' kingdom.

The original/singular 'iron' kingdom does not split into multiple separate kingdoms; rather, the clay is added to the original/singular 'iron' kingdom - which remains a singular kingdom - only, it "becomes" a mixture of 'iron' and 'clay'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OMC
I am not ignoring anything - you are misinterpreting what is actually being said.


No - verse 41 does not specifically say the kingdom "becomes" divided (like split-in-two); rather, it says that the kingdom "shall be" (a/the condition or state of it [being]) divided. Pay attention to the "And whereas thou sawest" ... "shall be divided" ... "there shall be in it" ... "forasmuch as thou sawest" language pattern in the verse.

Verse 43 only shows that the iron and clay will not mix - there is no 'again' - only 'incompatible'.

In verse 44, the words 'these kings' does not apply directly to the description in/of verses 41-43 (because it is talking about a singular kingdom) - it may only be applied to the toes. In other words, the iron does not split into iron-and-clay; and, each foot and each toe is composed of the same iron-clay mixture.

If you want to say (as a matter of progression) that "two feet become ten toes" - okay - but - at no point does the 'iron' kingdom actually "split" into multiple kingdoms (as such) - the multiple "parts" (the toes) are divisions within the same original/singular 'iron' kingdom - not separate kingdoms that split off from the original/singular 'iron' kingdom - only, the clay has been added into the same original/singular 'iron' kingdom.

Nothing "splits" with regard to the kingdom; rather, something is added to the kingdom - the clay. The toes are 'divisions of' the kingdom and not separate kingdoms split off from the original 'iron' kingdom.

Revelation 17:

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.


The beast is the 'iron' kingdom - the rest is added to and not split off from the original/singular 'iron' kingdom.

The original/singular 'iron' kingdom does not split into multiple separate kingdoms; rather, the clay is added to the original/singular 'iron' kingdom - which remains a singular kingdom - only, it "becomes" a mixture of 'iron' and 'clay'.
Iron does not mix with clay. The prophecy specifically states the iron kingdom becomes divided into separate nations that will still exist even until the God of heaven sets up His eternal kingdom.

I suggest you put away your denominational books, blow the dust off your KJV and read it for yourself, verse by verse, word for word.
 
Iron does not mix with clay. The prophecy specifically states the iron kingdom becomes divided into separate nations that will still exist even until the God of heaven sets up His eternal kingdom.

I suggest you put away your denominational books, blow the dust off your KJV and read it for yourself, verse by verse, word for word.
why not display the verses you claim say what you said?
 
why not display the verses you claim say what you said?
Can't you read my posts above? I already did.

I will not run around in circles with you.

Ring around the rosie was not one of my favorite childhood games.
EVERYBODY falls down.....
 
Can't you read my posts above? I already did.

I will not run around in circles with you.

Ring around the rosie was not one of my favorite childhood games.
EVERYBODY falls down.....
I repeat them often so the person I’m addressing can quickly access the evidence that supports my stance.
 
Iron does not mix with clay.
Correct - scripture says that - however, that in-and-of-itself does not a kingdom separation make. (into multiple kingdoms)

The iron-clay mixture exists within the singular kingdom - and, does not split it apart into multiple separate kingdoms.

The iron-clay mixture [description] illustrates an incompatibility within the kingdom.

The prophecy specifically states the iron kingdom becomes divided into separate nations that will still exist even until the God of heaven sets up His eternal kingdom.
No - it does not say that - you are misinterpreting it and/or you just really really really want it to say that and will not consider anything else...? :unsure:

I suggest you put away your denominational books, blow the dust off your KJV and read it for yourself, verse by verse, word for word.
I do not use any "denominational" books - dictionary/concordance/lexicon books - yes - commentaries and other books specifically tied to what denominations teach in their seminaries - absolutely not - a lot of that stuff is "poison" to anyone who is actually striving for the truth - because, most of it contains so much error.

I did read my KJV - for myself - verse by verse - word for word - and, that is how I came up with what I came up with... ;)
 
The prophecy specifically states the iron kingdom becomes divided into separate nations that will still exist even until the God of heaven sets up His eternal kingdom.
The prophecy does not say the iron kingdom “becomes divided into separate nations”; it says the kingdom “shall be divided,” meaning its condition is one of internal division.
 
Do you realize that verses 23-24 are actually a descriptive breakdown (more detail of the 'how' and 'why') of the last part of verse 21?

