Who is the Daniel 8 Prophecy, Rome or Antiochus Epiphanes?

reddogs · May 6, 2023

So who is the little horn of Daniel 8 prophecy? Is it symbolic of Rome or is a prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanes IV?

Here are some interesting opposing views of why it is Antiochus Epiphanes and why Antiochus Epiphanes is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8...

"reasons why the little horn of Daniel 8 must be Antiochus. Here are some of them:

1. The little horn of Daniel 8 is a Greek horn. Unlike the little horn of Daniel 7, which emerges from the Roman beast, this horn is said to emerge from one of the four horns upon the Greek beast. It is crystal clear: while the horn of Daniel 7 emerges from the fourth world empire, the horn of Daniel 8 emerges from the third world empire. This fact is so plain and transparent that one can only wonder why some have overlooked it.

2. One of the first things that the angelic interpretation says about the little horn is that he is ??a king of fierce countenance?? (v. 23). According to the traditional Adventist view the horn represents a kingdom, namely the Roman Empire. It is hard to see how a kingdom could have ?a fierce countenance? and ?understand dark sentences.? The angelic interpretation allows no misunderstanding.

3. This king emerges from one of the fourfold divisions of the Greek Empire. ?Out of one of them came forth a little horn?? (v. 9). Antiochus emerged from the Seleucid horn which was a division of the Greek Empire. Rome did not; it emerged on the Italian peninsula to the west of the Greek Empire.

4. The horn would arise ?in the latter time? of the fourfold division, which pictures well Antiochus?s emergence. The fourfold division of Greece had passed the peak of its power when he emerged, and this is evidenced by the humiliation he suffered at the hands of the Romans while on his way to invade Egypt.

5. The horn would attack the south and east and the pleasant land i.e. Palestine. Antiochus did exactly that. However, when Rome came to power, it expanded in all directions including west to Britain and north to the germanic tribes. This little horn is clearly not Rome.

6. The horn would be noted for his cunning and intrigue. He would ?understand dark sentences? and ?cause craft to prosper? (v.25). Antiochus was renowned for his craftiness and cunning; Rome more for her brute strength and power.

7. The horn would destroy the mighty and holy people. History reveals that tens of thousands perished as Antiochus attempted to force the Jews to deny their faith.

8. The horn would take away the daily sacrifices (v. 11). Antiochus put a stop to the sacrifices for a period of over 3 years.

9. Antiochus ?cast down? the place of God?s sanctuary (v. 11) when he shut down its daily ministry and set up the abomination that caused horror, i.e. the image of Zeus Olympias, and slaughtered swine on the altar of burnt offering. The importance of the sanctuary service lay not so much in the building as in the daily sacrifices and offerings, and by taking these away Antiochus ?brought low? (NIV) God?s dwelling place.

10. Antiochus continued for approximately (possibly precisely, it is impossible to determine) 2300 days (v. 14) i.e. from the first attacks upon the sanctuary to his death in 164 BC. One of the world?s leading conservative scholars stated, ?In this year (i.e. 171BC) began the laying waste of the sanctuary. The termination would then be the death of Antiochus (164BC).?[2]

There is no convincing fulfilment of the 2300 days in the history of the Roman Empire and only by a fine-spun linking of the Roman Empire with the Roman church, and a further fine-spun linking of Daniel 8 with Daniel 9 (these two chapters are historically separated by at least 10 years) can Seventh-day Adventists arrive at a closing date for the 2300 days. This date is October 22, 1844 when Christ is said to have shifted his ministry from the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary into the second to begin a work of judgment.

11. In his desecration of the sanctuary and his persecution of true believers, Antiochus did ?practice and prosper? and ?was exceeding great? (v.9 & v. 12).

One of the major objections to Antiochus as the fulfillment of the prophecy is the fact that he was a relatively minor player on the stage of history. It is sometimes asserted he is not big enough to fulfill the prophecy. This objection fails to take into account the simple fact that this particular prophecy centers primarily on the fate of the people and religion of God. The great theme of this vision is an unprecedented and successful attack upon the saints and true worship. It is IN THIS SENSE that Antiochus practices and prospers and becomes exceeding great.

Another important point is that there is much to imply that more than Antiochus alone is portrayed here. Almost all conservative scholars agree that Daniel 8 portrays Antiochus as a type of the final antichrist. Many believe that the prophecy will have a further, fuller and final fulfillment in the future.

12. That Antiochus is the little horn of Daniel 8 is convincingly confirmed by a comparison with the final vision of chapter 11. This final vision covers much the same ground as chapter 8. Various Persian and Grecian kings, including Alexander the Great, are referred to, but all are dealt with briefly in just one or two verses. As the vision moves towards its climax, Antiochus is once again centre stage, and no less than fifteen full verses are devoted to him (see 11:21-35). Antiochus is clearly no minor player in this vision. There then follows an almost imperceptible blending of Antiochus with the one whom most conservative scholars consider to be the final manifestation of evil (see v. 36 onwards). It is clear, then, that this Old Testament tyrant, in his overt and unbridled opposition to the true God, his truth and his people, is a remarkable and fitting type of the even more horrifying figure of the antichrist to come."....

Why the Little Horn of Daniel 8 Must Be Antiochus Epiphanes

reddogs · May 6, 2023

And then we have why Antiochus Epiphanes is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8...

"Crucial to the interpretation of Daniel 8:9-14 is the identification of the little horn power, which dominates these verses.,,,,
The best way to understand the prophecy is to study it in context of other chapters in Daniel that parallel it, particularly Daniel 7. By comparing these two chapters, we can learn not only which school of prophetic thought best explains the vision of Daniel 8, but we can see why the identification of the little horn as Antiochus Epiphanes simply isn?t tenable.

DANIEL 7
With the exception of some voices within the preterist camp, most conservative scholars depict the identity of the four beasts in Daniel 7 as follows:

(Lion) Babylon

(Bear)Media-Persia

(Leopard) Greece

(Beast with iron teeth) Rome

Historicists and futurists do diverge, however, when they come to the little horn that arises out of the fourth power, Rome (Daniel 7:8-9, 20-21, 24-25).

The former identify it as the papal horn, which came out of pagan Rome; the latter, holding to a gap in the flow of prophetic history, identify it as the still future anti-Christ.

While acknowledging (as all the schools do) that the first beast is Babylon, the preterist interpretation identifies the second and third beast of Daniel 7 as Media and then Persia, with the fourth beast being Greece (which arises after Persia) and the little horn coming out of Greece as

Antiochus Epiphanes. This argument, however, falls apart on numerous grounds, including the lack of historical data to warrant that separation of Media and Persia into two successive kingdoms.

In contrast, support for the interpretation of Daniel 7 as being Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome can be found in the interpretation of the ram in Daniel 8. Its two disproportionate horns are specifically identified as the kings of Media and Persia together (vs. 20), reflective of the duality found in the prophet?s view of the bear in Daniel 7, which was raised up one side (Daniel 7:5). Meanwhile, the three-directional nature of the ram?s conquests (Daniel 8:4) also parallels the three ribs depicted in the mouth of the bear (Daniel 7:5), since it expanded to the north (Lydia), to the west (Babylon), and to the south (Egypt), an accurate description of the Media-Persian expansion.

Thus, if in Daniel 7 Media-Persia is the second beast, and Greece the third, then the nondescript beast, the fourth beast in the prophecy, must represent Rome, the great power that arose after Greece. Therefore, the little horn that came from this fourth beast cannot represent Antiochus IV, who arose prior to, and not after, Rome.

Thus, if the little horn in Daniel 8 is an entity that came out of Rome, not Greece, what is its relationship to the little horn in Daniel 8? Could the little horn in Daniel 8 still be Antiochus Epiphanes, even though the little horn in Daniel 7 cannot? Though it?s certainly possible that it could be referring to two different powers, significant arguments exist in favor of identifying the little horns in these two chapters as the same historical entity.

1) Both are identified with the same symbol: a horn

7:8ff, Aramaic, qeren 8:9 ff, Hebrew qeren

2) Both are described as ?little? at the outset.

7:8, Aramaic, zerath 8:9. Hebrew, serath

3) Both are described as becoming ?great? later on.

7:20, Aramaic, rab 8:99ff, Hebrew, gadal

4) Both are described as persecuting powers.

7:21, 25 8:10, 24

5) Both have the same target group as object of their persecution.

