You have to read it twice.

Sequence?

1) And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince [which standeth for the children of thy people...heavily supplemented by KJV translators]

2) and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation [even] to that same time:

3) and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Daniel 12: in conjunction with Revelation 13 paints a complete picture

With only one horn remaining to be identified in Rev 13 post Trump, I read that it is Michael Pence.

I'm getting slow. I had to read this twice lol

If it takes away from showing the same power of antichrist as the other chapters, then it becomes a issue.

This is interesting, a complete explanation of the Adventist positions on Daniel 11...

"The three basic Adventist interpretations of the book of Daniel 11 are discussed below.

The Turkey and Egypt Position

The first view holds fairly closely to what Uriah Smith wrote in his 1884 book, Daniel and the Revelation and defends a strong literal interpretation throughout the entire chapter.

The King of the North in verses 40-45 is interpreted as being Turkey, either as the Ottoman Empire in its conflict in 1798 AD with Napoleonic France and the breakaway rulers of Egypt (verses 40-44), or as a last-days reincarnation of the Caliphate; and the King of the South in verses 40-45 represents Egypt.

Uriah Smith?s interpretation argues that all the verses up to and including verse 44 have already been fulfilled. The modern exponents of this position argue that verse 45 is to be interpreted as Turkey, leading a re-established Caliphate, which will establish a newly restored Caliphate in Jerusalem, after which this power meets its end, leading to the final time of trouble of Daniel 12:1.

This position has many adherents because (1) it appears to use a consistently literal hermeneutic (principle of interpretation) throughout the chapter, that is to say, the King of the North is always a literal, earthly power situated/based to the north of Jerusalem, and the King of the South is always a literal, earthly power situated/based to the south of Jerusalem; and (2) Ellen White appears to provide strong support for the views contained in Uriah Smith?s preaching on the ?Eastern Question? and the contents of his chapter on Daniel 11 in his book.

It should be noted that some recent Adventist commentators cast doubt on the extent of White?s support for this interpretation.

The Papacy and Atheism Position

The second position takes the latter half of the chapter symbolically, arguing that the papacy is represented in its persecuting phase during the 1,260 years of papal supremacy.

This position agrees with the first position of a literal/historical interpretive framework for verses 1-22, down to the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary, but argues that after Calvary, the New Testament (NT) consistently applies a more spiritualized interpretation of Old Testament (OT) literal actors.

For instance, historical Babylon in Daniel becomes spiritual Babylon in Revelation; ethnic Israel through the OT era to the end of the 490-year prophecy of Daniel becomes spiritual Israel in NT times; and so on.

Thus, although this position identifies historical actors from verse 23 onward, these historical actors are no longer considered to represent the literal earthly powers to the north and south of Jerusalem, but rather they represent spiritual powers that are manifest in earthly realities, such as, for instance, the papacy as the King of the North. Verses 36-39 represent the full flowering of the blasphemous and persecuting papal power before 1798 AD.

In verses 40-45, the papacy remains as the King of the North and atheism as the King of the South. This position parallels the identification of the atheist French Revolution in Revelation 11, and Revolutionary France being the power that overthrew the papacy in 1798 AD. This view came into vogue from the 1940s onward, after the writings of Louis Were, and is driven by two main factors: (1) literary parallels between the little-horn papal power of Daniel 7 and 8 and the King of the North from verse 36 onward; and (2) seeking to correlate the eschatology of Revelation 12-14 and 2 Thessalonians, with the actors mentioned in Daniel 11.

This view is probably the most commonly held view in the Adventist Church today.

The Papacy and Islam Position

The third (and most recent) position among Adventists reads Daniel 11 as the third, basically literal interpretation of the symbolic vision in 8:1-14, after the interpretations in 8:17-26 and 9:24-27.

Daniel 11:2-21 profile a sequence of historical events after the time of Daniel that affects his Jewish people and comprise background to the Messiah?s coming. Verse 22 predicts the death of Christ under imperial Rome at the heart of the chapter. Verses 23-30 trace the rise of the religio-political church of Rome and its political-military exploits, including the Crusades and later campaigns against Islamic power, in which Catholic forces coming to the land of Israel from the north and Muslim armies coming to it from the south sought to control it (verses 25-30).