Thanks @GaryA . You make a valid point. I will not argue with you. I will however note that I do have the choice to interpret those verses as having to do with two unique individuals while not breaking the rules of Hebrew grammar:

AI Overview:

Yes, Daniel 11:21 and Daniel 11:24 can refer to two unique individuals without breaking any rules of Hebrew grammar.
While the overwhelming majority of traditional, preterist, and historical commentators interpret verses 21–24 as a continuous description of a single figure—historically identified as Antiochus IV Epiphanes—Hebrew grammar itself does not strictly forbid a transition between two distinct figures across these verses. [1, 2]

How this is grammatically viable relies on specific mechanics of Classical Hebrew prose and prophecy:

1. The Nature of Unexpressed Pronominal Subjects
In Hebrew, separate pronoun words (like "he" or hu) are rarely required because the subject is embedded directly into the conjugated verb form (e.g., yāḇô means "he will come").
    • When a text features a long string of third-person masculine singular verbs—as seen from Daniel 11:21 through 11:24—the default assumption of Hebrew narrative discourse is that the subject remains the same. [1]
    • However, Hebrew prophecy frequently employs implicit subject shifts. If a new entity takes over the thematic role or the office of the "King of the North", the grammar allows the third-person "he" to transfer to the new occupant of that role without needing to explicitly restate a new proper noun. [1]
2. Typological Recapitulation and Cyclic Resumption
In prophetic and apocalyptic Hebrew literature, a linguistic pattern known as recapitulation is common. Verse 24 begins with a phrase highly reminiscent of verse 21: “In a time of tranquility...” (בְּשַׁלְוָה). [1]
    • The "Same Person" View: Sees verse 24 as a continuation or elaboration of the actions of the "despicable person" introduced in verse 21. [1, 2]
    • The "Two Individuals" View: Argues that verse 24 acts as a structural parallel. In this view, verse 24 uses identical phrasing to intentionally introduce a second, future figure (an Antichrist archetype) who mimics the exact behavior of the first figure. Hebrew structural parallelism operates seamlessly on this kind of thematic mirroring. [1, 2]

3. Prophetic "Telescoping" and Generic Nouns
Daniel 11 utilizes the corporate titles "King of the North" and "King of the South". In Hebrew syntax, when a title or an office acts as the head of a description, the pronouns attached to it can shift between different historical individuals who hold that same office. [1]
    • A classic grammatical parallel is found in Jeremiah 25:11, which states that nations will serve "the king of Babylon seventy years". Grammatically, "the king" is a singular masculine singular noun with matching singular verbs, yet historically it spanned multiple unique individual rulers (Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk, Nabonidus). [1]
    • Similarly, the grammatical "he" in Daniel 11:21 and 11:24 can smoothly shift from a near-term ruler to a far-term ruler because they are both occupying the singular prophetic office of the northern adversary. [1, 2]
AI Summary
If a translator or reader splits verse 21 and verse 24 into two different people, they are making an exegetical or theological choice, not a grammatical one. Classical Hebrew grammar perfectly accommodates implicit subject shifts, parallel structuring, and generic corporate singulars—meaning the text can easily be read as two distinct individuals without violating any syntactic rules.
 
As was already said, Daniel 11:31 predicts the Maccabean revolt. But Daniel 9:27 predicts the crucifixion of Jesus and the Jewish/Roman wars of 68-70 AD.

Jesus was the one who confirmed the Covenant for one week. He personally confirmed the covenant for 3-1/2 years until his crucifixion. Then his Apostles confirmed the covenant for the next 3-1/2 years.

This is why it says that in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. He did this literally when the curtain was torn from top to bottom. He also did this metaphorically because after the Death, Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ, the animal sacrifices were no longer necessary. He is our high priest now.

Daniel says that "on the wing of abominations he shall make desolate." What does that mean? In the Hebrew idiom, a "wing" was a fixed boundary, an edge, or a corner. Daniel is saying that when Israel's abominations reach their absolute limit, God will act. And he did. Putting an innocent man to death for political reasons is the epitome of evil and God responded by bringing the Roman Army against Jerusalem to destroy it and the temple.

So in your understanding the crucifixion is a abomination??
 