7: 27 ?people of the saints, 8: 24 ?people of the saints?

Aramaic, am quaddise Hebrew, am qedosim Cf. vss. 21, 25

6) Both are described as self-exalting and blasphemous powers.

7:8, 11, 20, 25 8:10-12, 25

7) Both are described as crafty and intelligent.

7:8 ?eyes of a man? 8:25 ?cunning and deceit?

8) Both represent the final and greatest anti-God climax of their visions.

7:8-9, 21-22, 25-26 8:12-14, 25

9) Both have aspects of their work delineated by prophetic time.

7:25 8:13-14

10) The activities of both extend to the time of the end.

7:26-26, cf. 12:7-9 8:17, 19

11) Both are to be supernaturally destroyed.

7:11, 26 8:25

How much more evidence does one need? The little horn power of Daniel 7 and the littler horn power of Daniel 8 are both the same entity, and because the little horn in Daniel 7 cannot be Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn in Daniel 8 can?t be, either. Meanwhile, textual evidence within Daniel 8 itself also helps debunk the Antiochus interpretation for the little horn.

DANIEL 8
Because Antiochus IV is commonly identified with the little horn of Daniel 8, arguments favoring this identification will be considered first:

1) Antiochus was a Seleucid king. As one of this dynasty who assumed control in part of Alexander?s old empire, Antiochus did proceed from the breakup of the Grecian empire after the death of Alexander.

2) Antiochus? succession was irregular. According to the chapter, this little horn arose, ?but not with his power,? which suggests that the little horn came to power through an irregular succession. A son of Seleucus IV should have succeeded to the rule after his father?s assassination. However, the king?s brother, Antiochus IV, came to the throne instead, aided by the armies of Pergamos. It is possible to apply the phrase ?but not by his own power? to this course of events.

3) Antiochus persecuted the Jews.

4) Antiochus polluted the Jerusalem temple and disrupted its services. However, it remains to be seen whether he did all the things against the temple that Daniel 8 says the little horn did.

Meanwhile, there are a number of arguments from Daniel 8 against equating Antiochus IV with the little horn.

1) Comparative greatness of the little horn. In the chapter, the Persian ram ?magnified himself? (8:4); the Grecian goat ?magnified himself exceedingly? (8:8). By contrast the little horn magnified itself ?exceedingly ?in different directions. On the horizontal level it ?grew exceedingly great? toward the south, east, and glorious land. On the vertical plane it ?grew great . . . to the host of heaven,? and ultimately ?magnified itself . . . up to the Prince of the host? (8:9-11).

The verb ?to be great,? gādal, occurs only once each with Persia and Greece, but it appears three times with the little horn. In other words, the little horn was greater than the two powers that preceded it in the chapter, which means Antiochus IV should have exceeded the Media-Persian and Greek empires in greatness. Obviously, he didn?t. He wasn?t even close. Indeed, he ruled only one portion of the Grecian Empire, and did that with but little success. In this crucial point, Antiochus fails miserably.

2) Conquests. The horn ?grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land.?

a. To the south. The predecessor to Antiochus IV was the king who added Palestine to the territory ruled by the Seleucids when he defeated armies at Paneas in 198 B.C. Antiochus IV attempted to extend his southern frontier into Egypt with the campaign of 170-168 B.C. He was successful in conquering most of the Delta in 169 B.C. The following year (168 B.C.) he marched on Alexandria but was turned back by a Roman diplomatic mission and had to abandon his Egyptian conquests. Thus his partial success in Egypt was transitory, and it is doubtful that he really did grow ?exceedingly great toward the south.?

b. To the east. Antiochus IV?s predecessor, not Antiochus IV himself, subjugated the east with his victorious campaigns of 210-206 B.C. that took him to the frontier of India. Most of the territories involved rebelled and became independent, however, after the Romans defeated him at Magnesia. Antiochus IV attempted to regain some of this territory. After some initial diplomatic and military successes, his forces stalled. He died during the course of these campaigns, apparently from natural causes, in the winter of 164/3 B.C. Antiochus IV did have some initial successes, he did not accomplish nearly as much in this area as his predecessor, and this project was left incomplete at Antiochus IV?s death. Thus his partial and incomplete military successes hardly match the prophetic prediction of the little horn ?growing exceedingly great? toward the east.

c. To the glorious land. Antiochus IV is noted in 1 Maccabees 1-6 as the ruler who desecrated the temple and persecuted the Jews. This did not occur because of any conquest of his own, but because his predecessor had already taken Palestine. Antiochus IV, therefore, could not have ?grown exceedingly great toward the glorious land? (Judea, presumably) in any sense of military conquest. He could have ?[grown] exceedingly? only in the sense of exercising or abusing his control over what was already part of his kingdom when he came to the throne.

Indeed, not only was Antiochus IV not the conqueror of Palestine, but defeats of his forces toward the end of his reign in the region eventually led to the complete independence of Judea. While he was campaigning in the east, his Palestinian forces were beaten (1 Macc 3:57; 4:29) in Judea. Toward the end of 164 B.C. the Jews liberated the polluted temple from their hands and rededicated it (1 Macc 5:52). Antiochus died in the east shortly thereafter, early in 163 B.C. (1 Macc 6:15).

In short, the net results of what Antiochus accomplished in these three geographical spheres was negligible, even (in some cases) negative. Thus he hardly fits the specification of this prophecy, which states that the little horn was to grow ?exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land.?

3) Anti-temple activities.

The phrase, ?the place of his sanctuary was cast down? (8:11, KJV) indicates what was done to the temple building, God?s dwelling place itself, by the little horn. According to Daniel 8:11, it was this ?place,? this māk?n of God?s sanctuary, that was to be cast down by the little horn, something that Antiochus never did. Though he did desecrate temple, as far as is it is known, he did not damage its architecture in any significant way.

4) Time factors for the little horn:

a. Time of origin. The little horn?dated in terms of the four kingdoms that came from Alexander?s empire?was to come up ?at the latter end of their rule? (8:23). The only problem is that the Seleucid dynasty consisted of a line of more than 20 kings who ruled from 311 to 65 B.C., and Antiochus IV was the eighth in line of those kings (he ruled from 175 to 164/3 B.C.). Because more than a dozen Seleucids ruled after him, and fewer than a dozen ruled before him, he hardly arose ?at the latter end of their rule.? The Seleucids ruled for a century and a third before Antiochus IV and a century after him, which places him within two decades of the midpoint of the dynasty and not ?at the latter end of their rule.?

b. Duration. The chronological time frame (?unto 2300 evening-mornings?) in Daniel 8:14 has been interpreted as the time that Antiochus IV had desecrated the temple or persecuted the Jews. The precise dates for this are well established, and they covered a period of exactly three years and ten days. Neither 2300 literal days (six years, four and two-thirds months) nor 1150 literal days (made by pairing evening and morning sacrifices to make full days) fits this historical period, since even the shorter of the two is two months too long.

c. The End. When Gabriel came to Daniel to explain the vision of chapter 8, he introduced his explanation with the statement, ?Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end? (8:17). At the beginning of his actual explanation Gabriel again emphasized this point by stating, ?Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation; for it pertains to the appointed time of the end? (8:19). The phrases, ?the time of the end? and ?the appointed time of the end,? are also essential for a correct identity of the little horn.

Because the third and final section of the vision is concerned mainly with the little horn and its activities, it seems reasonable to conclude that the horn relates most directly to the ?time of the end.? The end of the little horn, therefore, should coincide in one way or another with ?the time of the end.?

At a bare chronological minimum Daniel?s time prophecies (Dan 9:24-27) had to extend to the time of the Messiah, Jesus, in the first century AD. ?The time of the end? could arrive only some time after the fulfillment of that prophecy concerning Jesus (after all, how could there be ?the time of the end? before Christ came?). Therefore, there is no way that Antiochus, who died in 164/3 B.C., fits with ?the time of the end.?

5) Nature or the end or the little horn. According to the prophecy, the little horn was to come to its end in a particular way. ?But, by no human hand, he shall be broken? (8:25), similar to the language that brought and end to the statue in Daniel 2 (Daniel 2:34), indicating supernatural intervention. Given the nature of the statement in 8:25, how could Antiochus IV fulfill this particular specification? As far as is known, he died of natural causes?not from extraordinary circumstances?during the course of his eastern campaign in 164/3 B.C.

