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.