The little horn in Daniel 8 poll

[Jamdoc]

Daniel 8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia. 21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

So, it's just a coincidence that a term translated as "Grecia" or "Greece" follows a reference to "the kings of Media and Persia"? We know that the Greek empire came into power after defeating the Medo-Persian empire, but somehow that isn't what Daniel 8:20-21 is referring to? I can't buy that at all. Even if you were correct about it referring to Javan instead (which you are not), how do you explain verse 20? How can that be anything besides a reference to the Medo-Persian empire?

Here's the point. The term is translated "Greece" because people thought it was "obvious" that it meant the historical Persian Empire and the Empire that followed it was Greece historically, so they translated the term that was used for Javan in Genesis and Chronicles and Ezekiel as Greece, because it fit the history.
It's a little like how some people now see "Rosh" in Ezekiel 38 as being "Russia" because it fits their view of who Gog is, even though rosh is a hebrew term that means "head" "chief" or "root" it means the primary in importance of a set. It is the "Chief Prince" of Meshech and Tubal, but since the 20th century had people interpret the then Godless communist Soviet Union as Magog... they take that term rosh, used 598 times in the bible as "head" "chief" or "root" ... and say "ah, this one time it means Russia"
If the term was always translated Greece, then sure, that'd be the correct term.
But because over half of the uses of the term are translated Javan, it is inconsistent and influenced by a historicist interpretation.

as for Daniel 8:20, it is the Persians, the problem is there has been multiple Persian Empires, including ones that existed after the Alexandrian Empire collapsed, the Parthians and the Sasanians, and Persia is now known as Iran today.
It's the assumption that the text is referring to the same Empire referred to in Nebuchadnezzar's dream.
THAT dream pertained to Nebuchadnezzar, it was shown to him because this was stuff that directly concerned Nebuchadnezzar, THIS vision, and Daniel 7 while we're at it, were NOT pertaining to Nebuchadnezzar specifically, they are pertaining to the end of the age.

But it's powered by assumption. "It's obvious" so they translate Javan as Greece, because "it's obvious it's about the historical empires", and then handwave discrepancies such as Gabriel saying the vision would take place at the time of the end, and that it would be the first king of Javan, and Alexander was not the first king but the 23rd. They also ignore that the little horn in Daniel 8 would stand up against the prince of princes (Jesus the Messiah). Jesus wasn't known, the Messiah had not come yet, during Antiochus' reign.

It is Antichrist who is the little horn that will stand up against the Prince of princes.

And 2 verses later it says "for at the time appointed the end shall be." which explains what that means. But, you don't seem to want to take that into consideration. It's not talking about it happening at the end of time, it's talking about it happening at the appointed time.

Gabriel is confirming that it's an end times vision. It is 3 references to the end of the age and the Indignation of God. The "appointed time" is to indicate to Daniel that this is not things that will happen now during Daniel's lifetime, as Daniel would assume. There's a current Persian Empire. Daniel had lived through a transition of power between the Babylonian Empire and the Persian Empire. Here Daniel was being told of a succession to the Persian Empire. Daniel's first thought would be, this is gonna happen really shortly, maybe in my lifetime. Gabriel is denying that. "It's going to happen in the end times, the end times is not now it's at an appointed time, and it is not for many days yet" That is how you can boil down the descriptions of timing in Daniel 8:17, 8:19, and 8:26, telling Daniel that the vision is for the end of the age, but the end of the age wouldn't be for a long time yet. Because if you get apocalyptic visions and an Angel telling you these things are the end of the world, first thought is gonna be "it's the end of the world now?" Gabriel was saying no, it's not the end of the world now.

I'm not dancing around anything, I'm taking history into account and I'm taking the context into account. You are interpreting the verse without taking either of those things into account.

I'm using the context and finding historical discrepancies and saying "this isn't a perfect fit then, and I'm not forcing a square peg through a round hole, let's look at the text closer rather than assume it's correct and cut the corners off the square peg to force it to fit"

On closer study, the text says the vision will happen at the end times, it will be the first king of Javan, and the little horn will stand against Jesus. This is about Antichrist. There the square peg fits through a square hole, because the little horn fits the little horn from Daniel 7, and stands against Jesus, and fits the vile man of Daniel 11, completely not just up to a certain verse and then suddenly we're talking about a future Antichrist when all the verses up until then were about Antiochus..

No, the bible isn't making a sudden 2200 year timeskip in the middle of a passage. It's just that none of Daniel 11 is about Antiochus.

No, it isn't. So, it's just somehow a coincidence that it references the nations of two successive historical world empires in Daniel 8:20-21 while not actually referring to those empires? Come on. Please be serious.

I am serious. The text says end times and time of the end and last end of the indignation. That's specific. Daniel 11 has:

35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

Yeah I don't think we're talking about second temple period if we're talking about the end times and making people white (salvation).

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.
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

Antiochus was a Greek, he worshiped the Greek gods, and put up statues of Zeus, the gods of his fathers.
and it says he'll prosper until the Indignation of God, and that last clause sounds a lot like "end of the age" language.

38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

Here the vile man is said to worship an impersonal god, a god that was not worshiped by his ancestors. Antiochus worshiped Zeus, a god who was a person, not an impersonal god of forces, and it was a god that his ancestors also worshiped.

LOL. It's not "kinda"! Are you kidding? It references kings of Media and Persia and Greece specifically. Any objective person who has a knowledge of history will immediate think of the Medo-Persian and Greek empires when reading that.


