Follow on what he says about this king in verse 36 in the book Daniel and Revelation, and if you read closely, he states the problem very concisely, and then he just basically sweeps the problem under the rug, but this problem is really insurmountable, and if he would acknowledge that it was insurmountable, it would have removed his ability to proceed with his conjecture about the following verses being the French Revolution, but here's what he says, and we're talking about the king in verse 36. This is Uriah Smith, page 292, Daniel and Revelation. The only objection against applying the expression the king to a new power lies in the definite article the. For it is urged the expression the king would identify this as the one last spoken of. If it could be properly translated a king, there would not be any difficulty. He acknowledges the problem of brothers and sisters. There may be some translations out there that give you liberty to say a king, but the original doesn't give you that liberty, and we just don't have the authority to go in and change the original Hebrew to meet our preconceived ideas, and therefore, verse 36, if you have a King James Version when it says and the king, it means and the king. It doesn't mean and a king like Uriah Smith wants it to mean, and the point being is if it is and the king, then certainly verse 36 is a continuation of the previous verses that are describing even as Uriah Smith admits, those previous verses are describing the papacy, and verse 36 is simply a further explanation of the characteristics of the king of the papacy, Popery, and verse 36 if it said and a king would allow you to suggest that there was a new king being brought into this scenario, but it doesn't say that. Now, when you rightly understand that it says the king, and that this term the king pulls verse 36 back in or keeps verse 36 in with this flow of thought from verse 30 onward, then it also is supported when you look at Sister White's quote that we just read, and it's supported in this fashion. She says that there's a history going to be repeated in Daniel 11, and she quotes verses 30 to 36, not verses 30 to 35, and says scenes similar to this will take place. So if you're in here...