6) Origin of the little horn

Much ado is made regarding the origin of the little horn. The texts in questions are as follows: ?Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land? (Daniel 8: 8, 9). The question arises, when it says that ?out of one of them? came forth a little horn, what did the ?them? refer to?one of the ?four notable ones,? the four generals who divided Alexander?s empire (out of which Antiochus came), or was it from one of ?the four winds of heaven,? that is, simply, one of the compass points of the map? The evidence points strongly in favor of the latter, that is, the little horn came of out the ?four winds of heaven,? which is the immediate antecedent of the phrase, ?and out of one of them.? The original Hebrews reads, ?and from the one, from them,? the ?them? being the plural nouns closest to the phrase itself, which are ?the four winds of heaven? (in Hebrew ?heaven? is a plural noun). Much grammatical, syntactical, and contextual evidence points to ?the winds of heaven,? not the four ?notable ones,? as the origin point of the little horn power."...
Why Antiochus IV Is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8 - 1844 Made Simple

reddogs · May 6, 2023

And even more...
Lesson 10, Rome or Antiochus
And the same study with teacher's comments...
Rome or Antiochus comments

BobRyan · May 6, 2023

Dan 8 and Dan 7 are two chapters describing the same thing.

Dan 7 shows us that the pagan Roman empire follows the Greek empire which comes after the Medo-Persian empire etc. Dan 8 shows the same sequence only it drops off the Babylonian empire symbol in Dan 7 which was the Lion of Dan 7.

They both describe the persecution of the saints.

And they both point to the judgment event in heaven as the "Solution" to the problem of saints being persecuted.

Daniel uses "day for a year" apocalyptic time scale in his visions for Dan 7,8,9 and 12.

Dan 9 proves it with its 70 week, 490 day-for-year timeline which accurately predicts the start of the Messiah's ministry at His baptism in 27 AD as being 69 weeks (483 days.... ie ... 483 years from the start point of 457 B.C)

Tigger Boy · Jun 18, 2023

Used to believe in the Historicist/Adventist interpretation of Daniel eight. But I believe we as Adventist need to rethink those hermeneutics. Example: We teach that a day in apocalyptic prophecy always equals a year. However, we interpret the 1,000. years of Rev. 20, as literal, which it is, but nonetheless, the hermenutic governing time is not absolute, therefore, It can’t be a valid hermeneutic. Consider (Dan.12:12,13) A blessing is promised for those who wait for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days. This can only be literal time and not symbolic Day/year as we teach, because nobody has ever lived to see the approach of a 1,335 year span of time and it’s 1,335th year. Verse 13, informs us that at the end of those days,(1,335) Daniel will arise to receive his inheritance. If we allow the Bible to speak for itself as it reads, we would have to conclude this 1,335 days are literal and take place just before the return of Christ. The previous portion of this prophecy supports this conclusion when properly interpreted.

Too, our interpretation does not place the appearance of the “horn power“ during the time of the end, or, the time of wrath.” (Dan.8: 17, 19) A correct identification of the “horn power” can only be valid if all of the specifications are met.

I believe in progressive revelation. God continues to reveal more information about the plan of salvation on a need to know basis, according to His timing. Unless we understand this we will not be updating earlier teachings with improved understanding coming from the Holy Spirit.

Gary K · Jun 20, 2023

reddogs said:
And then we have why Antiochus Epiphanes is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8...

"Crucial to the interpretation of Daniel 8:9-14 is the identification of the little horn power, which dominates these verses.,,,,
The best way to understand the prophecy is to study it in context of other chapters in Daniel that parallel it, particularly Daniel 7. By comparing these two chapters, we can learn not only which school of prophetic thought best explains the vision of Daniel 8, but we can see why the identification of the little horn as Antiochus Epiphanes simply isn?t tenable.

DANIEL 7
With the exception of some voices within the preterist camp, most conservative scholars depict the identity of the four beasts in Daniel 7 as follows:

(Lion) Babylon

(Bear)Media-Persia

(Leopard) Greece

(Beast with iron teeth) Rome

Historicists and futurists do diverge, however, when they come to the little horn that arises out of the fourth power, Rome (Daniel 7:8-9, 20-21, 24-25).

The former identify it as the papal horn, which came out of pagan Rome; the latter, holding to a gap in the flow of prophetic history, identify it as the still future anti-Christ.

While acknowledging (as all the schools do) that the first beast is Babylon, the preterist interpretation identifies the second and third beast of Daniel 7 as Media and then Persia, with the fourth beast being Greece (which arises after Persia) and the little horn coming out of Greece as

Antiochus Epiphanes. This argument, however, falls apart on numerous grounds, including the lack of historical data to warrant that separation of Media and Persia into two successive kingdoms.

In contrast, support for the interpretation of Daniel 7 as being Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece, and Rome can be found in the interpretation of the ram in Daniel 8. Its two disproportionate horns are specifically identified as the kings of Media and Persia together (vs. 20), reflective of the duality found in the prophet?s view of the bear in Daniel 7, which was raised up one side (Daniel 7:5). Meanwhile, the three-directional nature of the ram?s conquests (Daniel 8:4) also parallels the three ribs depicted in the mouth of the bear (Daniel 7:5), since it expanded to the north (Lydia), to the west (Babylon), and to the south (Egypt), an accurate description of the Media-Persian expansion.

Thus, if in Daniel 7 Media-Persia is the second beast, and Greece the third, then the nondescript beast, the fourth beast in the prophecy, must represent Rome, the great power that arose after Greece. Therefore, the little horn that came from this fourth beast cannot represent Antiochus IV, who arose prior to, and not after, Rome.

Thus, if the little horn in Daniel 8 is an entity that came out of Rome, not Greece, what is its relationship to the little horn in Daniel 8? Could the little horn in Daniel 8 still be Antiochus Epiphanes, even though the little horn in Daniel 7 cannot? Though it?s certainly possible that it could be referring to two different powers, significant arguments exist in favor of identifying the little horns in these two chapters as the same historical entity.

1) Both are identified with the same symbol: a horn

7:8ff, Aramaic, qeren 8:9 ff, Hebrew qeren

2) Both are described as ?little? at the outset.

7:8, Aramaic, zerath 8:9. Hebrew, serath

3) Both are described as becoming ?great? later on.

7:20, Aramaic, rab 8:99ff, Hebrew, gadal

4) Both are described as persecuting powers.

7:21, 25 8:10, 24

5) Both have the same target group as object of their persecution.

7: 27 ?people of the saints, 8: 24 ?people of the saints?

Aramaic, am quaddise Hebrew, am qedosim Cf. vss. 21, 25

6) Both are described as self-exalting and blasphemous powers.

7:8, 11, 20, 25 8:10-12, 25

7) Both are described as crafty and intelligent.

7:8 ?eyes of a man? 8:25 ?cunning and deceit?

8) Both represent the final and greatest anti-God climax of their visions.

7:8-9, 21-22, 25-26 8:12-14, 25

9) Both have aspects of their work delineated by prophetic time.

7:25 8:13-14

10) The activities of both extend to the time of the end.

7:26-26, cf. 12:7-9 8:17, 19

11) Both are to be supernaturally destroyed.

7:11, 26 8:25

How much more evidence does one need? The little horn power of Daniel 7 and the littler horn power of Daniel 8 are both the same entity, and because the little horn in Daniel 7 cannot be Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn in Daniel 8 can?t be, either. Meanwhile, textual evidence within Daniel 8 itself also helps debunk the Antiochus interpretation for the little horn.

DANIEL 8
Because Antiochus IV is commonly identified with the little horn of Daniel 8, arguments favoring this identification will be considered first:

1) Antiochus was a Seleucid king. As one of this dynasty who assumed control in part of Alexander?s old empire, Antiochus did proceed from the breakup of the Grecian empire after the death of Alexander.

2) Antiochus? succession was irregular. According to the chapter, this little horn arose, ?but not with his power,? which suggests that the little horn came to power through an irregular succession. A son of Seleucus IV should have succeeded to the rule after his father?s assassination. However, the king?s brother, Antiochus IV, came to the throne instead, aided by the armies of Pergamos. It is possible to apply the phrase ?but not by his own power? to this course of events.

3) Antiochus persecuted the Jews.

