I understand why you conclude what you do. What makes this discussion even more difficult is, that you initially came to some of the same conclusions that I am currently coming to, but that you then eventually changed your position in regards to some of those conclusions. Perhaps you don't believe this, but there is such a thing as having been right all along. I know how it usually works though. Once someone has changed their position in regards to something, rarely does one want to have to admit that they were wrong to do so, and that they were right initially.
To be truthful I never studied or counted on Dan. 11 in my preaching/presentations because I felt it was too confusing seeing as many people had too many different understandings of what the Historical meaning was. Only when I understood that Daniel 12 was a key to unlocking some of the Revelation events did I start researching Dan. 11 in detail because Dan. 11 & 12 go together. I spent a good Six months going through everything and I am confident I have all the Kings and Successions of Kings down pat, IMHO. I have no doubt that Antiochus Epiphanes is the vile King in verses 21-32. He was the last Grecian King with any "bite" so ti speak or authority. He was killed in 164 BC and Rome defeated Greece at the battle of Corinth in 146 BC and took over the Greek peninsula and thus Rome was pretty much the Fourth Beast by this point in time, Rome even neutered Antiochus Epiphanes and made him leave Egypt.
He then came against Judea in a unique was that is akin to the coming Anti-Christs moves, he is a likeness of the coming Anti-Christ, that is why he is in the chapter, and why it skips from him to the coming Anti-Christ in verse 36. On other words we get a lineage to Antiochus Epiphanes, then Rome pretty much becomes the Fourth Beast and Greece's lineage to the coming Anti-Christ/Beast is put forth. I think there is a reason this lineage was given and a reason it ended with AE4 and think skipped to the Anti-Christ. Hes was meant to be a likeness to the coming Anti-Christ.
All I can do at this point is to try and demonstrate with the text that your interpretation is not adding up. So let's start with verse 36 then.
Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
What should any serious Bible student be asking themselves at this point? Shouldn't they be asking what king? What caused this king to do according to his will; and exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and speak marvellous things against the God of gods? Surely some of those answers can be found in Daniel chapter 11 itself.
Well we already know those answers, the Anti-Christ desires to be worshiped as God !! We don't have to answer what King because there is only going to be
ONE End Time King, hes not going to pass his Kingdom on nor will anyone be a Beast but him, hence hes considered THE BEAST instead of the Kingdom being the Beast in this instance. That is why in Rev. ch. 17 the Seven Heads are reduced to 5 Kings who have fallen, ONE who is and ONE who is YET TO COME, the previous Six were not ONE KING KINGDOMS, but the last one will be, hence the reducing to "KINGS WHO HAVE FALLEN" whereby the Last Beast will be the only Beast thus he must be the last BEAST that Falls or King that Falls.
For sure, Antiochus Epiphanes detested Israel/Jerusalem and their Religion, he defiled the Temple, and his very name seems to indicate he thought he was a God (Epiphanes means God Manifest) many called him Antiochus Epimanes instead which means Madman. He seems to be a forerunner to the Anti-Christ. I found this tidbit below and offer it up as proof, IMHO, that I am looking in the right direction, I have never seen this before today and it pretty much matches all of my studies from verses 21 to 35. Take a gander at this my brother. Its interesting to say the least...
In Daniel 11:21-35, the prophet reveals the rise and rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid king who reigned from 175-164 B.C. Daniel’s prediction involves the rise of Antiochus to power, the conflicts of Antiochus with Egypt (i.e., the king of the South), and his hostilities towards Israel.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003 Deluxe Edition states:
“Antiochus was the third son of Antiochus III the Great. After his father’s defeat by the Romans in 190—189, he served as hostage for his father in Rome from 189 to 175, where he learned to admire Roman institutions and policies. His brother, King Seleucus IV, exchanged him for Demetrius, the son of Seleucus; and after Seleucus was murdered by Heliodorus, a usurper, Antiochus in turn ousted him” (“Antiochus IV Epiphanes,” Britannica Corp, 2003.).
The demise of Seleucus IV preceded Antiochus’ rise to power, and Daniel prophesies the untimely end of Seleucus (Dan. 11:20-21).
“Then shall arise in his [Antiochus III] place one [Seleucus IV] who shall send an exactor of tribute for the glory of the kingdom. But, within a few days he shall be broken, neither in anger nor in battle” (v. 20).
Seleucus IV, brother of Antiochus, succeeded his father Antiocus III the Great. Apparently, Seleucus sent Heliodorus to plunder the temple in Jerusalem, but he returned empty-handed. Gleason Archer observes,
“No other details are given in this verse of the twelve-year reign of this rather ineffectual king, except that he did not die in battle or in a mob action as had his father, Antiochus. Yet Seleucus IV met an untimely end through poison administered by Heliodorus” (Expositor Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p. 134).