Then verses 31-39 flesh out the predictions in Daniel 7 and 8 concerning the papacy?s unique and astonishing religious pretensions and vicious persecutions (verses 31-39; see also 2 Thessalonians 2). In verses 40-43, the papacy and its allies (?Babylon? in Revelation) finally triumph over Islamic power, its long-time religio-political nemesis (see also the fifth and sixthtrumpets in Revelation 9), during the ?time of the end? (after 1798 and 1844).

In the course of a final campaign, which apparently aims to persecute God?s true people, the papacy abruptly meets its end (verses 44-45) just before a ?time of trouble? and Christ?s second coming (12:1-3). This interpretation accepts religious emphasis and globalization developing after Christ?s first coming as Israel becomes the Christian church and Rome becomes the papacy. However, God?s true Christian people are also affected by the political-military activities of Rome and Islam at particular times and locations." ....https://www.adventistworld.org/what-does-daniel-chapter-11-mean/

As you probably already know, Tim Roosenberg has a lot to say about this.

There are three ways to use the Bible. The first would be of course exegesis, or what it meant to the original audience. Now, usually when later Bible writers, or Mrs. White, quotes the Bible, they rarely do an exegesis on the text. They make applications based on the exegesis. The second way to use the Bible is called historical analogy. Looking for the same principle from the text but applied to a later event. The third way is not really connected to the exegesis, but where there is a situation where the words of the Bible fit the situation. This has been called a homiletical usage. Unfortunately, too often we want to make these later analogies or homiletical usage to be the exegesis. When in Daniel's day they did not see the text as pointing to the pope, and even less so Antiochus (although it appears that the Antiochus situation caused people to take Daniel off the shelf and blow the dust off of it, and made some marginal notes that eventually got copied into the text.)

Deuteronomy 4:30 does equate the exile with the end of the world. Jeremiah 27:7 talks about the exile covering Nebuchadnezzar, his son, his grandson, then a new country that over comes Babylon leading to other nations and a time when God was going to take his people home. So we get an idea of 4 major and some minor divisions. Daniel starts with four divisions, and Daniel 2 has a word that we read the idea of kingdoms into, but the word really means individual kings. The book of Daniel names 4 kings: Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius, and Cyrus. Daniel 2 and 7 and somewhat 8 has the possibility that the exile could be the last days. Daniel 8 hints that they may not me, and definitely from Daniel 9 time was to continue. Instead of the exile ending in a glorious second exodus lead by the Messiah, there was going to be a lackluster return home, and 70 weeks of years where God wanted to again bless the people (in the last chapters of Isaiah there are texts that we apply to heaven, but is not a perfect representative of heaven. These were things that God wanted to do over the 70 weeks of years.)

Daniel 11 and 12, exegetically tells us what COULD have happened and what WOULD have happened had Jesus been accepted. In Daniel 9 we have Messiah the prince being cut off. One way the phrase translated "cut off" could be understood as being killed. In Daniel 12 we have Michael the Prince standing up. Again the phrase translated "standing up" can mean resurrection from the dead.

The last king of the north does not regard any of the false gods of history, so does he regard the true God? No he doesn't. Nor does he create a new false god, but only worships himself and causes the world to worship himself. (Daniel gives an interesting name for the true God: The one beloved of women. This is a name of Jesus we tend to overlook).

The last king of the north is at first accepted as the Messiah and is worshiped in the temple; but the wise realize that he is NOT the Messiah so he gets thrown out of the temple. He gathers Judah's enemies and conquers the Jews, and heads out in a south westerly direction conquering others, but not bothering Edom, Ammon and the chiefs of Moab. I've heard two understandings of these. Now all three of these nations once knew the truth, once followed the truth but eventually rejected the truth. So one interpretation is that Satan does not need to conquer them, but the rest of the Moabites shows that some of the backsliders can still change. The other interpretation is that since they once followed the truth, that God protects them except for a few of the Moabites who are not willing to repent and return to their early faith.

This king of the north continues in the south west campaign when he hears a horrible rumor from the north and east (the direction he had come from; and where Judah is located) and that horrible rumor is that Michael has stood up, Michael has risen from the dead. Messiah the prince who was killed in Daniel 9 has resurrected. And Daniel 12 tells how the world could have ended if Jesus was accepted when he was here.

From this exegesis of the text we can now draw analogies over how it is to be applied over history from the time of the ascension of Jesus until the Second Coming. I don't know how accurate it is, but I have made an analogy over these kings of the north and south based on the 7 parts of Daniel 2, and the 7 heads of Revelation 13.