4) Antiochus polluted the Jerusalem temple and disrupted its services. However, it remains to be seen whether he did all the things against the temple that Daniel 8 says the little horn did.

Meanwhile, there are a number of arguments from Daniel 8 against equating Antiochus IV with the little horn.

1) Comparative greatness of the little horn. In the chapter, the Persian ram ?magnified himself? (8:4); the Grecian goat ?magnified himself exceedingly? (8:8). By contrast the little horn magnified itself ?exceedingly ?in different directions. On the horizontal level it ?grew exceedingly great? toward the south, east, and glorious land. On the vertical plane it ?grew great . . . to the host of heaven,? and ultimately ?magnified itself . . . up to the Prince of the host? (8:9-11).

The verb ?to be great,? gādal, occurs only once each with Persia and Greece, but it appears three times with the little horn. In other words, the little horn was greater than the two powers that preceded it in the chapter, which means Antiochus IV should have exceeded the Media-Persian and Greek empires in greatness. Obviously, he didn?t. He wasn?t even close. Indeed, he ruled only one portion of the Grecian Empire, and did that with but little success. In this crucial point, Antiochus fails miserably.

2) Conquests. The horn ?grew exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land.?

a. To the south. The predecessor to Antiochus IV was the king who added Palestine to the territory ruled by the Seleucids when he defeated armies at Paneas in 198 B.C. Antiochus IV attempted to extend his southern frontier into Egypt with the campaign of 170-168 B.C. He was successful in conquering most of the Delta in 169 B.C. The following year (168 B.C.) he marched on Alexandria but was turned back by a Roman diplomatic mission and had to abandon his Egyptian conquests. Thus his partial success in Egypt was transitory, and it is doubtful that he really did grow ?exceedingly great toward the south.?

b. To the east. Antiochus IV?s predecessor, not Antiochus IV himself, subjugated the east with his victorious campaigns of 210-206 B.C. that took him to the frontier of India. Most of the territories involved rebelled and became independent, however, after the Romans defeated him at Magnesia. Antiochus IV attempted to regain some of this territory. After some initial diplomatic and military successes, his forces stalled. He died during the course of these campaigns, apparently from natural causes, in the winter of 164/3 B.C. Antiochus IV did have some initial successes, he did not accomplish nearly as much in this area as his predecessor, and this project was left incomplete at Antiochus IV?s death. Thus his partial and incomplete military successes hardly match the prophetic prediction of the little horn ?growing exceedingly great? toward the east.

c. To the glorious land. Antiochus IV is noted in 1 Maccabees 1-6 as the ruler who desecrated the temple and persecuted the Jews. This did not occur because of any conquest of his own, but because his predecessor had already taken Palestine. Antiochus IV, therefore, could not have ?grown exceedingly great toward the glorious land? (Judea, presumably) in any sense of military conquest. He could have ?[grown] exceedingly? only in the sense of exercising or abusing his control over what was already part of his kingdom when he came to the throne.

Indeed, not only was Antiochus IV not the conqueror of Palestine, but defeats of his forces toward the end of his reign in the region eventually led to the complete independence of Judea. While he was campaigning in the east, his Palestinian forces were beaten (1 Macc 3:57; 4:29) in Judea. Toward the end of 164 B.C. the Jews liberated the polluted temple from their hands and rededicated it (1 Macc 5:52). Antiochus died in the east shortly thereafter, early in 163 B.C. (1 Macc 6:15).

In short, the net results of what Antiochus accomplished in these three geographical spheres was negligible, even (in some cases) negative. Thus he hardly fits the specification of this prophecy, which states that the little horn was to grow ?exceedingly great toward the south, toward the east, and toward the glorious land.?

3) Anti-temple activities.

The phrase, ?the place of his sanctuary was cast down? (8:11, KJV) indicates what was done to the temple building, God?s dwelling place itself, by the little horn. According to Daniel 8:11, it was this ?place,? this māk?n of God?s sanctuary, that was to be cast down by the little horn, something that Antiochus never did. Though he did desecrate temple, as far as is it is known, he did not damage its architecture in any significant way.

4) Time factors for the little horn:

a. Time of origin. The little horn?dated in terms of the four kingdoms that came from Alexander?s empire?was to come up ?at the latter end of their rule? (8:23). The only problem is that the Seleucid dynasty consisted of a line of more than 20 kings who ruled from 311 to 65 B.C., and Antiochus IV was the eighth in line of those kings (he ruled from 175 to 164/3 B.C.). Because more than a dozen Seleucids ruled after him, and fewer than a dozen ruled before him, he hardly arose ?at the latter end of their rule.? The Seleucids ruled for a century and a third before Antiochus IV and a century after him, which places him within two decades of the midpoint of the dynasty and not ?at the latter end of their rule.?

b. Duration. The chronological time frame (?unto 2300 evening-mornings?) in Daniel 8:14 has been interpreted as the time that Antiochus IV had desecrated the temple or persecuted the Jews. The precise dates for this are well established, and they covered a period of exactly three years and ten days. Neither 2300 literal days (six years, four and two-thirds months) nor 1150 literal days (made by pairing evening and morning sacrifices to make full days) fits this historical period, since even the shorter of the two is two months too long.

c. The End. When Gabriel came to Daniel to explain the vision of chapter 8, he introduced his explanation with the statement, ?Understand, O son of man, that the vision is for the time of the end? (8:17). At the beginning of his actual explanation Gabriel again emphasized this point by stating, ?Behold, I will make known to you what shall be at the latter end of the indignation; for it pertains to the appointed time of the end? (8:19). The phrases, ?the time of the end? and ?the appointed time of the end,? are also essential for a correct identity of the little horn.

Because the third and final section of the vision is concerned mainly with the little horn and its activities, it seems reasonable to conclude that the horn relates most directly to the ?time of the end.? The end of the little horn, therefore, should coincide in one way or another with ?the time of the end.?

At a bare chronological minimum Daniel?s time prophecies (Dan 9:24-27) had to extend to the time of the Messiah, Jesus, in the first century AD. ?The time of the end? could arrive only some time after the fulfillment of that prophecy concerning Jesus (after all, how could there be ?the time of the end? before Christ came?). Therefore, there is no way that Antiochus, who died in 164/3 B.C., fits with ?the time of the end.?

5) Nature or the end or the little horn. According to the prophecy, the little horn was to come to its end in a particular way. ?But, by no human hand, he shall be broken? (8:25), similar to the language that brought and end to the statue in Daniel 2 (Daniel 2:34), indicating supernatural intervention. Given the nature of the statement in 8:25, how could Antiochus IV fulfill this particular specification? As far as is known, he died of natural causes?not from extraordinary circumstances?during the course of his eastern campaign in 164/3 B.C.

6) Origin of the little horn

Much ado is made regarding the origin of the little horn. The texts in questions are as follows: ?Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land? (Daniel 8: 8, 9). The question arises, when it says that ?out of one of them? came forth a little horn, what did the ?them? refer to?one of the ?four notable ones,? the four generals who divided Alexander?s empire (out of which Antiochus came), or was it from one of ?the four winds of heaven,? that is, simply, one of the compass points of the map? The evidence points strongly in favor of the latter, that is, the little horn came of out the ?four winds of heaven,? which is the immediate antecedent of the phrase, ?and out of one of them.? The original Hebrews reads, ?and from the one, from them,? the ?them? being the plural nouns closest to the phrase itself, which are ?the four winds of heaven? (in Hebrew ?heaven? is a plural noun). Much grammatical, syntactical, and contextual evidence points to ?the winds of heaven,? not the four ?notable ones,? as the origin point of the little horn power."...
Why Antiochus IV Is Not the Little Horn of Daniel 8 - 1844 Made Simple

reddogs,

I see no problems with your theology but see nothing in your post that shows how Jesus is the entire point of Biblical prophecy and it is only as we point to Jesus that anyone is ever converted. Like Ellen White said, we have preached the law until we are as dry as the hills of Gilboa. Isn't the point of posting to draw people to Jesus?

I'm not trying to insult you, but what I see in your posts is head knowledge, not the love of Jesus. I find that to be sad.

BobRyan · Jun 20, 2023

reddogs said:
So who is the little horn of Daniel 8 prophecy? Is it symbolic of Rome or is a prophecy of Antiochus Epiphanes IV?

