What is the Abomination of Desolation?

[Davidstarr]

We will just have to agree to disagree agreeably...

I'm am going by exactly what Daniel says in what the dream was and the interpretation of the dream.
It's not me you are disagreeing with.
You are arguing against a 2,500 year old vision that is specific verse by verse, word for word of what God was showing to Nebuchadnezzar of what was to come.

 

[Davidstarr]

I wonder now if there is any point in going on to the next vision (chapter 7) if people deliberately refuse to see the plain facts under their noses with chapter 2, the easiest one of the 4 visions in the book of Daniel to understand.

I'm surprised someone hasn't tried to argue that since the head of gold represented Nebuchadnezzar then the chest and arms of silver must have been his stepson Amel-Marduk and the belly and thighs of brass was Belshazzar. So the legs of iron must be Darius the Mede....

I really don't feel like arguing what the bible says vs the writings of Jesuits from over 400 years ago.
Because I know that's what I'm going to run into going over chapters 7 and 8.
Much less the maze of chapter 11 you guys like to make because you cannot stay in the chronological order of the prophecy itself.

 

[Roger316]

So in your understanding the crucifixion is a abomination??

Let me put it this way so as not to be confusing. You and I know that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ became riches for the gentiles as Paul said in Romans 11. But he also argues that the crucifixion was a transgression of Israel. In short, a group of men conspired to murder an innocent man and did so under the color of law. If that isn't an abomination, then I don't know what is.

Do you agree?

 

[lrs68]

The document states:


Hebrew has no grammatical mechanism for an “aside” that breaks antecedent chains.

Daniel does not change subjects mid‑sentence without naming the new one.
The subject introduced in v.26b (“the people of the prince who is to come”) remains the active referent until a new subject is introduced. No new subject is introduced before v.27.
Thus the “aside” theory is not linguistically defensible.

Much of Daniel was actually written in Aramaic. And even though Aramaic is a sister language to Hebrew, Aramaic is structured much more like Greek than Hebrew.

 

[Davidstarr]

Chapt

Much of Daniel was actually written in Aramaic. And even though Aramaic is a sister language to Hebrew, Aramaic is structured much more like Greek than Hebrew.

Chapters 1-6 was written in an Aramaic form of Chaldean if I am not mistaken.
There is even evidence that chapter 4 may not have been written by Daniel himself but by Nebuchadnezzar (or at least a scribe in his employ).
But chapters 7-12 were in Hebrew.