 One or two little horns?

[Douggg]

And is there scripture that supports a person has to become the antichrist? I've never seen anything like that in the bible.

In 1John2:18, it was known at the time of the apostles that Antichrist shall come.

The functional role of "Christ" is to be the promised great king of Israel, descended from King David.

Jesus, the true Christ, was rejected by his own people, led astray by the religious leaders, to be that great King of Israel.

The Antichrist is a specific person which the Jews will believe to be the promised great King of Israel - instead of and against Jesus, the true Christ.

And part of their belief is that he has to be anointed the King of Israel by a known prophet. They base their belief on that Elijah must come to be part of the messianic age. And based upon in Israel's past as one being one nation before the split, that Saul and David were anointed by the prophet Samuel. And Solomon by the prophet Nathan.

 

[ewq1938]

You had asked me to give an example of delegating power and exercising it. Which I did.

I didn't ask for an unrelated example. I wanted scripture that shows the first beast delegating power to the second beast. I already know that no scripture says any such things.

 

[Douggg]

I didn't ask for an unrelated example. I wanted scripture that shows the first beast delegating power to the second beast. I already know that no scripture says any such things.

Here is what you asked of me...

"Something showing that anything like that happens is very much required else it is just imagined."

It was a related example because it involved true prophets in Revelation in contrast to the false prophet in Revelation.

You are not accepting what is implied in the scripture on the false prophet exercising power of the first beast before him.

The first beast is believed by the world as having achieved God-hood. And from that position of authority, although a lie, delegates his power to false prophet who exercises it in having the world worship him.


Revelation 13:12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Revelation 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Please make sure of your interpertation of prophecy as it is a salvation issue according to the above verse


Futurism is a Roman Catholic doctrine not a Reformation Protestant doctrine

The Catholic Counter Reformation - Futurism
The Jesuits were commissioned by the Pope to develop a new interpretation of Scripture that would counteract the Protestant application of the Bible’s prophecies regarding the Antichrist to the Roman Catholic Church. All the reformers’ studies pointed the finger directly at the Roman Catholic Church as the Antichrist power described in Daniel as the “little horn.”

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), a brilliant Jesuit priest and doctor of theology from Spain, answered Papacy’s call. Like Martin Luther, Francisco Ribera also read by candlelight the prophecies about the Antichrist, the little horn, the man of sin, and the beast of Revelation.

He then developed the doctrine of futurism. His explanation was that the prophecies apply only to a single sinister man who will arise up at the end of time. Rome quickly adopted this viewpoint as the Church’s official position on the Antichrist.

Jesuit Futurism

Daniel 7 gives us very precise identifying features of the horn, and every single one must apply in order to make an accurate identification possible. The 13 features are as follows:

1. It arose out of the fourth beast.
2. It came up among the ten horns.
3. It came up after the ten horns had been established.
4. It was to uproot three horns.
5. It was to be greater than the others.
6. It was to be different than the others.
7. It was to have eyes like the eyes of a man and speak great words against God.
8. It was to make war on God's saints.
9. It would think to change times and laws.
10.The saints were to be handed over to it for a time and times and half a time.
11. It shall devour the whole earth.
12. It shall reign until the Ancient of Days comes.
13. Its dominion will be taken away.

The Antichrist power has to fulfill all of the characteristics given in the Bible. It cannot meet only some of them.

There is only one system that meets all the identifying features listed in Daniel chapter 7, and this is the Papacy. Read about God's people who identified the Antichrist throughout history

Identifying the Antichrist | Prophecy of Daniel | Religious and Political System

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Revelation is the first we hear about the false prophet, and that is with 42 months left in the 7 years.

But because for the little horn person to become the Antichrist and confirm the covenant for 7 years - he has to be anointed by a known (perceived known prophet in the case of the false prophet) the King of Israel.

your gap theory is not supported in the bible
Except by cobbling together verses to prove your gap theory and that is due to misinterpertation of prophecy

Isreal after the cross is the spiritual Isreal not the literal physical land or people

However, the truth is that typology in the Bible always points to something greater. The symbolic lamb points to Christ—the latter being so much greater than the former. Literal Babylon points to end-time Babylon, comprising all the forces that reject God. Literal Jerusalem is a type of end-time spiritual Jerusalem, comprising the redeemed of all the ages. Despite this, dispensationalists await a literal reconstruction of Babylon and Israel, which would be the same as awaiting the return of a literal lamb.

Literal versus Spiritual Israel | Tribulation of God's People | Bible Prophecy

 

[Douggg]

Despite this, dispensationalists await a literal reconstruction of Babylon and Israel, which would be the same as awaiting the return of a literal lamb.

I don't think there are very many dispensationalists who are expecting a reconstruction of Babylon in Iraq.

But there are multitudes of Christians who hold to the nation of Israel we see over there in the middle east as the literal fulfillment of prophecy.

Gog/Magog in the SDA view, a literal soon to take place event or not?

 

[Original Happy Camper]

Gog/Magog in the SDA view, a literal soon to take place event or not?

God fights the Final Battle

In Ezekiel 38:2 and 39:6, Gog the king of Magog is described as an enemy of God's people. He is the leader of the host that would attack restored Israel (Ezekiel 38:2, 14-19), but he will meet his end “after many days” (Ezekiel 38:8).