These 7 parts are the powers that have ruled over most of God's people from the last son of David who ruled until THE Son of David is again ruling over his people.

1. Babylon
2. Medio-Persia
3. Greece
4. Rome
5. The Holy Roman Empire/Rule of the church in the middle ages: Clay represents being formed by God, but here instead of being formed by God the clay is being formed by politics, the iron. In Daniel 11 we have a king of the north who gives his daughter to marry the king of the south. A bride represents God's church, but again she is married to politics
6. The toes of iron and clay/the deadly wound/ In Daniel 11 a king of the north who only sends out collectors of tribute. A time where there is no great empire ruling over most of God's people. A time of independent nations, some offering more freedom, some more restrictive.
7. The toes attempt to join together, the deadly wound healed, that last despicable king of the north. This will last only a short time and end up in total chaos.

Followed by the stone not cut out by man's hands. When the Messiah will come to lead us home in the glorious second exodus to bring us home to the true Jerusalem, the true promised land.

There are three ways of interpreting prophecies.

But first we need to establish the two types of Bible books that contain prophecies.

Classical prophets:
These are the Old Testament books of the prophets addressing the "classical" period of prophecy ? from the later years of the divided kingdoms of Judah and Israel, throughout the time of exile, and into the years of Israel's return from exile. They contain prophecies addressing Israel's immediate future, they prophecy the coming of the Messiah, they address what COULD be in the future if Israel accepted God's covenant and accepted Christ as their Messiah, and many of these "failed" prophecies will receive a more complete (though not in all their details) fulfillment in the end of time, and future restoration after Christ's second coming. (books like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Habakkuk, Malachi, etc)

Apocalyptical prophets:
Then there are two Bible books generally classified as "apocalyptic prophecy," in contrast to "classical prophecy". These books take a cosmic sweep of the great controversy between good and evil, not within a local and contemporary historical framework (like the classical prophets), but draws aside the curtain, as it were, from the historical period and span the whole sequence of human history clear to the restoration of all things. For example, Daniel begins with Babylon and takes us clear to the time of the end. Revelation begins in the apostle John's time and takes us to earth made new after the 1000 year millennium.



Three problems I see here:
1. It is treating the book of Daniel basically as a classical prophecy and instead of seeing it as sweeping across all time, tries to see it having dual or more applications. This is where Ford went wrong and if pushed to logical conclusion will undermine the foundation of our beliefs.

2. Indeed Daniel 9 speaks of Christ's death "cut off". And so does Daniel 11:22 when the Prince of the covenant is broken, by Roman forces. But everything between verse 22 and Daniel 12:1 does NOT take place between Christ's crucifixion and Christ's resurrection.
Also notice Daniel 9:27 it is the Messiah that confirms the covenant and is "cut off" in the midst of the week (while the covenant was being offered to the Jews 27- 34 AD) Daniel already tells us what would happen to the Jewish nation when the prince they chose (we have no king but Caesar) destroys the city and the sanctuary and the end of it shall be with a flood (9:26)
Lots of linguistic parallels here with Daniel 11:22. What comes after Daniel 11:22 should logically then cover the Christian era.

3. Daniel 12 speaks of Michael standing up to deliver his people, -- every one who is found written in the book of life. This part is then SEALED until the time of the end.
This is an end time message. It is NOT a dual application classical book of prophecy. It is an apocalyptical book of prophecy.

Next we will look at the three ways apocalyptical books of prophecy have been interpreted.

The three ways the apocalyptical books of prophecy, (Daniel and Revelation) have been interpreted are referred to as :
1. The continual historical or Historicists method which sees the prophecies unfolding over the entire time from the days of the prophet right through to the establishment of God's eternal kingdom.

2. The Preterist Method which places the prophecies mainly into the Old Testament times, including Christ's first advent and the first century or so following. Thus all those prophecies are now in the past and serve only as possible examples for future events.

3. Futurism while they do begin in the prophet's time and include Christ's first coming, they then leap over all of history since that time (which includes the bulk of Revelation) to be fulfilled in the future.

Protestantism (as well as Adventism) used the historicist method. Neither would have developed and gained strength without basing prophecies on the historicist method.
Thus the papal church's power was fatally wounded.
To counter this serious Biblical exposure of the papal system the historicist method had to be replaced. It was too obviously exposing the counterfeit oppressive endtime power. So the counter reformation pushed the other two methods which have now in some form or other pushed out the historicist method and the papal church has again risen (healing the wound) to be the world wide, ultimate spiritual leader, just a step of away from regaining the full power.