IT can't be Antiochus Epiphanes because he does nothing for 2300 years or 2300 days.
IT can't be Antiochus because he was a minor king in the Seleucid line
It can't be antiochus because he never grew "exceedingly great" as compared to Persia and Greece.

Tigger Boy · Jun 27, 2023

I find the following best describes who the "Horn Power" in Dan.8, is and why.

Many people make the mistake of thinking the horn in Daniel 8 and the little horn in Daniel 7 are one and the same. There are several reasons why this is not possible. First, this prophecy completely “leapfrogs” the time periods of the fourth beast (168 B.C. - A.D. 476) and the little horn (538 -1798). The fourth empire in Daniel 7 (Rome) is not mentioned in this prophecy because the horn in Daniel 8 is not attached to any beast. This horn does not rise out of a world empire. It appears from out of nowhere, “out of the four winds,” specically, out of the north.The north is prophetically important because it is often said in Scripture that divine wrath comes out of the north. (Isa.41:25; Jer.1:14; 6:1; Ez.1:4) Second, within the context of this vision, a beast is a symbol of an empire and a horn is a symbol of a king. The mighty horn on the goat (verse 21) represents the first king of Greecia (Alexander the Great). Similarly, the horn that just appears out of the north represents “a stern-faced king” that will appear and overtake the world “when rebels have become completely wicked” (verse 23). Third, Gabriel told Daniel (verses 17 and 19) that this vision concerns the appointed time of the end which occurs after the 2,300 day/years expire in 1844. In other words, the horn in this vision will appear on Earth after 1844 – at the appointed time of the end. Prophecies 8 and 11 will further explain why this horn represents the physical appearing of Lucifer, the dreaded Antichrist.

Jesus will permit Lucifer to physically appear before the people of Earth during the Great Tribulation. Jesus will release the devil from the Abyss at an appointed time to lead the world into destruction. (Rev.9:1-11 Note: The names Abaddon and Apollyon mean the same thing in both languages: Destroyer) Lucifer will deceive the wicked and his followers will be like the sand on the seashore. Lucifer will astonish Earth’s inhabitants with his miracles, boldness, and assumed authority. At the sixth trumpet, the devil will abolish all of the religions of the world and trample on them. He will claim to be Almighty God (Dan.11:36,37; 2 Thessalonians 2:4) and as such, he will demand that religious diversity be eliminated.(Rev.13:14,15) He is The Master of Deception. He will deceive Moslems, Jews, Catholics, Atheists, Protestants, Eastern Mystics, and the Heathen by performing great signs and miracles – even calling re down from Heaven.(Rev.13;13) He will eliminate the starry hosts – an ancient term used for various “gods” or whatever is worshiped as “God” (2 Kings 17:16; 21:3-5; 2 Chron.33:3-5) and he will demand that everyone honor and worship him as God Almighty.(2 Thessalonians 2:4)

BobRyan · Jun 27, 2023

Tigger Boy said:
Used to believe in the Historicist/Adventist interpretation of Daniel eight. But I believe we as Adventist need to rethink those hermeneutics.

A lot of Protestant leaders also affirmed it.

Historicism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Main article: Historicism (Christian eschatology)

Further information: Historicist interpretations of the Book of Revelation

Tigger Boy said:
Example: We teach that a day in apocalyptic prophecy always equals a year.

Certainly a lot of Christians admit that this is the case in the 70 weeks of Dan 9.
And the 1260 year period of persecution shows up in Dan 7, Rev 11, Rev 12, Rev 13 all pointing to the same entity and time frame.

Tigger Boy said:
However, we interpret the 1,000. years of Rev. 20, as literal

Indeed we do - because Apocalyptic texts can have literal timelines as well. Notice that in Dan and Rev you never see "three and a half years" - it is always "times time and half a time" or some other derivation. When you see 3 years, 7 years, 1000 years - in either Daniel or Revelation it is always literal years.

Tigger Boy said:
the hermenutic governing time is not absolute, therefore, It can’t be a valid hermeneutic.

On the contrary by noticing the distinction which most Bible translations agree with you can see clearly that "years" is never used symbolically in either Daniel or Revelation. But "times" and "days" and "months" are.

Tigger Boy said:
Consider (Dan.12:12,13) A blessing is promised for those who wait for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days. This can only be literal time and not symbolic Day/year

Not true. This is a 1335 year timeline that starts in 508 BC and ends in 1843 which is the first end date selected by the Millerites.

Tigger Boy said:
as we teach, because nobody has ever lived to see the approach of a 1,335 year span of time

Indeed - but there are people who did live at that the end of that time.

Tigger Boy said:
and it’s 1,335th year. Verse 13, informs us that at the end of those days,(1,335) Daniel will arise to receive his inheritance. If we allow the Bible to speak for itself as it reads, we would have to conclude this 1,335 days are literal and take place just before the return of Christ.

Daniel will be resurrected with the saints at the 1 Thess 4:13-18 rapture that takes place at the Rev 19 second coming (which Christ affirms also in Matt 24:29-31). It does not say that the 1335 days begin with the "first resurrection" - the resurrection of the saints at Christ's appearin

Tigger Boy said:
Too, our interpretation does not place the appearance of the “horn power“ during the time of the end, or, the time of wrath.” (Dan.8: 17, 19)

True we don't say that the little horn does not appear utnli the 1260 years of Dan 7 end or until the 2300 years of Dan 8 expire - and neither does Dan 7 or Dan 8 say such a thing.

Tigger Boy said:
A correct identification of the “horn power” can only be valid if all of the specifications are met.

agreed.

Tigger Boy said:
I believe in progressive revelation. God continues to reveal more information

Agreed. But it does not contradict His previous work as we see in the case of Christ's first coming.

BobRyan · Jun 27, 2023

Tigger Boy said:
Many people make the mistake of thinking the horn in Daniel 8 and the little horn in Daniel 7 are one and the same.

Which of course they are - both little horns are the same entity and both Dan 7 and 8 show how that power ends its persecution. In both cases it rises to become the dominant power and in both cases the solution is the judgment of Dan 7 reflected in the sanctuary event in Dan 8 that also deals with judgment.

Tigger Boy said:
There are several reasons why this is not possible. First, this prophecy completely “leapfrogs” the time periods of the fourth beast (168 B.C. - A.D. 476) and the little horn (538 -1798).

Dan 8 says that the horn that arise is "exceeingly great" by comparison to both the empires of Persia and of Greece. No other solution fits at that point.

You have chosen an entity that appears at the end of time - which leapfrogs all of human history from Greece to this very day and beyond -- not just the pagan Roman empire.

Tigger Boy · Jun 28, 2023

Tigger Boy
Used to believe in the Historicist/Adventist interpretation of Daniel eight. But I believe we as Adventist need to rethink those hermeneutics.

Bob Ryan Response (BRR): A lot of Protestant leaders also affirmed it.

Tigger Boy’s Response (TBR): In my statement I said, “Adventist need to rethink those hermeneutic” Bob, the links you sent were “void of any hermeneutics”. The laws as to how exactly Historicist interpreted, language types, a fulfillment, chronology, and time. Valid hermeneutics can be proven by 2,600 years of fulfilled prophecy. Do you know What they are? If so pass them along please.

Tigger Boy said:
Example: We teach that a day in apocalyptic prophecy always equals a year.

(BRR): Certainly a lot of Christians admit that this is the case in the 70 weeks of Dan 9.
And the 1260 year period of persecution shows up in Dan 7, Rev 11, Rev 12, Rev 13 all pointing to the same entity and time frame.

(TBR): Yes, the 70 weeks, the 1260 years of Dan 7, and Rev. 12, should be translated as day/years, but Rev. 11 and 13 are in the future, and since the operation of the Jubilee calendar ended in 1994, no translation is required. (Progressive revelation has now revealed the link between Gods Jubilee calendar and the day/year translation) The forty-two months of Rev. 13., are literal for the following reasons. The composite beat that comes up out of the sea has seven heads of which one had a fatal wound, but was healed, (past tense), prior to it’s arrival on the world stage. Since we as Adventist understand this head to be the papacy, we understand that the wound was inflicted in 1798, according to Dan. 7. With this fact in mind we know that this composite beast will appear sometime after 1798, not before!