Thanks @GaryA . You make a valid point. I will not argue with you. I will however note that I do have the choice to interpret those verses as having to do with two unique individuals while not breaking the rules of Hebrew grammar:

AI Overview:

Yes, Daniel 11:21 and Daniel 11:24 can refer to two unique individuals without breaking any rules of Hebrew grammar.
While the overwhelming majority of traditional, preterist, and historical commentators interpret verses 21–24 as a continuous description of a single figure—historically identified as Antiochus IV Epiphanes—Hebrew grammar itself does not strictly forbid a transition between two distinct figures across these verses. [1, 2]
According to Copilot AI.
I asked this question,
a student named Researcher is in a debate with Gary. respond to researcher with hebrew and greek evidence to back your answers.
Then I copied the entire post and feed it to the AI. It responds thus:

Researcher, the problem with your claim is simple: Hebrew grammar does not merely “allow” a subject shift—Daniel must signal it, and in 11:21–24 he never does. When you look at the actual Hebrew verbs, suffixes, and the Greek translators’ handling of them, the text locks the subject to one man from v.21 all the way through v.24. Your argument appeals to possible grammar, but the passage itself uses restrictive grammar that forbids the shift you’re proposing.

Here is the evidence.


1. Hebrew subject-chain: every verb in 11:21–24 is 3ms with no new subject introduced​

Daniel 11:21 introduces a specific successor:

  • וְעָמַד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ נָבֵז veʿāmad bimqômô nāvēz “A vile person shall stand in his place.”
This is a succession marker. Once Daniel names a successor, the following 3ms verbs must refer to him unless Daniel introduces a new subject explicitly.

From that point forward, every verb is 3ms:

  • וּבָא (“he shall come”)
  • וְהֶחֱזִיק (“he shall take hold”)
  • יַעֲשֶׂה (“he shall do”)
  • וְעָלָה (“he shall rise”)
  • וְעָצַם (“he shall become strong”)
  • יָבוֹא (“he shall enter”)
  • וְעָשָׂה (“he shall do”)
  • יַחֲשֹׁב (“he shall devise”)
Not one new subject noun appears. Not one office title is reintroduced. Not one succession marker is added. Hebrew narrative rules: the subject remains the same until a new one is introduced.


2. Hebrew pronominal suffixes tie every action to the same man​

Look at the suffixes:

  • עָלָיו — “upon him” (v.21)
  • מִלְּפָנָיו — “from before him” (v.22)
  • אֵלָיו — “to him” (v.23)
  • אֲבֹתָיו — “his fathers” (v.24)
These suffixes are all 3ms, and all refer back to the vile person introduced in v.21. If Daniel intended a new individual in v.24, he would have introduced him with a noun or title. He did not.


3. Greek translators confirm the same single-subject reading​

The LXX and Theodotion—ancient Jewish interpreters—translate every verb in 11:21–24 as 3rd person singular, with no subject change:

  • ἀναστήσεται — “he shall arise”
  • ἥξει — “he shall come”
  • κρατήσει — “he shall take hold”
  • ποιήσει — “he shall do”
  • ἀναβήσεται — “he shall rise”
  • κραταιωθήσεται — “he shall become strong”
  • εἰσελεύσεται — “he shall enter”
  • λογίσεται — “he shall devise”
And the Greek repeatedly uses:

  • αὐτῷ — “to him
  • αὐτοῦ — “his”
  • αὐτόν — “him”
The Greek translators—who knew Hebrew fluently—saw one subject, not two.


4. Your Jeremiah 25:11 analogy fails because Daniel 11:21 is not a corporate title​

You appealed to “king of Babylon” as a corporate singular. True—but irrelevant.

Jeremiah 25:11 uses a title (“king of Babylon”), which can span multiple rulers.

Daniel 11:21 does not use a title. It uses a succession event:

  • “In his place shall stand a vile person.”
Once Daniel identifies a specific successor, the grammar binds the subject to that individual until Daniel signals a change. He does not signal one until v.36, not v.24.

Your analogy is grammatically possible but contextually impossible.


5. Your claim that “Hebrew grammar allows two individuals” is technically true but textually false​

Yes, Hebrew can shift subjects implicitly.

But Daniel 11:21–24 does not do so.

Why?

Because:

  1. A new subject must be introduced with a noun/title.None appears.
  2. A new succession marker must appear.None appears.
  3. A new office must be reintroduced.None appears.
  4. The verb chain must break.It does not.
  5. The Greek translators must show a shift.They do not.
Your interpretation is grammatically possible in the abstract, but not permitted by the actual grammar of this passage.
Researcher, you’re appealing to hypothetical grammar, but Daniel uses restrictive grammar—a succession marker, a continuous 3ms verb chain, repeated 3ms suffixes, and Greek confirmation—to keep the subject locked to one man from v.21 through v.24. The text itself does not allow your subject shift; you have to import it from theology, not grammar.
 