Now Protestantism is declared "dead" by most of the Protestant churches. And even Adventism (which is still holding onto historicism, in spite of questions on some of the details) is being infiltrated with many "progressives" who seek to introduce preterist and futurism into our interpretation of Daniel and Revelation.
That was Ford's big thing, he tried to introduce preterism.

And that's what I also see in Kevin's suggestion, using the debates by historicists on some of the details, especially in the last verses of Daniel 11, to embark on a preterist explanation of the prophecies.

Thank you for your post and the concern that this is the same error that Desmond Ford committed. I should mention that I attended Atlantic Union College from 1977 - 82 (One year off to work as a pastor's assistant via. The Adventist Taskforce program.) This covered the height of the Desmond Ford situation. My professors were very anti-Ford. This is what they were teaching to prevent us students (and the surrounding community) from falling into the Ford situation. Both Desmond Ford and a few years later Walter Rea came with their horse and pony show. Ford actually gave the week of prayer my first semester. Then there was a debate between him and our New Testament professor. Sadly, I don?t have a recording of the debate, but it was one where Ford was expecting the routine ideas, and was not prepared for this debate. Rea only came to the town hall of the next town and debated the Old Testament/Spirit of Prophecy professor and again was prepared for the routine ideas, and ended up doing even worst than Ford did with the New Testament professor.

Our Daniel and Revelation seminar was basically developed among communities found in the Franciscan movement. They tended to update it to their time in history. Some of their applications were spot on, but others were not so good applications. Wycliffe built on this, and as the Protestants were getting the hard time from the Pope, they were able to turn to this method, and apply even stronger the criticisms that were developed about the Papacy.

The Bible uses either a homeletical use of earlier verses, or, and more often draws analogies to apply earlier principles to a similar situation. This is what we call "Historism". The early church fathers also used Historism, but it eventually fell out of vogue as Bible study was changed into allegories, where say the story of the Good Samaritan was not read out for what it said, but that the Good Samaritan was Paul, and the donkey was the gospel, and every little thing meant something else. This caused a big gap between the layiety and clergy because a plain lay member did not know what everything really meant in the allegory and only the priest could tell the congregation what the allegories were.

Then came Joachim of Flor. He gave a return to historism, and to simply read the words of scripture and take them at face value instead of drawing allegories out of everything. The church really pressured on him due to his popularity to encourage a crusade. The crusade was a dismal failure, and Joachim felt bad because he pushed for this, but did not see any light from God for this situation. However, being in the Middle East, Joachim realized that we need to use the culture of the time of the Bible in our study of the Bible. This included recovering the day-year principle. Joachim taught that the Pope could use his office to bring reform to the church. If he did not, then Satan was going to work through the Papacy for evil purposes.

One pope was impressed with Joachim's message, and gave at least a half hearted attempt to follow. But after he died the other popes were not happy with Joachim's teaching. Interestingly the church began teaching that while Joachim himself was not a heretic, that his teachings are heresy and whoever studies his work were heretics.

After Francisco died, a later Franciscan leader became very impressed with Joachim's message and even believed that Joachim was a true prophet of God. And thus many of the Franciscans became historistsm Wycliffe and then the Reformers continued to develop Joachim?s message. (I wonder what would have happened if the Reformation itself came out of the Franciscans instead of the Augustinians? They may have looked less evangelical and more Adventist.)

Now, Joachim, the Franciscans, and even Wycliffe and the reformers were living in the middle ages and start of the modern world. In the Middle East Joachim realized the importance of studying the Bible with in it?s culture. But we knew only a small amount of that culture until the 1840s. (Interesting time period.) The Rosetta stone was found and in 1822 it was deciphered. In the late 1830s Edward Robinson made his first trip to the Middle East and did the first scientific study of Biblical geography and his book came out in the early 1840s and was just starting to be read and studied as the world entered a new cycle as a Sabbatical year met a Jubilee (based on the early date of the exodus). That event happened on Yom Kippur 1844.