Too, prophecy goes on to say, that after this beast comes up out of the sea, the dragon (Satan) will give it authority and power for forty-two months, to wage war against the saints and to conquer them. This specification must not be ignored. Again progressive revelation has revealed that over 2,600 hundred years of fulfilled prophecy proves that God has placed each event within apocalyptic prophecy in their chronological order. To ignore God’s chronological order is to Ignore what God is revealing. Early expositors of Historicism did not know this, therefore, much of their interpretations are invalid and need to be updated.

So you can see that the, “time, times and half a time, of Dan. 7, and the forty-two months of Rev. 13, are not the same blocks of time, Dan. 7, is symbolic because it was fulfilled under the operation of the Jubilee calendar, Rev. 13 is literal and so is the 1,000 yrs. of Rev. 20, since both are still future and outside of the operation of the Jubilee calendar (1437-1994)

Tigger Boy said:
The hermeneutic governing time is not absolute, therefore, It can’t be a valid hermeneutic.

(BRR): On the contrary by noticing the distinction which most Bible translations agree with you can see clearly that "years" is never used symbolically in either Daniel or Revelation. But "times" and "days" and "months" are.

Tigger Boy said: I agree with regard to years. However, consider (Dan.12:12,13) A blessing is promised for those who wait for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days. This can only be literal time and not symbolic Day/year as we teach, because nobody has ever lived to see the approach of a 1,335 year span of time and it’s 1,335th year. Verse 13, informs us that at the end of those days, (1,335) Daniel will arise to receive his inheritance. If we allow the Bible to speak for itself as it reads, we would have to conclude this 1,335 days are literal and take place just before the return of Christ.

(BRR); Not true. This is a 1335 year timeline that starts in 508 BC and ends in 1843 which is the first end date selected by the Millerites. Indeed - but there are people who did live at that the end of that time.

(TBR): People living at the end of the 1335 days is not what we are debating here. It's people who are waiting for the 1335 days to begin, and to see the end of the 1335 days. Dan.12:11, reveals that the starting of the 1335 days, start from the time the daily sacrifice is abolished. I will post the following commentary of Vss.11-13, please consider it, as I believe it makes sense of the passage.

{11} “Daniel, write down everything that you have seen and heard because God’s people will need to know these things during the Great Tribulation. A time is coming when the corporate interces- sion of Jesus on behalf of the world will end. On that day, Jesus will cease from His daily corporate intercession. He will no longer stand between the wrath of God and sinners. The end of the daily, that is, His corporate ministry in Heaven’s temple, will be marked by peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning, and a great worldwide earthquake.(Rev.8:2-5) These events will announce the beginning of the Great Tribulation. From this somber worldwide event, the saints will count down the days to the return of Jesus. From the day the daily service at the Altar of Incense in Heaven ends until the devil establishes a universal death decree for all of God’s people (an abomination that causes desolation), there will be 1,290 days. {12} Blessed is the person who waits for and reaches the 1,335th day, for he shall see Jesus and hear His voice saying, ‘My grace is sufficient for you!’ {13} “As for you Daniel, go on with your business until the end of your life. You will rest in sleep, and then at the end of the 1,335 days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance with all the other saints. You will be rewarded beyond your wildest imagination for your faithfulness.”

Bob, Would you be so kind as to explain how the Historicist arrive at (508-1843)?

(BRR): Daniel will be resurrected with the saints at the 1 Thess 4:13-18 rapture that takes place at the Rev 19 second coming (which Christ affirms also in Matt 24:29-31). It does not say that the 1335 days begin with the "first resurrection" - the resurrection of the saints at Christ's appearing.

(TBR): I have never stated that the 1335 days would start at the “first resurrection”. However, you do confirm that Daniel will be resurrected at Christ appearing. Which Dan. 12:13 confirms is at the end of the 1335 days. Let the Bible speak, and listen to what God is revealing. Not in the reasoning of man.

Tigger Boy said:
Too, our interpretation does not place the appearance of the “horn power“ during the time of the end, or, the time of wrath.” (Dan.8: 17, 19)

(BRR): True we don't say that the little horn does not appear until the 1260 years of Dan 7 end or until the 2300 years of Dan 8 expire - and neither does Dan 7 or Dan 8 say such a thing.

(TBR): I can’t respond to this, as it makes no sense to me. Sorry.

Tigger Boy said:
A correct identification of the “horn power” can only be valid if all of the specifications are met.

(BRR): agreed.

(TBR): You say you agree, with regard to the Little Horn of Daniel 8, but your understanding of other prophecies we have mentioned in this post, fall short of including all the specifications and their chronological order given in prophecy. I suspect chronology has never entered your mind as a valid hermeneutic. I pray you will consider it as a progressive revelation.

Tigger Boy said:
I believe in progressive revelation. God continues to reveal more information

(BRR): Agreed. But it does not contradict His previous work as we see in the case of Christ's first coming.

(TBR): What have I shared in any of my statements of which you have responded, has the work of Christ’s during His first coming been contradicted???

BobRyan · Jun 28, 2023

Tigger Boy said:
Tigger Boy
Used to believe in the Historicist/Adventist interpretation of Daniel eight. But I believe we as Adventist need to rethink those hermeneutics.

Bob Ryan Response (BRR): A lot of Protestant leaders also affirmed it.

Tigger Boy’s Response (TBR): In my statement I said, “Adventist need to rethink those hermeneutic” Bob, the links you sent were “void of any hermeneutics”. The laws as to how exactly Historicist interpreted, language types, a fulfillment, chronology, and time. Valid hermeneutics can be proven by 2,600 years of fulfilled prophecy. Do you know What they are? If so pass them along please.

My purpose was not to "define" historicism for you. I was simply noting that SDAs do accept it.

Tigger Boy said:
Tigger Boy said:
Example: We teach that a day in apocalyptic prophecy always equals a year.

(BRR): Certainly a lot of Christians admit that this is the case in the 70 weeks of Dan 9.
And the 1260 year period of persecution shows up in Dan 7, Rev 11, Rev 12, Rev 13 all pointing to the same entity and time frame.

(TBR): Yes, the 70 weeks, the 1260 years of Dan 7, and Rev. 12, should be translated as day/years, but Rev. 11 and 13 are in the future

Most of Dan 7 is in the past - but some of it is still future, none of Rev 12 is still future, most of Rev 11 is in the past even if some of it is still future and this is also true of Rev 13.

Tigger Boy said:
, and since the operation of the Jubilee calendar ended in 1994, no translation is required.

That does not make sense.

Tigger Boy said:
(Progressive revelation has now revealed the link between Gods Jubilee calendar and the day/year translation) The forty-two months of Rev. 13., are literal

no they are not. All apocalyptic time lines are day for year except when units are stated as years.

Tigger Boy said:
The composite beast that comes up out of the sea (Rev 13) has seven heads of which one had a fatal wound, but was healed, (past tense), prior to it’s arrival on the world stage. Since we as Adventist understand this head to be the papacy, we understand that the wound was inflicted in 1798, according to Dan. 7. With this fact in mind we know that this composite beast will appear sometime after 1798, not before!

The composite beast is a composite of the Dan 7 beasts (which are all past).
IN Dan 7 we have seven heads, ten horns, a leopard, a bear, a lion and a dreadful beast (dragon) just as we see in Rev 13.

ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten crowns, and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast that I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne, and great authority.

The rising of the Rev 13 beast is future to John's day but is not future to this day and is not future to 1798., The healing of the wounded head scenario is also in the past for us today - but future to 1798.

I think we both know this.

Tigger Boy said:
Too, prophecy goes on to say, that after this beast comes up out of the sea, the dragon (Satan) will give it authority and power for forty-two months, to wage war against the saints and to conquer them. This specification must not be ignored.

particularly since it was already mentioned twice in Rev 12

Tigger Boy said:
So you can see that the, “time, times and half a time, of Dan. 7, and the forty-two months of Rev. 13, are not the same blocks of time, Dan. 7, is symbolic because it was fulfilled under the operation of the Jubilee calendar

Not true.

It is symbolic because it is apocalyptic literature
It's timelines use day-for-year because of that same reason and is proven by Dan 9.

Tigger Boy said:
, Rev. 13 is literal

No true. There will be no "beasts" charging about at the end of time.

Tigger Boy said:
and so is the 1,000 yrs. of Rev. 20,

Any time "years" are used whether it is Dan or Rev - they are always "years".
That rule holds in every case.

