Daniel 2, 7, & 8 Illustration - how does one support that Daniel 8 is Antiochus Epiphanes

[tall73]

The lack of third Beast is problematic, But when one considers that Rome was a settlement of a Greek colony, mainly that of the refugees from Troy and the Trojan War. That relocated to the Latin region of the Italian peninsula, it is entirely possible that this refers to the growth of Rome. The criteria is met, it is a Greek colony and therefore it is not necessary for a new Beast. Scripture is telling us that the growth of this major power would be a Greek power. A detail that is as mentioned by Homer.

Usually those who hold the Rome view see it coming out of one of the winds, making a distinction between Greece and Rome.

But the notion of it developing from one part of the empire could make that easier to accept.

Here is a brief description of the winds argument for folks who are unfamiliar. And it references the shortfall of no corresponding beast for the horn.

https://www.tms.edu/m/TMS-Spring2016-Article-02.pdf

...the little horn originates “Out of one of them” (v. 9). This raises a significant interpretive issue: What is the grammatical antecedent of “them”? Does the little
horn originate from one of the “four conspicuous horns” (i.e., one of the four Greek successors of Alexander the Great) or from one of the “four winds of the sky” (i.e.,one of the four directions of the compass)? Young assumes the former option: “this horn grows out of one of the four horns.”9 Antiochus certainly meets the criterion of being a Greek lord who lives after the Diadochi chronologically. On the other hand, the current writer espouses the latter option based on three lines of argumentation. (a) “Winds” is the closest grammatical antecedent to “them.” (b) The little horn “comes forth” (יצא) from its place, whereas the other horns of verses 3 and 8 “come up” (עלה). The contrast in verb choice suggests a geographical origin, as reinforced by the geographical references in verse 9 (south, east, beautiful land). (c) The literary structure of the vision informs the interpretation. The descriptions of the three main players (the ram, goat, and little horn) unfold according to a set pattern: geographic origin → conquests → demise.11 Given that the ram originates “before/east” (לִ פְ נֵ י ) of the canal (v. 3), and the goat originates from the west (v. 5), the reader would expect
the segment about the little horn to follow suit by beginning with a statement of geographic origin. Such an interpretation would obviously leave the little horn unattached to a creature, which sometimes happens in Scriptural symbolism (e.g., Zech 1:18–19). The little horn does not need to be Grecian

If you take it as Grecian in origin, and it comes from one direction of the four winds you have again the directions matching up as was always the case with Rome, going to the south, east, beautiful land, etc. But as you note it is coming from one part of the empire, so you don't have the disembodied horn.

I think the problem you have then is why a fourth beast in 7 if it was really an extension of the third, and they are parallel?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Usually those who hold the Rome view see it coming out of one of the winds, making a distinction between Greece and Rome.

But the notion of it developing from one part of the empire could make that easier to accept.

Here is a brief description of the winds argument for folks who are unfamiliar. And it references the shortfall of no corresponding beast for the horn.

https://www.tms.edu/m/TMS-Spring2016-Article-02.pdf

...the little horn originates “Out of one of them” (v. 9). This raises a significant interpretive issue: What is the grammatical antecedent of “them”? Does the little
horn originate from one of the “four conspicuous horns” (i.e., one of the four Greek successors of Alexander the Great) or from one of the “four winds of the sky” (i.e.,one of the four directions of the compass)? Young assumes the former option: “this horn grows out of one of the four horns.”9 Antiochus certainly meets the criterion of being a Greek lord who lives after the Diadochi chronologically. On the other hand, the current writer espouses the latter option based on three lines of argumentation. (a) “Winds” is the closest grammatical antecedent to “them.” (b) The little horn “comes forth” (יצא) from its place, whereas the other horns of verses 3 and 8 “come up” (עלה). The contrast in verb choice suggests a geographical origin, as reinforced by the geographical references in verse 9 (south, east, beautiful land). (c) The literary structure of the vision informs the interpretation. The descriptions of the three main players (the ram, goat, and little horn) unfold according to a set pattern: geographic origin → conquests → demise.11 Given that the ram originates “before/east” (לִ פְ נֵ י ) of the canal (v. 3), and the goat originates from the west (v. 5), the reader would expect
the segment about the little horn to follow suit by beginning with a statement of geographic origin. Such an interpretation would obviously leave the little horn unattached to a creature, which sometimes happens in Scriptural symbolism (e.g., Zech 1:18–19). The little horn does not need to be Grecian

If you take it as Grecian in origin, and it comes from one direction of the four winds you have again the directions matching up as was always the case with Rome, going to the south, east, beautiful land, etc. But as you note it is coming from one part of the empire, so you don't have the disembodied horn.