Robinson's work found many tells and opened the door to Biblical Archaeology. The Rosetta stone opened the door to understand ancient tablets that the archaeologists found. Prior to Robinson we could only read the words of the Bible. Translators had to guess as to how to translate several words, and even the words they did know was only a light idea as to just what the word or phrase really implied. Starting with reading Robinson's book and all that built on this has yes, not answered everything, but started us down the trail into the rediscovery of the ancient world. A time where we could start to study the Bible deeper than ever before. Oh how Joachim, the Franciscans, Wycliffe, and the Reformers, even the Wesleys would love to have lived in the world that Robinson's trip to the Middle East opened up. However they were the trail blazers that took us through history to the events of 1844. We can do a better job of Joachim's principle to study the Bible in the Middle Eastern Culture.

Yes, you are correct that the three methods of interpreting the Bible. Of course Historism as we find in the Bible, early church fathers, then from Joachim onward. Because of the way the Franciscans and later reformers used this to apply prophecies from Daniel and Revelation to the pope, the counter reformation formed two alternative methods:

Preterism where everything is placed ONLY in the immediate context of the text. This was taking Joachim?s principle of learning what you can about the original culture of the text, but then they stop there and say that?s all there is. Thus since all is in the past you can?t apply the texts to the pope.

Futurism which places everything to the end of time. This was also based on Joachim, he said something which was not one of his better ideas. Recently I heard it with in it?s context and it is not as bad as I?ll make it sound. He said that the Old Testament was the time of God the Father, The New Testament as the time for God the Son, and Church history is the time of the Holy Spirit. The counter reformation thus developed different dispensations, placing the prophecies only at the end of time. Futurism realizes that a final cycle is coming, but says that the final cycle is all there is.

True historism is looking at the original local application of scripture, taking the principles and applying to analogous situations as they cycle around again through out history, and there will be a final cycle.

Now among the problems with Preterism and Futurism there are two I?d like to point out. The first is that they are NOT based on the Bible, but some ideas said by someone who many believed to be a prophet of God. Second is that they are NOT FAIR to his either his message or to his methodology. In fact the counter reformation was using these parts of his message against the rest of his message in a way to superficially act like they respected him while resulting to undercut Joachim?s message. Both Preterism and Futurism is similar to if someone was to take Mrs. White?s closed door statements and building a whole new way to experience religion and read the Bible based on those quotes and rejecting her entire message.

An interesting point. To not have to deal with Mrs. White, several have closed prophecy with the close of the cannon. But these people tend to be dispensationalists, which is based on the idea that Joachim was a true prophet. Now these people need to answer the question of if prophecy continued beyond the cannon or not. If not, then Joachim cannot be a true prophet, and they will have to give up this belief that is based on a post Biblical prophet. If prophecy did continue, then they need to ask if Joachim was a true prophet or not. If not they need to give up dispensationalism. If he is, then they need to ask iif dispensationalism is fair to his ministry and teaching. (the answer is "NO") and they also need to ask if Mrs. White was a true prophet.

And again, our beliefs need to be built on the scripture, not on Joachim or Ellen White, whether they were true prophets or good people, Non-Biblical prophets and good people are not the source for our beliefs.

As to our belief in historism: The Bible has the theme about the promised child. On one level it was applied to Abraham having a son with Sarah. Then it cycles to the child that was to try to get King Ahaz to trust in God. He had two Kings getting ready to attack him. Isaiah gave him a sign of a child being born and before the child reached a certain milestone in development, the two kings would no longer be an issue. About some 700 years later this principle cycled around again to the ultimate fulfillment of the promised seed principle. (Now this is not to say that we may not someday find this principle cycling around to an application in our day. But Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment. Now if we wtry to use the Isaiah text as exegetically talking about Jesus, it does not make sense. Isaiah would be sqying ?King, trust in God. I know you are worried about these two kings, but in about 700 years a child will be born and before he reaches the developmental level the two kings that Ahaz was worried about will no longer be a threat. Just hold on Ahaz for about 700 years and you won?t have to worry about the two kings any more.

Now, I am not falling into Ford's going into preterism when I point out that Isaiah 7 had a specific local situation situation, but the word of God is bigger and the principles will cycle around again, and had it's greatest application in Jesus as Matthew pointed out.

I am aware that Gerhard Hassel, in consort with the vision of the church that Robert Pierson envisioned, formed a style of Bible study, in part of which Hassel said that while there is evidence that editing has been done to the text, that we are to ignore these and treat the text as if the final form was the original form.