Tigger Boy said:
(BRR): On the contrary by noticing the distinction which most Bible translations agree with you can see clearly that "years" is never used symbolically in either Daniel or Revelation. But "times" and "days" and "months" are.

Tigger Boy said: I agree with regard to years.

Then your argument appears to fall apart at that point.

Tigger Boy said:
However, consider (Dan.12:12,13) A blessing is promised for those who wait for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days. This can only be literal time and not symbolic Day/year

That is a huge load of inference and not something that the text demands.

Dan 12
7 And I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as they finish smashing the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed.

That is the same symbolism as in Dan 7 and is 1260 years (day for year) - Dan 7 shows where it fits in.

8 But as for me, I heard but did not understand; so I said, “My lord, what will be the outcome of these events?” 9 And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words will be kept secret and sealed up until the end time. 10 Many will be purged, cleansed, and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand. 11 And from the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

Nothing there about "Waiting for 1290 days"

12 Blessed is the one who is patient and attains to the 1,335 days! 13 But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will rest and rise for your allotted portion at the end of the age.”

Only the 1335 references the idea of someone attaining to it.

12 O the blessedness of him who is waiting earnestly, and doth come to the days, a thousand, three hundred, thirty and five.

Christ states in several places that we are all to be watching and waiting for His return - that does not mean that the people in Christ's day are still alive and waiting. You infer too much

Tigger Boy · Jun 29, 2023

BobRyan said:
My purpose was not to "define" historicism for you. I was simply noting that SDAs do accept it.

Most of Dan 7 is in the past - but some of it is still future, none of Rev 12 is still future, most of Rev 11 is in the past even if some of it is still future and this is also true of Rev 13.

That does not make sense.

no they are not. All apocalyptic time lines are day for year except when units are stated as years.

The composite beast is a composite of the Dan 7 beasts (which are all past).
IN Dan 7 we have seven heads, ten horns, a leopard, a bear, a lion and a dreadful beast (dragon) just as we see in Rev 13.

ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten crowns, and on his heads were blasphemous names. 2 And the beast that I saw was like a leopard, and his feet were like those of a bear, and his mouth like the mouth of a lion. And the dragon gave him his power and his throne, and great authority.

The rising of the Rev 13 beast is future to John's day but is not future to this day and is not future to 1798., The healing of the wounded head scenario is also in the past for us today - but future to 1798.

I think we both know this.

particularly since it was already mentioned twice in Rev 12

Not true.

It is symbolic because it is apocalyptic literature
It's timelines use day-for-year because of that same reason and is proven by Dan 9.

No true. There will be no "beasts" charging about at the end of time.

Any time "years" are used whether it is Dan or Rev - they are always "years".
That rule holds in every case.

Then your argument appears to fall apart at that point.

That is a huge load of inference and not something that the text demands.

Dan 12
7 And I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as they finish smashing the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed.

That is the same symbolism as in Dan 7 and is 1260 years (day for year) - Dan 7 shows where it fits in.

8 But as for me, I heard but did not understand; so I said, “My lord, what will be the outcome of these events?” 9 And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words will be kept secret and sealed up until the end time. 10 Many will be purged, cleansed, and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand. 11 And from the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.

Nothing there about "Waiting for 1290 days"

12 Blessed is the one who is patient and attains to the 1,335 days! 13 But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will rest and rise for your allotted portion at the end of the age.”

Only the 1335 references the idea of someone attaining to it.

12 O the blessedness of him who is waiting earnestly, and doth come to the days, a thousand, three hundred, thirty and five.

Christ states in several places that we are all to be watching and waiting for His return - that does not mean that the people in Christ's day are still alive and waiting. You infer too much

Thank you Bob, I better understand your mindset.

Gary K · Jun 30, 2023

Tigger Boy said:
Tigger Boy
Used to believe in the Historicist/Adventist interpretation of Daniel eight. But I believe we as Adventist need to rethink those hermeneutics.

Bob Ryan Response (BRR): A lot of Protestant leaders also affirmed it.

Tigger Boy’s Response (TBR): In my statement I said, “Adventist need to rethink those hermeneutic” Bob, the links you sent were “void of any hermeneutics”. The laws as to how exactly Historicist interpreted, language types, a fulfillment, chronology, and time. Valid hermeneutics can be proven by 2,600 years of fulfilled prophecy. Do you know What they are? If so pass them along please.

Tigger Boy said:
Example: We teach that a day in apocalyptic prophecy always equals a year.

(BRR): Certainly a lot of Christians admit that this is the case in the 70 weeks of Dan 9.
And the 1260 year period of persecution shows up in Dan 7, Rev 11, Rev 12, Rev 13 all pointing to the same entity and time frame.

(TBR): Yes, the 70 weeks, the 1260 years of Dan 7, and Rev. 12, should be translated as day/years, but Rev. 11 and 13 are in the future, and since the operation of the Jubilee calendar ended in 1994, no translation is required. (Progressive revelation has now revealed the link between Gods Jubilee calendar and the day/year translation) The forty-two months of Rev. 13., are literal for the following reasons. The composite beat that comes up out of the sea has seven heads of which one had a fatal wound, but was healed, (past tense), prior to it’s arrival on the world stage. Since we as Adventist understand this head to be the papacy, we understand that the wound was inflicted in 1798, according to Dan. 7. With this fact in mind we know that this composite beast will appear sometime after 1798, not before!

Too, prophecy goes on to say, that after this beast comes up out of the sea, the dragon (Satan) will give it authority and power for forty-two months, to wage war against the saints and to conquer them. This specification must not be ignored. Again progressive revelation has revealed that over 2,600 hundred years of fulfilled prophecy proves that God has placed each event within apocalyptic prophecy in their chronological order. To ignore God’s chronological order is to Ignore what God is revealing. Early expositors of Historicism did not know this, therefore, much of their interpretations are invalid and need to be updated.

So you can see that the, “time, times and half a time, of Dan. 7, and the forty-two months of Rev. 13, are not the same blocks of time, Dan. 7, is symbolic because it was fulfilled under the operation of the Jubilee calendar, Rev. 13 is literal and so is the 1,000 yrs. of Rev. 20, since both are still future and outside of the operation of the Jubilee calendar (1437-1994)

Tigger Boy said:
The hermeneutic governing time is not absolute, therefore, It can’t be a valid hermeneutic.

(BRR): On the contrary by noticing the distinction which most Bible translations agree with you can see clearly that "years" is never used symbolically in either Daniel or Revelation. But "times" and "days" and "months" are.

Tigger Boy said: I agree with regard to years. However, consider (Dan.12:12,13) A blessing is promised for those who wait for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days. This can only be literal time and not symbolic Day/year as we teach, because nobody has ever lived to see the approach of a 1,335 year span of time and it’s 1,335th year. Verse 13, informs us that at the end of those days, (1,335) Daniel will arise to receive his inheritance. If we allow the Bible to speak for itself as it reads, we would have to conclude this 1,335 days are literal and take place just before the return of Christ.

(BRR); Not true. This is a 1335 year timeline that starts in 508 BC and ends in 1843 which is the first end date selected by the Millerites. Indeed - but there are people who did live at that the end of that time.

(TBR): People living at the end of the 1335 days is not what we are debating here. It's people who are waiting for the 1335 days to begin, and to see the end of the 1335 days. Dan.12:11, reveals that the starting of the 1335 days, start from the time the daily sacrifice is abolished. I will post the following commentary of Vss.11-13, please consider it, as I believe it makes sense of the passage.

{11} “Daniel, write down everything that you have seen and heard because God’s people will need to know these things during the Great Tribulation. A time is coming when the corporate interces- sion of Jesus on behalf of the world will end. On that day, Jesus will cease from His daily corporate intercession. He will no longer stand between the wrath of God and sinners. The end of the daily, that is, His corporate ministry in Heaven’s temple, will be marked by peals of thunder, rumblings, flashes of lightning, and a great worldwide earthquake.(Rev.8:2-5) These events will announce the beginning of the Great Tribulation. From this somber worldwide event, the saints will count down the days to the return of Jesus. From the day the daily service at the Altar of Incense in Heaven ends until the devil establishes a universal death decree for all of God’s people (an abomination that causes desolation), there will be 1,290 days. {12} Blessed is the person who waits for and reaches the 1,335th day, for he shall see Jesus and hear His voice saying, ‘My grace is sufficient for you!’ {13} “As for you Daniel, go on with your business until the end of your life. You will rest in sleep, and then at the end of the 1,335 days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance with all the other saints. You will be rewarded beyond your wildest imagination for your faithfulness.”