As was already said, Daniel 11:31 predicts the Maccabean revolt. But Daniel 9:27 predicts the crucifixion of Jesus and the Jewish/Roman wars of 68-70 AD.

Jesus was the one who confirmed the Covenant for one week. He personally confirmed the covenant for 3-1/2 years until his crucifixion. Then his Apostles confirmed the covenant for the next 3-1/2 years.

This is why it says that in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. He did this literally when the curtain was torn from top to bottom. He also did this metaphorically because after the Death, Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ, the animal sacrifices were no longer necessary. He is our high priest now.

Daniel says that "on the wing of abominations he shall make desolate." What does that mean? In the Hebrew idiom, a "wing" was a fixed boundary, an edge, or a corner. Daniel is saying that when Israel's abominations reach their absolute limit, God will act. And he did. Putting an innocent man to death for political reasons is the epitome of evil and God responded by bringing the Roman Army against Jerusalem to destroy it and the temple.
Nope. All wrong.
The futurist dispensationalists have it right no doubt about that.

Our eschatology is...... flawless.
Sublime perfection in fact. Zero errors, no loose ands, no outstanding dilemmas or paradoxes, no more work required and NO MORE DEBATE. It's a done deal.

Furthermore, our eschatology just so happens to match prevailing present day world geopolitical and environmental events PERFECTLY. Just look out of your window and tune into the news to confirm that this is true.

I gaze at the "other theories" in astonishment and chagrin, asking myself: "how can it be possible for them to be 100% wrong 100% of the time?"

Knowing full well that it IS not only possible, it is extremely if not overwhelmingly common....🥲
 
Correct - scripture says that - however, that in-and-of-itself does not a kingdom separation make. (into multiple kingdoms)

The iron-clay mixture exists within the singular kingdom - and, does not split it apart into multiple separate kingdoms.

The iron-clay mixture [description] illustrates an incompatibility within the kingdom.


No - it does not say that - you are misinterpreting it and/or you just really really really want it to say that and will not consider anything else...? :unsure:


I do not use any "denominational" books - dictionary/concordance/lexicon books - yes - commentaries and other books specifically tied to what denominations teach in their seminaries - absolutely not - a lot of that stuff is "poison" to anyone who is actually striving for the truth - because, most of it contains so much error.

I did read my KJV - for myself - verse by verse - word for word - and, that is how I came up with what I came up with... ;)
As already shown above in verse 41 the iron and clay in the feet and toes symbolizes that the iron kingdom became divided. And remains in this divided state until God sets up His eternal kingdom in verse 44.

This is how you ignore what the bible actually says in favor of your denominational teachings and church endorsed documentaries.

You leave out specific details that don't fit with your personal beliefs.

This makes it possible to apply any definition you wish it to mean.
Makes it possible for 100 people to redefine the prophecy to mean 100 different things.
But no one can get it correct without taking into account every detail the prophecy mentions.

Fact is: the iron kingdom becomes divided, individual nations try to reunite through a mingling of seed (a prince of one kingdom marries a princess of another kingdom in the hopes their heir shall rule over both kingdoms as one), but this shall fail because iron does not mix with clay.

I gave the texts. Arguing against what the bible clearly states shows you cannot read it for your self.

I have heard these arguments before (years ago). You are parroting what someone else has told you NOT what you have read for yourself from the actual text.
 
As already shown above in verse 41 the iron and clay in the feet and toes symbolizes that the iron kingdom became divided. And remains in this divided state until God sets up His eternal kingdom in verse 44.

This is how you ignore what the bible actually says in favor of your denominational teachings and church endorsed documentaries.

You leave out specific details that don't fit with your personal beliefs.

This makes it possible to apply any definition you wish it to mean.
Makes it possible for 100 people to redefine the prophecy to mean 100 different things.
But no one can get it correct without taking into account every detail the prophecy mentions.

Fact is: the iron kingdom becomes divided, individual nations try to reunite through a mingling of seed (a prince of one kingdom marries a princess of another kingdom in the hopes their heir shall rule over both kingdoms as one), but this shall fail because iron does not mix with clay.

I gave the texts. Arguing against what the bible clearly states shows you cannot read it for your self.

I have heard these arguments before (years ago). You are parroting what someone else has told you NOT what you have read for yourself from the actual text.
"But no one can get it correct without taking into account every detail the prophecy mentions."