I think the problem you have then is why a fourth beast in 7 if it was really an extension of the third, and they are parallel?

each prophecy is dealing with something different in Daniel 7 it is the political aspect of the beast, and horn. in Daniel 8 It is the origins of the horn. Where did it come from.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I think one of the big challenges in figuring out a narrative that appears to start in the time of Greece, but stretches to the end of time is how you wind up identifying the king of the north and king of the south, as these have not been consistent over that time.

That is one area where the Antiochus idea is simpler. But I noted the other issues with it.

If you begin taking a more symbolic approach it could be lots of things, but it is not clear why north and south would be used to identify symbolic kingdoms of this sort.

could you flush out these questions. more I would like to try my hand at answering them

 

[tall73]

could you flush out these questions. more I would like to try my hand at answering them

The main question is what powers started around the time of Greece that extend to the time of the end. Anything that doesn't fit into both time periods appears to be eliminated from contention.

Depending on how you take Rome it is one of the few that could fit, with a resurgence of Rome, or of course as some take it of papal Rome.

As to the second question, it is less of an issue if Rome is the one indicated because then the directions make sense of the early historical material of the king of the North expanding South and East and to the holy land. But it makes less sense if you apply king of the South and king of the North to conglomerates of nations based on principles such as atheism etc.

But when you get to chapter 11 you have to explain how the north and south makes sense whichever view you take as it progresses through various time periods.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

The main question is what powers started around the time of Greece that extend to the time of the end. Anything that doesn't fit into both time periods appears to be eliminated from contention.

Depending on how you take Rome it is one of the few that could fit, with a resurgence of Rome, or of course as some take it of papal Rome.

As to the second question, it is less of an issue if Rome is the one indicated because then the directions make sense of the early historical material of the king of the North expanding South and East and to the holy land. But it makes less sense if you apply king of the South and king of the North to conglomerates of nations based on principles such as atheism etc.

But when you get to chapter 11 you have to explain how the north and south makes sense whichever view you take as it progresses through various time periods.

the view I hold is that the Roman power is spoken of in Daniel 11 conquers the ancient Greee, when it brings Cleopatra, in Eqypt into submission. The prophecy then skips over the entire Christian period and pick up at the time of the end. With a fight between Rome and France, who btw went down and conquered Egypt, literally subjugating the king of the South, then Russia comes Down and subject France to it's self where the atheist Ideas spread and produced the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917

 

[tall73]

the view I hold is that the Roman power is spoken of in Daniel 11 conquers the ancient Greee, when it brings Cleopatra, in Eqypt into submission. The prophecy then skips over the entire Christian period and pick up at the time of the end. With a fight between Rome and France, who btw went down and conquered Egypt, literally subjugating the king of the South, then Russia comes Down and subject France to it's self where the atheist Ideas spread and produced the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917

So you don't see it as spelling out events in succession, but with a gap. Ok, that clarifies things. And yes, Napolean conquered Egypt.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

one of the rules i follow i picked up from you Tall, it has to work and it can't be that hard to understand. This lead to 2 different results. literally or Symbolically based on what the scripture says about the symbol. literally the KON would be Turkey, Syria and the one who occupy's Damascus. The KOS is Egypt and who ever occupy's it's capital. Well do you see a fight between Egypt and Syria/ Turkery. No. so that can't be it.

The other option is to look sympolicaly and that is where you come to my conclusion. I will not list is as i already have. those are they symbols as defined by the scripture.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

the gap makes sense if it is revived Rome

 

[tall73]

the gap makes sense if it is revived Rome

one of the rules i follow i picked up from you Tall, it has to work and it can't be that hard to understand. This lead to 2 different results. literally or Symbolically based on what the scripture says about the symbol. literally the KON would be Turkey, Syria and the one who occupy's Damascus. The KOS is Egypt and who ever occupy's it's capital. Well do you see a fight between Egypt and Syria/ Turkery. No. so that can't be it.

The other option is to look sympolicaly and that is where you come to my conclusion. I will not list is as i already have. those are they symbols as defined by the scripture.

If the little horn is revived Rome, then how does the king of the North become Turkey, Syria etc.?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

If the little horn is revived Rome, then how does the king of the North become Turkey, Syria etc.?

T&S are only if you take them literally,

It is revived if you contiune Rome from before the Gap and the pattern hold like daniel 2

 

[BobRyan]

The main question is what powers started around the time of Greece that extend to the time of the end. .

Nope.

The main question is - what power came after Greece that surpassed both the Greek Empire and the Persian Empire - ... and would extend to the time of the end.

It is Rome -- first in its pagan empire form - then in its papal empire form

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Daniel 8 is indicating the that the origins of Rome were Greek, which would explain why there is not a 3rd beast as we would expect to find.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

So you don't see it as spelling out events in succession, but with a gap. Ok, that clarifies things. And yes, Napolean conquered Egypt.

Event in succession. It is a little muddy here. many of the things have not happened. like Nubia or sub-Sahran Africa, has not happened, but I see it a a domino I think what happens in that region is dependant on what happen in China. China is heavily invested in Africa and if it falls there will be a free for all with people, bussines and Goverments fighting for control of resources.