Bob, Would you be so kind as to explain how the Historicist arrive at (508-1843)?

(BRR): Daniel will be resurrected with the saints at the 1 Thess 4:13-18 rapture that takes place at the Rev 19 second coming (which Christ affirms also in Matt 24:29-31). It does not say that the 1335 days begin with the "first resurrection" - the resurrection of the saints at Christ's appearing.

(TBR): I have never stated that the 1335 days would start at the “first resurrection”. However, you do confirm that Daniel will be resurrected at Christ appearing. Which Dan. 12:13 confirms is at the end of the 1335 days. Let the Bible speak, and listen to what God is revealing. Not in the reasoning of man.

Tigger Boy said:
Too, our interpretation does not place the appearance of the “horn power“ during the time of the end, or, the time of wrath.” (Dan.8: 17, 19)

(BRR): True we don't say that the little horn does not appear until the 1260 years of Dan 7 end or until the 2300 years of Dan 8 expire - and neither does Dan 7 or Dan 8 say such a thing.

(TBR): I can’t respond to this, as it makes no sense to me. Sorry.

Tigger Boy said:
A correct identification of the “horn power” can only be valid if all of the specifications are met.

(BRR): agreed.

(TBR): You say you agree, with regard to the Little Horn of Daniel 8, but your understanding of other prophecies we have mentioned in this post, fall short of including all the specifications and their chronological order given in prophecy. I suspect chronology has never entered your mind as a valid hermeneutic. I pray you will consider it as a progressive revelation.

Tigger Boy said:
I believe in progressive revelation. God continues to reveal more information

(BRR): Agreed. But it does not contradict His previous work as we see in the case of Christ's first coming.

(TBR): What have I shared in any of my statements of which you have responded, has the work of Christ’s during His first coming been contradicted???

I would point you to a Protestant Frenchman who was a contemporary of Ellen White by the name of D'Aubigne who wrote a book on the Reformation. It is a multi-volume tome of 1400+ pages that took him 55 years to complete. He wrote that all the leaders of the Reformation believed the historicist view of prophecy as they all believed the Catholic church was the beast of Revelation.

If you would like to read the tome you can download it from Project Gutenberg.

Tigger Boy · Jun 30, 2023

Gary K said:
I would point you to a Protestant Frenchman who was a contemporary of Ellen White by the name of D'Aubigne who wrote a book on the Reformation. It is a multi-volume tome of 1400+ pages that took him 55 years to complete. He wrote that all the leaders of the Reformation believed the historicist view of prophecy as they all believed the Catholic church was the beast of Revelation.

If you would like to read the tome you can download it from Project Gutenberg.

Gary, Appreciate your response. I'm sure your motives are pure at this point. I studied my way into the Adventism in my early thirties. Unlike many who were born into it. Most know nothing else. That experience has been priceless for me. Only when one challenges the wisdom of previous trusted religious leaders and learn the truth, do they come to realize that all religious leaders are sincerely wrong on certain parts of Bible teachings. The composite beast of Rev.13, is just one example.

You are obviously Adventist, that's great, and are likely well read into Mrs. White, since you referenced her.
I will quote just a couple of her statements which support why I stand firm in my conviction as why the composite beast, "cannot possibly be the Catholic Church."

"God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines an the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, ...the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils..., the voice of the majority- not one nor all should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain, Thus saith the Lord in its support. -GC, p. 595.

"...but however long men may have entertained certain views, if they are not clearly sustained by the written Word, they should be discarded. We [note she includes herself] have many lessons to learn, and many, many, to unlearn. God and heaven lone are infallible" -CW 36.

One last one: "The time for the unfolding of special truth in relation to the closing scenes of this earth's history is during the last generations that shall live upon the earth." 2T 692-3. With this quote fresh in your mind consider the following insights:

Who but God Has the Authority to Declare Chronological Order?

The visions within Daniel behave in a predictable way. Once this behavior is detected, it keeps us on track. It helps us decipher prophecies and enlightens us with information that we could not otherwise know. For example, one consistent behavior that occurs throughout the book of Daniel is, that each prophecy has a beginning point and an ending point in time, and the events within each prophecy occur in the order in which they are given. This chronological behavior may sound simple, but it has profound ramifcations. Consider the results of violating this behavior. If the events given within a particular prophecy do not occur in the order given, who has the authority to declare the order of events? Does anyone other than God have the authority to change the order that He created?
The chronological behavior found in Daniel’s prophecies is the basis for Rule One.. Be assured, I am not inventing a rule. I am expressing a consistent behavior that recurs without exception throughout the book of Daniel (as well as the book of Revelation).
When the fulfilled elements in Daniel and Revelation are alignedwith widely published historical records, the validity of Rule One proves true every time! The prophecies in Daniel began unfolding more than 2,600 years ago. Some of the prophecies in Revelation began unfolding 2,000 years ago. These lengthy periods of time contain a sufficient sample to validate the four rules that spring from Daniel’s architecture. The book of Daniel also provides a historical foundation for some of the prophecies in Revelation. Since prophecies in Revelation run parallel to prophecies in Daniel we can link them together and establish the timing of events mentioned in both books. So, the use of Daniel’s architecture, like the hieroglyphics on the Rosetta Stone, enables us to resolve many prophetic mysteries that would otherwise be impossible to resolve.

The importance of this rule cannot be overstated. Draw a time line on a big sheet of paper and place all of the events specified in Daniel and Revelation on this time line. If you attempt this, you will immediately confront the question of chronological order. Rule One is decep- tively simple. It is also incredibly powerful. It demolishes two thousand years of prophetic speculation and tradition. Think about this: If God has not declared the chronological order of events within each apocalyptic prophecy, there is no chronological order
in apocalyptic prophecy. If there is no order. On the other hand, if God has declared chronological order, apocalyptic prophecy becomes a science and there is prophetic certainty (“the more sure word of prophecy”) instead of endless chaos and cancelling views. Everyone is permitted to defne and create whatever prophetic order and interpretation they want. This ongoing process has produced a cloud of confusion and as a result, many Christians treat prophecy with contempt. Worse, there is no general agreement among Christians on the next prophetic event.

Looking backwards from our day, world history proves there is chronological order in the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. This is good news because the final generation can know and understand prophecies that previous generations could not discover! Remember, God’s greatest gift to the honest in heart is greater truth. This gift will never end throughout eternity! During the Great Tribulation God will swing a powerful magnet of truth over a junk pile called Earth and the honest in heart will be attracted and captured by its power and the rest of mankind will feel nothing. This is how the sheep will be separated from the goats.

These insights and Mrs. White council, have reshaped how I view our Historical interpretation. As I have said, we need to take a new look a apocalyptic prophecy based on "progressive revelations." Very, Very, few Adventist are even willing to consider entering a conversation that entertains such thoughts. Church leaders especially. Christ faced the same hurtle as well as the reformers, and the Millerites.

If you have followed this thread, you should know why I believe the composite beast rises from the sea, "AFTER 1798." Just this one fact rules out the beast being the Catholic Church, which rose out of the fallen Rome empire in 476 AD, I believe, could be wrong on that. Too, the composite beast receives power from the dragon [Satan} after it comes onto the worlds scene early in the tribulation and is then given authority for forty two literal months. Again chronology is the key to understanding this prophecy correctly, and how God reckons time.

Did early expositors understand this hermeneutic, did Mrs. White? No. Was that there fault or had God kept it sealed up in the Book of Daniel until, "the time of the end"? (Dan.12:4&9)

Gary, It is my prayer that you and other Adventist who are following this thread, Will serious consider what I have presented here. We must stand on the Bible, and progressive revelations, if they improve our understanding of prophecy in these latter days. We all are eager to except advancement in other areas of our lives, automobiles, cell phones, TV's and medicine, however, when it comes to spiritual, we fail to move forward with the light God sends us. Do all of you following this thread wish to remain in darkness?

Blessings

Who is the Daniel 8 Prophecy, Rome or Antiochus Epiphanes?

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Junior Member

Active Member

an old small town kid

Junior Member

Active Member

Attachments

Junior Member

Junior Member

Active Member

Junior Member

Active Member

an old small town kid

Active Member

Attachments

Similar threads