Correction: But no one can get it correct without taking into account every detail the ENTIRE BIBLE mentions.

The - entire - Bible. All of it every word
 
  • Like
Reactions: Revelation1v8
As was already said, Daniel 11:31 predicts the Maccabean revolt. But Daniel 9:27 predicts the crucifixion of Jesus and the Jewish/Roman wars of 68-70 AD.

Jesus was the one who confirmed the Covenant for one week. He personally confirmed the covenant for 3-1/2 years until his crucifixion. Then his Apostles confirmed the covenant for the next 3-1/2 years.

This is why it says that in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease. He did this literally when the curtain was torn from top to bottom. He also did this metaphorically because after the Death, Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus Christ, the animal sacrifices were no longer necessary. He is our high priest now.

Daniel says that "on the wing of abominations he shall make desolate." What does that mean? In the Hebrew idiom, a "wing" was a fixed boundary, an edge, or a corner. Daniel is saying that when Israel's abominations reach their absolute limit, God will act. And he did. Putting an innocent man to death for political reasons is the epitome of evil and God responded by bringing the Roman Army against Jerusalem to destroy it and the temple.
You had better get the sequence and timing right. Think Church age then 70th week.

[Rev 12:3 KJV] 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

[Rev 13:1 KJV] 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.

[Rev 17:3 KJV] 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

You are exactly right to point to the shifting of the crowns (diadems) across these three verses.

In Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s exegesis, the placement of the crowns is the crucial hermeneutical key to tracking the chronological progression of Gentile world dominion—specifically showing the prophetic gap of the Church Age and the shifting power structures within Daniel's 70th week (the Tribulation).

Fruchtenbaum teaches that as the crowns move, so does the seat of absolute authority. Here is how he exegetes the exact sequence you provided:

### 1. Revelation 12:3 — Crowns on the Seven Heads

> *"a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads."*
>

* **The Timing:** Historical timeline up to the First Century (Pre-Church Age).

* **Fruchtenbaum’s Exegesis:** The dragon is Satan. The crowns are placed on the **seven heads**, which represent the consecutive Gentile world empires (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the future One-World system). The crowns on the heads indicate that, historically, Satan exercised his authority through these successive, singular empires one at a time.

* **The Gap:** After the sixth head (Rome), there is a prophetic pause. The Roman Empire falls, and the prophetic clock stops for the **Church Age**. The seventh head (the One-World Government) does not rise until the Church Age ends at the Rapture, paving the way for the 70th week.

### 2. Revelation 13:1 — Crowns Shift to the Ten Horns

> *"a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns..."*
>

* **The Timing:** The First Half of Daniel's 70th Week.

* **Fruchtenbaum’s Exegesis:** The crowns have now shifted from the heads to the **ten horns**. According to Fruchtenbaum's timeline, following the Rapture, a One-World Government (the 7th head) is established but quickly divides into ten regional kingdoms. The horns represent these ten kings who rule concurrently. The fact that the horns now wear the crowns shows that ruling authority has shifted from a single consecutive empire into a coalition of ten co-ruling kings. This marks the beginning stages of the Tribulation period.

### 3. Revelation 17:3 — No Crowns on Heads or Horns

> *"a scarlet coloured beast... having seven heads and ten horns."* (Notice: no crowns are mentioned).
>
* **The Timing:** The Middle of Daniel's 70th Week.

* **Fruchtenbaum’s Exegesis:** The crowns are now completely absent from both the heads and the horns. Why? Because a massive power shift has occurred. Fruchtenbaum parallels this with Daniel 7, teaching that the Antichrist (the "little horn") rises up among the ten kings. He assassinates three of them, and the remaining seven submit their authority entirely to him.

* Because the Antichrist assumes absolute, dictatorial, global control at the midpoint of the Tribulation, the ten kings lose their independent sovereign power. They are no longer crowned. The Antichrist himself—who *is* the Beast—has usurped the authority, becoming the "eighth king" mentioned later in Revelation 17:11.

### Summary of the Sequence

By paying attention to exactly where John places the crowns, Fruchtenbaum demonstrates a perfect chronological progression:

1. **Consecutive historical empires** (Crowns on heads -> followed by the Church Age).

2. **A ten-king confederacy at the start of the Tribulation** (Crowns on horns).

3. **Absolute dictatorship of the Antichrist at the midpoint of the Tribulation** (No crowns on heads or horns, because the Beast himsel

f holds all the power).
 
