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.