 

[tall73]

the gap makes sense if it is revived Rome

Yes, I can see how that would make sense of it.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Yes, I can see how that would make sense of it.

if we take for a moment that Rome can be concluded from daniel 8 based on this new information. we still have the problem of when to start the prophecy & how to count the 2300 days. Maybe we should work on that.

 

[tall73]

Nope.

The main question is - what power came after Greece that surpassed both the Greek Empire and the Persian Empire - ... and would extend to the time of the end.

I have posted more in this thread against Antiochhus and in favor of the view of Rome than you have. However, my point was that the events of the vision limit the candidates considerably.

And as to Daniel 8 alone, it could be a restored Greece as well, if it grew greater in the future, but I think restored Rome more likely for the reasons stated earlier.

They crucified the Prince of princes, they persecuted the saints, the defiled AND cast down the place of the temple,

It is Rome -- first in its pagan empire form - then in its papal empire form

If you say it is "Papal" Rome you have to explain the following:

1Jn 2:22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
1Jn 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
1Jn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

The papacy has had many problems, and has persecuted. But they do not deny that Jesus is the Christ. They do not deny the Father and the Son. They do not deny that Jesus came in the flesh.

 

[tall73]

if we take for a moment that Rome can be concluded from daniel 8 based on this new information. we still have the problem of when to start the prophecy & how to count the 2300 days. Maybe we should work on that.

Well it would need to start with the trampling of the saints, the sanctuary. Perhaps even with the Roman conquest of the holy land in 63 BC under Pompey?

A lot of those scenarios if you use a day year would put us beyond today.

Unless you take the vision to mean starting with some other aspect.

If you start it at the 3rd year of Belshazzar, or the start of the conquest Eastward from Elam at the beginning of the whole vision you don't get to the end, or to a revived Rome.

And then you have the problem of it not being a constant trampling if you have a gap.

Or because the 2,300 days refers to the time of the end you could have literal days applying to some future events.

Yeah, sounds difficult.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I have posted more in this thread against Antiochhus and in favor of the view of Rome than you have. However, my point was that the events of the vision limit the candidates considerably.

And as to Daniel 8 alone, it could be a restored Greece as well, if it grew greater in the future, but I think restored Rome more likely for the reasons stated earlier.

They crucified the Prince of princes, they persecuted the saints, the defiled AND cast down the place of the temple,



If you say it is "Papal" Rome you have to explain the following:

1Jn 2:22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
1Jn 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.

1Jn 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
1Jn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

The papacy has had many problems, and has persecuted. But they do not deny that Jesus is the Christ. They do not deny the Father and the Son. They do not deny that Jesus came in the flesh.

that is actually easy. it is a 2 step process.

1. Peter is given the Keys - The keys are authority to represent God and to bind and loose on earth. That authority is handed down from one person to the next.

2. 666 is the number of the beast. in the OT 666 is only found to be talking about God's People. A. Solomon - it is the # of talents of Gold Solomon recieved each year. B. Adonikim - the number is associated with a tribe that returns from captivity in Babylon.

Since the # 666 is associated with God's people, his leadership and man. Solomon is called the Son of God. We are called sons of God. it is God's man misrepresnting him. That would fit the Catholic Chruch.

 

[tall73]

that is actually easy. it is a 2 step process.

1. Peter is given the Keys - The keys are authority to represent God and to bind and loose on earth. That authority is handed down from one person to the next.

2. 666 is the number of the beast. in the OT 666 is only found to be talking about God's People. A. Solomon - it is the # of talents of Gold Solomon recieved each year. B. Adonikim - the number is associated with a tribe that returns from captivity in Babylon.

Since the # 666 is associated with God's people, his leadership and man. Solomon is called the Son of God. We are called sons of God. it is God's man misrepresnting him. That would fit the Catholic Chruch.

I am not doubting that we have even more direct evidence that the man of sin, which appears to be parallel, will exalt Himself, proclaiming himself God.

2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

And we can see how the pope could fit that part.

But I don't see how that addresses the specific spirit of antichrist which includes denying Jesus is the Christ, denying Jesus came in the flesh, etc. which the papacy has not done, and has expressly stated the opposite.

Are you indicating particular popes who were corrupt, and perhaps a particular end-time pope?

 

[Adventist Heretic]

I am not doubting that we have even more direct evidence that the man of sin, which appears to be parallel, will exalt Himself, proclaiming himself God.

2Th 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

And we can see how the pope could fit that part.

But I don't see how that addresses the specific spirit of antichrist which includes denying Jesus is the Christ, denying Jesus came in the flesh, etc. which the papacy has not done, and has expressly stated the opposite.

Are you indicating particular popes who were corrupt, and perhaps a particular end-time pope?

you are really forcing me to think about things I have not even considered, so I will have to get back to you.