As already shown above in verse 41 the iron and clay in the feet and toes symbolizes that the iron kingdom became divided. And remains in this divided state until God sets up His eternal kingdom in verse 44.

This is how you ignore what the bible actually says in favor of your denominational teachings and church endorsed documentaries.

You leave out specific details that don't fit with your personal beliefs.

This makes it possible to apply any definition you wish it to mean.
Makes it possible for 100 people to redefine the prophecy to mean 100 different things.
But no one can get it correct without taking into account every detail the prophecy mentions.

Fact is: the iron kingdom becomes divided, individual nations try to reunite through a mingling of seed (a prince of one kingdom marries a princess of another kingdom in the hopes their heir shall rule over both kingdoms as one), but this shall fail because iron does not mix with clay.

I gave the texts. Arguing against what the bible clearly states shows you cannot read it for your self.

I have heard these arguments before (years ago). You are parroting what someone else has told you NOT what you have read for yourself from the actual text.
We will just have to agree to disagree agreeably...

:coffee:
 
You had better get the sequence and timing right. Think Church age then 70th week.

[Rev 12:3 KJV] 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

[Rev 13:1 KJV] 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.

[Rev 17:3 KJV] 3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

You are exactly right to point to the shifting of the crowns (diadems) across these three verses.

In Arnold Fruchtenbaum’s exegesis, the placement of the crowns is the crucial hermeneutical key to tracking the chronological progression of Gentile world dominion—specifically showing the prophetic gap of the Church Age and the shifting power structures within Daniel's 70th week (the Tribulation).

Fruchtenbaum teaches that as the crowns move, so does the seat of absolute authority. Here is how he exegetes the exact sequence you provided:

### 1. Revelation 12:3 — Crowns on the Seven Heads

> *"a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads."*
>

* **The Timing:** Historical timeline up to the First Century (Pre-Church Age).

* **Fruchtenbaum’s Exegesis:** The dragon is Satan. The crowns are placed on the **seven heads**, which represent the consecutive Gentile world empires (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, and the future One-World system). The crowns on the heads indicate that, historically, Satan exercised his authority through these successive, singular empires one at a time.

* **The Gap:** After the sixth head (Rome), there is a prophetic pause. The Roman Empire falls, and the prophetic clock stops for the **Church Age**. The seventh head (the One-World Government) does not rise until the Church Age ends at the Rapture, paving the way for the 70th week.

### 2. Revelation 13:1 — Crowns Shift to the Ten Horns

> *"a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns..."*
>

* **The Timing:** The First Half of Daniel's 70th Week.

* **Fruchtenbaum’s Exegesis:** The crowns have now shifted from the heads to the **ten horns**. According to Fruchtenbaum's timeline, following the Rapture, a One-World Government (the 7th head) is established but quickly divides into ten regional kingdoms. The horns represent these ten kings who rule concurrently. The fact that the horns now wear the crowns shows that ruling authority has shifted from a single consecutive empire into a coalition of ten co-ruling kings. This marks the beginning stages of the Tribulation period.

### 3. Revelation 17:3 — No Crowns on Heads or Horns

> *"a scarlet coloured beast... having seven heads and ten horns."* (Notice: no crowns are mentioned).
>
* **The Timing:** The Middle of Daniel's 70th Week.

* **Fruchtenbaum’s Exegesis:** The crowns are now completely absent from both the heads and the horns. Why? Because a massive power shift has occurred. Fruchtenbaum parallels this with Daniel 7, teaching that the Antichrist (the "little horn") rises up among the ten kings. He assassinates three of them, and the remaining seven submit their authority entirely to him.

* Because the Antichrist assumes absolute, dictatorial, global control at the midpoint of the Tribulation, the ten kings lose their independent sovereign power. They are no longer crowned. The Antichrist himself—who *is* the Beast—has usurped the authority, becoming the "eighth king" mentioned later in Revelation 17:11.

### Summary of the Sequence

By paying attention to exactly where John places the crowns, Fruchtenbaum demonstrates a perfect chronological progression:

1. **Consecutive historical empires** (Crowns on heads -> followed by the Church Age).

2. **A ten-king confederacy at the start of the Tribulation** (Crowns on horns).

3. **Absolute dictatorship of the Antichrist at the midpoint of the Tribulation** (No crowns on heads or horns, because the Beast himsel

f holds all the power).
I'm sorry. I thought we were sticking to strictly what the bible says.
Not what someone else says the bible means....