“And it will come to pass at the same time, when Gog comes against the land of Israel,” says the Lord GOD, “that My fury will show in My face. For in My jealousy and in the fire of My wrath I have spoken: ‘Surely in that day there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel'” (Ezekiel 38:18-19 NKJV).

God will destroy Gog. God shows in this prophecy that Israel does not battle at all. Gog stands as a symbol of the leader of rebellion—Satan himself.

At the end of time, God will permit the final act of rebellion (the attack on the New Jerusalem) by Satan, his hosts, and the resurrected people who had turned away from God. He will do this to dispel any lingering doubt that the unrighteous—those in opposition to God and His people—are evil. Good and evil will stand opposite each other: God's people within the city, Satan's people without.

The Resurrection of those who Reject God | Final Battle

 

[RandyPNW]

I'm looking for arguments that the little horn in Dan 7 and 8 are speaking about the same entity, I already have 3, can anyone provide more?


Grammar of the word “little”

The word used for “little” in Dan 7 (“zə·‘ê·rāh”) is an adjective to the word “horn” which is used to assign a description to the entity that is the subject of this sentence.

But the word used for “little horn” in Dan 8 (“miṣ·ṣə·‘î·rāh”) is a noun, so this treats the entity that is the subject of this sentence as already having a defined identity. So this insinuates that it is referring back to the entity that was already defined as the “little horn” in Dan 7.


Origin of the little horn

Dan 7 indicates that the little horn doesn't originate from the 10 horns because it is states that it came up among, or between (“bê·nê·hên”, which root is the same as used in Dan 7:5 “It had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth”) the 10 horns. It could be that this little horn originated directly out of the 4th beast just like the other 10 horns, but this is not explicitly stated. So the text conveys that this little horn came up between the 10 horns but (deliberately?) leaves it unspecified where it originated from.

Dan 8 indicates that the little horn originates out of one of the 4 horns (“ū·min-“), history shows that these 4 horns represent the Diadochi kingdoms (Ptolemaei, Seleuci, Lysimachi and Cassandri), so here the initially ambiguous origin of the little horn is now specified.


Timing of the little horn’s appearance

The little horn in Dan 8 emerges out of one of the Diadochi kingdoms of which the last (Ptolemaei) ended in 30 BC, while the 10 kingdoms could have emerged only after the collapse of the Roman empire in 476 AD, so that means there is a gap of about 500 years. But the word “ū·min-“ (“out of” or “from”) in Dan 8:9 only implies origin, it doesn't have any suggestion of imminence, so the little horn doesn’t necessarily emerges right after the Diadochi kingdoms seized to exist. But this does require a connection between one of the Diadochi kingdoms and the entity that is represented by the little horn spanning at least 500 years.

I asked my brother about this, and he said:


I can hear my Hebrew teacher and our professor in exegesis cautioning us with the warning, "Be careful not to base your interpretation solely on grammar. Grammar, syntax, semantic ranges of words, and especially context must all be considered to understand the author's intended meaning." Your friend is proof that a little knowledge can be dangerous.
For example, does he even realize that chapter 7 is written in Aramaic and chapter 8 is written in Hebrew?

Does he realize that the word mitstseirah is a hapax legomenon, a word that only occurs once in the OT? Hebrew scholars are often loathe to assign dogmatically a specific definition, though they do so if there is enough extra-biblical evidence to support that assertion. Dows he have duch evidence?

Your friend would equate the meaning of two words when (1) they are in different languages and (2) one is an adjective and one a noun. It is breath-taking, and I wonder what scholarship he relies upon to make this claim. His own? I think it's a fair question.

Then his insistence that the expression in 8:9 is a defined entity is the grammatical argument that he puts the most weight on. I find it a weak argument because trying to ascertain an antecedent because a word has a noun renaming it doesn't necessarily equate it to the first use of an assumed synonym of that noun.

For example, the word horn in both passages may be considered a "defined entity" (whatever he means by that) in that the adjective "little" in 7:8 is defined as "a little one" in the NIV. It is further identified, and that is true of the horn in 8:9. Does he claim that there should be an antecedent for the horn in 7:8?

I think he is appealing to a "rule" where the definiteness or indefiniteness of a noun like horn in 8:9 can be a clue as to whether it has an antecedent. Is he claiming that horn in 8:9 is definite? That would be an "oops", I think. So, I'm not convinced he's chosen an example of this, but he's put his eggs in the grammar basket, and I've been taught that this is the last refuge for a weak argument.

As mentioned before, context rules. Is there anything in the context that ties the discussion on these two horns together? I'm not talking about the semantics and grammar and syntax, but is there evidence in the larger context that we are to understand these expressions as having a common referent? If the context is ambiguous, I recommend that we acknowledge the ambiguity, gratefully embrace it, and look for the main point the author is making in both passages. Otherwise, we may miss what is most important.

That isn't to say we cannot speculate, but I think the honest and humblest thing is to say up front, "I'm speculating about this, and here's where I lean on interpreting this verse and why". Of course, that would be to defuse your bombshell before you threw it in the discussion forum, and that wouldn't be much fun.

His words--not mine. He is so much more adept at discussing biblical languages. Thought you might consider?