in the previous verses. And this is how James White and the pioneers correctly understood it. Verse 36 is just a further thought about this king that has been identified in the previous verses. Now, in the verses that Sister White points to as a pattern for the final fulfillment of Daniel 11 is verses 30 to 36. And if you look at Uriah Smith's book, or any other pioneer book, they will correctly tell you that verse 30 and the first part of verse 31 is describing the transition from pagan Rome. And the daily in verse 31 they will describe as paganism. It's removed. Paganism is removed in order to place the abomination that make it desolate. And the pioneers will tell you correctly the abomination that makes desolate is the papacy. Verse 31, the papal power is introduced into the flow of history that's set forth in Daniel 11. And verse 32 and 33 and 34 and 35 is describing the persecution in a very general sense. There's other things in there, but essentially the persecution that takes place once the papacy takes control of the world. So when you you see this flow of events and then you come to verse 36 and it says, and the king, it's speaking about the king that is symbolized by the abomination that make it desolate. It's the king that has been doing this persecution. Uriah Smith tries to make a case for changing the word the to a. He changes the Word of God and by doing that he says, now this is obviously a different king because it's not the king, it's a king. It's introducing a king, a new king to the narrative. The persecution that was described in verses 32 to 35 he would tell you is the persecution during the Dark Ages and at the time period when the Dark Ages were just about over, the 1798 time period, a king arises and he says this king is the French Revolution, even though the French Revolution didn't have a king, it had an assembly. And from this point on he begins describing a history that he tries to align with the French Revolution and he makes a statement when he's discussing verse 36 that if you hold to the king, then you have to recognize the king, which is in the verse, as the power that was in verse 35. You have to recognize that it's the papacy and he says if you do that, that the characteristics of the verse just don't hold up. And there's no truth in that whatsoever. Every characteristic in these verses clearly upholds the papacy.