It is,as it does not give a description of the four world ruling kingdoms as does Daniel 2 and Daniel 7.It has in its entirety,only two of the kingdoms which are Greece and Persia as you state above.Note as I wrote before:
"There is no other kingdom mentioned after Grecia.The four divisions are divisions of Grecia.The king of fierce countenance is a king still in Grecia. Notice the pattern:"
The pattern of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 is that of;four metals(with a variation in one) and four beasts representing four kingdoms.Daniel 8 has no such pattern and hence is entirely different.The first kingdom and the last kingdom are absent from the description in Daniel 8.
There is nothing in the passage which warrants any, "jumps to the end times",as you claim.This would necessitate another animal to represent another kingdom after the kingdom of Grecia.
Just as the horns of Daniel 7 represent kings within the fourth kingdom,all being on the fourth beast, so it is that the horns of Daniel 8,which are all on the he goat,are kings in the kingdom of Grecia.
Dan 7:
7After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.
8I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things........
24And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.
Compare:
Dan 8:
21And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
22Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.
23And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
If we follow this clear and simple pattern we will not fall in errors where this passage is concerned.
Start from the end of Daniel 8 and work back.
My method is a little different.I start with reading the description given and then match the interpretation subsequently given with the initial description of the vision.I then accept the clear and simple interpretation given and attempt to look into history to find the persons/events which match what was clearly interpreted.Whatever is not clear,like the, "time of the end", statement the 2300 mornings and evenings or the 70 weeks, is either left without an explanation or an explanation given about which I cannot be dogmatic even though they may be very reasonable.
What cannot be compromised however are the very clear interpretations given in the vision.While one may not be able to fully explain the,"time of the end",statement or the 2300 mornings and evenings or the 70 weeks,enough is known from the rest of the vision to know that certain other interpretations of the vision proffered by various persons are erroneous.One simple one involves the theory of a gap in the 70 weeks which would involve stretching the vision beyond that which the clear interpretation of the vision reveals,which is that,these events occur in the time of the Grecian kingdom.
Daniel 8:25
And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.
Doesn't fit Antiochus. Antiochus also backed down from the Romans, the fourth kingdom, the famous line in the sand incident.
Antiochus, prior to his becoming king, was a political hostage to the Romans, due to a treaty forced on his father in order to keep his father in line.
It does fit Antiochus IV if we consider carefully the interpretation of the vision:
By the time Antiochus IV came to power out of one of the four kingdoms he was in control off areas to the east as far as to the Caspian sea (Parthia and Armenia) and even to India. He controlled Syria and Palestine, the pleasant land, and was able gain ascendancy of parts of Egypt in the south. Hence he waxed great (or increased influence) towards the south, east and the pleasant land as he sought to Hellenize these areas. [Daniel 8: 9, 23]
Also,Rome was exerting influence in these areas and from 190 BC, Antiochus IV was held hostage by Rome until his release in 175 BC when he ascended the throne. Rome also was in alliance with the Ptolemy dynasty of the south and hence he came into power at the latter time of the four kingdoms which were in decline in contrast to the Roman power which had control of the Mediterranean area.[Daniel 8:22,23]
Because he was in power through Rome's favour in releasing him, and he also had to answer to Rome about his excursions in Egypt and pay indemnity to them, then he was not mighty by his own power. [Daniel 8: 24].
Antiochus IV was considered to be brilliant and enterprising but also was cruel and prone to fury bordering on madness.Hence
his titles "Epiphanes" ["brilliant"/"manifest (god)"] "and
Epimanes" ["madman."]. Hence he is the king of fierce countenance and understanding dark sentences. [Daniel 8: 23].
He magnified himself to the prince of the host and magnified himself in his heart as he took titles, Epiphanes etc. and placed them on coins which gave the impression, that he considered himself to be a god. [Daniel 8: 11,25]
In scripture the people of Israel have been likened to the stars of the heavens. [Genesis 15:5; Deuteronomy 1: 10]. Hence the casting down of the stars and the destruction of the mighty and holy people is the tremendous slaughter which took place when, Apollonius, Antiochus' IV general, invaded and destroyed parts of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. [Daniel 8:10, 24]
He had attempted to introduce his Hellenistic ideas through deceit, (craft) by using the high priests Jason and Menelaus to encourage the Jews into Pagan practices (i.e. Peacefully). Many therefore did not expect his furious onslaught against them and many of their laws. [Daniel 8: 12, 25]
Antiochus IV was not killed in battle nor put to death by anyone, but
became insane and apparently died of "natural causes," and hence he was broken without hand. No man's hand was involved in his death. [Daniel 8:25]
The Lord had not entered the world to be born of Mary, back in Antiochus's day. Jesus is the Prince of princes. Antiochus doesn't fit. And even so, his kingdom was subject to the Romans, the fourth kingdom.
Daniel 8:23 is end times. Daniel 8:22 is historic (to us).
The kingdom in Daniel 8:23 is the kingdom of the transgressors...as it says the latter time of "their" kingdom. The EU started out as the common market, then evolved into European Economic Community, then the EU.
The vision of the transgression of desolation is time of the end.
This is not possible.There is no break,no transition between the two verses(22,23)and hence your interpretation is unwarranted.The passage is one continuous description of the Grecian kingdom descending from the great power of Alexander the Great to the division of Greece into four kingdoms out of which came another king who is a Grecian and was Antiochus IV.
Also there is nothing in the passage which indicates that the "prince of the host"/ "the prince of princes", refers to the Lord Jesus.
The latter time of the kingdoms refer to the time of the waning or end of the power of the four horns in the kingdom of Greece and not to kingdoms in later times.Notice it says, 'latter time of their kingdom",not just latter time.This refers to the same kingdoms in Grecia.For it to refer to these times or future times,there would have to be another animal introduced in the vision to represent the fourth kingdom as was depicted in Daniel 7 and Daniel 2 with the 4 metals.
Upvote
0