And Daniel foresaw,
“In his [Seleucus IV] place shall arise a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given. He shall come in without warning and obtain the kingdom by flatteries” (Dan. 11:21).
Although Demetrius, the son of Seleucus IV, was the rightful successor, Antiochus determined to seize control.
Antiochus’ rise to power corresponded to the following predictions by Daniel, the prophet of the Most High God:
1.) Antiochus would come to power after the untimely death of his predecessor.
2.) He was a contemptible person, thus he was called by many Antiochus Epimanes (i.e., the madman) instead of his preferred appellation Epiphanes (i.e., God Manifest).
3.) He was not an heir to the throne, indeed to him “royal majesty has not been given.”
4.) Antiochus did not lead a bloody coup, but he obtained “the kingdom by flatteries.” Edward J. Young writes, “By flattery he won over the kings of Pergamus to his cause, and the Syrians gave in peaceably” (The Prophecy of Daniel, Grand Rapids: Eerdmands, 1977, p. 241).
These specific details, prophesied about 350 years before they transpired, were fulfilled in Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The time and manner of his rise to power were foretold in the book of Daniel — the Most High rules the kingdom of men.
The conflicts of Antiochus IV with Egypt are predicted in Daniel 11:22-30, which details are amazing. The relevance to the biblical scheme is that these campaigns bring him into direct contact with Israel, since Palestine is between Syria and Egypt. Note the prophetic specifics concerning the hostilities of Antiochus against Israel:
“At the time appointed he shall return and come into the south, but it shall not be this time as it was before. For ships of Kittim shall come against him, and he shall be afraid and withdraw, and shall turn back and be enraged and take action against the holy covenant. He shall turn back and pay attention to those who forsake the holy covenant. Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate. He shall seduce with flattery those who violate the covenant, but the people who know their God shall stand firm and take action. And the wise among the people shall make many understand, though for some days they shall stumble by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder. When they stumble, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery, and some of the wise shall stumble, so that they may be refined, purified, and made white, until the time of the end, for it still awaits the appointed time” (Dan. 11:29-35).
1.) The hostilities of Antiochus IV against Israel would happen during more than one Egyptian conflict (Dan. 11:29-30).
2.) Antiochus would take military control of Jerusalem, and especially the temple: “Forces from him shall appear ...” (v. 31a).
3.) He would cause the sacrifices to cease: “Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering” (v. 31).
4.) He would “set up the abomination that makes desolate” (v. 31b).
5.) Antiochus would prefer and protect those who “violate the covenant” (v. 32a).
6.) Antiochus would meet resistance (vv. 32b-33).
7.) The righteous would suffer intense persecution (vv. 33-34a).
8.) There would be imposters among the righteous (v. 34b).
9.) These events would result in a purification of the people of God (v. 35).
In view of these verses, consider the following excerpt:
“Antiochus’ hellenizing policies brought him into conflict with the prosperous Oriental temple organizations, and particularly with the Jews. Since Antiochus III’s reign the Jews had enjoyed extensive autonomy under their high priest. They were divided into two parties, the orthodox Hasideans (Pious Ones) and a reform party that favoured Hellenism. For financial reasons Antiochus supported the reform party and, in return for a considerable sum, permitted the high priest, Jason, to build a gymnasium in Jerusalem and to introduce the Greek mode of educating young people. In 172, for an even bigger tribute, he appointed Menelaus in place of Jason. In 169, however, while Antiochus was campaigning in Egypt, Jason conquered Jerusalem—with the exception of the citadel—and murdered many adherents of his rival Menelaus. When Antiochus returned from Egypt in 167 he took Jerusalem by storm and enforced its Hellenization. The city forfeited its privileges and was permanently garrisoned by Syrian soldiers.” (“Antiochus IV Epiphanes,” The Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003 Deluxe Edition, Britannica Corp, 2003).
Skeptics allege that these events were recorded after the fact — that is, they were the work of an historian and not a prophet. They reject the possibility of predictive prophecy, therefore any other explanation will do.
The following quotation summarizes the power and importance of Daniel’s predictions, and it is a fitting conclusion to the thoughts we have entertained. Robert D. Wilson remarks:
“Of course, those who do not believe in God, nor in a revelation from God to man, nor in any superhuman prediction of future events, will reject alike the predictions of Daniel, Jesus, Paul, and John. But for those who call themselves Christians to deny the resurrection, the judgment, the second coming, and other predicted events, is absurd enough to make all the logicians in Hades laugh and all the angels weep ... Woe to the so-called Christian who under the pretence of a science falsely so-called denies the reality of revelation. Like Esau, he has sold his birthright of the hope of eternal glory for a mess of pottage, the beggarly elements of worldly wisdom and pride” (Studies in the Book of Daniel, Vol. 2, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1972, p. 270).
Getting to long so I will make another post...........