However, there is one book in the Bible where it is difficult to apply this principle. It is the book of Amos. Now, languages are my weak point, I?m more into the history, culture and geography, but according to linguists there are two very, very different writing styles in Amos. Translators try to polish this off; but if you separate the two styles, Judah is left out of the warnings of the nations, and true to the poetic style, Israel is the 7th nation, the highlight of the entire message. This first style is all a warning to the Northern Kingdom about their pending destruction by Assyria. The second style is similar to if you hear a sermon or worship talk where someone is reading a text of scripture, then pausing every few verses to make personal comments, read some more, then adding comments through out the reading of the text and then a conclusion. These comments include making Judah the 7th country to get the warning (pushing Israel to an unuseual and non-poetic 8th country. And the rest of the comments applies the book about the Northern Kingdom and Assyria is reapplied to what Judah was going through 100 years later with Babylon. Here, in this second writing style, you see how the principle of Historism is used in the Bible, and that unlike Preterism and Futurism which is based on a misapplication of Joachim, When we look at Joachim as a whole, his historism was not something he made up, but actually is based on scripture. Our use of historism is not based on Joachim, Miller or Mrs. White, but is based on scripture.

On the other hand, to see how Amos was dealing with issues in the Northern Kingdom, a century before those additions, is not being a preterist and following the methods of Ford. Nor is the additional comments applying Amos to a new time and place is not being a dispensationalist.

In classes some of the criticisms the professors had of Ford included: His training was in New Testament Theology. He does not have the background for Daniel or other parts of the Old Testament. (in Old Testament studies, one fantastic book is Before Philosophy by Henri Frankfort and others, University of Chicago Press, 1946. Ford would have been so much better if he only read this one book, and he could also see how the ancient world had and used the day-year principle. ) Theologically, Ford was like if someone who was trained to be a heart surgeon that willy-nilly decided that he was just going to, without any training in the field, perform brain surgery. And even with his New Testament training, he was trained to read the words of Paul through the eyes of the Reformation instead of the context of the life of Paul himself.

Another point was that Ford read the Bible backwards, reading the cross into everything, instead of letting specific passages speak for themselves and see how the Bible develops to the cross.

A third was how Ford agreed too much with everyone, and thus did not have a consistent style of study. He differed in that he believed that Daniel had in mind not only the things of his day, but also Antiochus, and the Pope and a last day antichrist. That everyone is totally correct and exegesis covers each and everyone of these. In contrast our professors pointed out the two principles of exegesis and analogy. That we are to first look at the local application, learn the principles, and we can apply the principles as similar situations come. In other words, in Daniel 1-7 and somewhat 8 was looking to see how the exile could be the last days ending in a second great exodus lead by the Messiah. Somewhat in Daniel 8, and definitely chapters 9-12 Daniel uses historism by reapplying the principles of Daniel 1-7 (8) to a lackluster return to the end, but to prepare for the Messiah to come towards the end of the 70 weeks of years. Due to being rejected Jesus and the apostles, especially John, started using historism to apply to their age and forward. Whether Joachim was a prophet, or just a good man, he did revive historism and reminded us of the day-year principle. He did this at a time were we were very limited in exegesis, but he gave what was needed to nudge the church towards the reformation and towards Millerism. Today, since the 1840s we have been living in a world where we can do much better exegesis, and from a better exegesis we can make much better applications to analogous situations that will lead us through history and into what will be the final cycle.

The principle of exegesis and analogy is NOT following in Ford's mistakes of thinking that everyone was right.

Since, beginning in the 1840s, we have entered an age to get a better understanding of exegesis than ever before in history; this means that we can make better and more accurate analogies. What I wrote above on Daniel 9-12 and it?s application to what could have happened if Jesus was accepted comes from a careful straightforward reading of the text, without reading into it later analogies. But we are building on this principle for our application to the pope and our other application. Now, I did try to make an analogy on Daniel 11, but I confess that my analogy was based on how the 7 heads of the beast was interpreted by George McCready Price and the 1976 Southern New England Campmeeting Last Day Events seminar, and in studies of Daniel 2 by Stephen Haskell and Peri Windandy, which reflects Revelation 13. Now, I may be falling into Ford?s mistake of taking later understandings and pushing them into the text. For me this makes sense, but others who read the Bible more carefully and finds other evidence that clarifies the text better, so keep your eyes, ears and mind open. But I pray that as the Holy Spirit teaches us more about the topic, either through a better understanding of what could have happened in Daniel 9 ? 12, or just realizing events going one around us, I pray that I?d be willing to be teachable, instead of saying ?Hey, I got these degrees and I know what Price said in The Time of the End and what he said is solid there, thus I will continue to force his study on to Daniel 11.