It outright says "for at the time appointed the end shall be." which shows it's talking about the end in relation to that prophecy, not to the literal end of time.


There is more mentioned in Daniel 8 than just Persia and Greece, so it's not necessarily referring to Persia and Greece when referring to the indignation of God.

yeah I'd say that the fact that the vision involves the wrath of God that it's not about historical empires at all. I don't see how Antiochus did anything that at all could be interpreted to casting the stars down to the ground (no I don't mean literal stars, it is a vision and Gabriel explains it) or rising up to the Prince of the host.
Gabriel explains it as destroying the holy people (so as in Daniel 7 the little horn makes war against the saints), and stands against the Prince of princes.

is the Prince of princes/Prince of the host not Jesus?

 

[David Kent]

The text outright says, this vision will happen at the time of the end
Gabriel also says that this is what will happen at the last end of the indignation.
Greece taking over Persia was not the indignation of God. There's a procession of different empires in the world, but only Babylon was destroyed specifically as vengeance for destroying Jerusalem, using the Persians. The Persians began the decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple..

It also qualifies it by saying at the end of their kingdom, the Greek kindom. The end of the indignation was when the Macabees thew off the Greek yoke. The whole chapter gives more light on the 2nd and 3rd Kingdoms in chapters 2 and 7. Revelation gives more light on the 4th kingdom.

 

[Jamdoc]

It also qualifies it by saying at the end of their kingdom, the Greek kindom. The end of the indignation was when the Macabees thew off the Greek yoke. The whole chapter gives more light on the 2nd and 3rd Kingdoms in chapters 2 and 7. Revelation gives more light on the 4th kingdom.

doesn't say in Daniel 11 that he prospers until a revolt.
says he prospers until the indignation be accomplished.
so now you want to say the Macabees were the indignation of God?

Daniel 11 also has him die on the holy mountain and has his last military campaigns being in the south and Ethiopia. Where A4E focused his final campaign against the east against the Parthians, and died on the return home.

Either God makes mistakes historically, or it's not about Antiochus. I'm going with the latter.

Let's also remember, the book of Daniel is sealed, centuries and even millennia of study and interpretation will not help us, because it was interpretation of a sealed book. All past interpretations should be suspect, not embraced and held dogmatically.

 

[DavidPT]

Antiochus was a Greek, he worshiped the Greek gods, and put up statues of Zeus, the gods of his fathers.
and it says he'll prosper until the Indignation of God, and that last clause sounds a lot like "end of the age" language.

That is an excellent argument by comparing that to what is recorded in Daniel 11:36-37. Anyone without a doctrinal bias can easily see that if A4E worshiped the same Greek gods his fathers did, that does not remotely equal--Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor regard any god, thus it causes a contradiction with the text if A4E is the one meant.

Clearly, the king meant in verse 36, this is the same vile person meant in verse 21. And that the vile person in verse 21 is the same little horn meant in Daniel 8. And that Daniel 11:37 alone adequetely proves that A4E can't be meant, for the reasons you brought up.

In daniel 11:36 indignation is obviously a keyword, as you yourself pointed out. It is the Hebrew word za`am and is only found in 2 verses in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 8:19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation(za`am) : for at the time appointed the end shall be.

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(za`am) be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

Shall prosper till what indignation be accomplished? How about the one recorded in Daniel 8:19? Why not, assuming anyone disagrees? And since Daniel 8:19 is obviously connected with Daniel 11:36, the little horn in Daniel 8 can't be A4E because the king meant in Daniel 11:36 can't be A4E and that they are one and the same, meaning the little horn in Daniel 8 and the king in Daniel 11:36. Unless one wants to argue something preposterous, though A4E apparently worshiped Greek gods as did his fathers, this still equals--Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor regard any god--rather than contradicts that.

 

[DavidPT]

doesn't say in Daniel 11 that he prospers until a revolt.
says he prospers until the indignation be accomplished.
so now you want to say the Macabees were the indignation of God?

Daniel 11 also has him die on the holy mountain and has his last military campaigns being in the south and Ethiopia. Where A4E focused his final campaign against the east against the Parthians, and died on the return home.

Either God makes mistakes historically, or it's not about Antiochus. I'm going with the latter.

Let's also remember, the book of Daniel is sealed, centuries and even millennia of study and interpretation will not help us, because it was interpretation of a sealed book. All past interpretations should be suspect, not embraced and held dogmatically.

Those that insist Daniel 8 and the little horn is meaning A4E then need to convincingly show how and by whom Daniel's shut up words were opened during or prior to the days involving A4E.

Daniel 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.


Did not the angel say shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days? So, who opened the vision during to or prior to the days of A4E? Does not Daniel 12 clearly tell us when a shut up vision is no longer shut up?

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Obviously, the time of the end meant here is the same time of the end meant in Daniel 8. It is preposterous that Daniel 12:4 is meaning prior to or during the days of A4E, being when the book is no longer sealed.

 

[Jamdoc]

That is an excellent argument by comparing that to what is recorded in Daniel 11:36-37. Anyone without a doctrinal bias can easily see that if A4E worshiped the same Greek gods his fathers did, that does not remotely equal--Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor regard any god, thus it causes a contradiction with the text if A4E is the one meant.

Clearly, the king meant in verse 36, this is the same vile person meant in verse 21. And that the vile person in verse 21 is the same little horn meant in Daniel 8. And that Daniel 11:37 alone adequetely proves that A4E can't be meant, for the reasons you brought up.

In daniel 11:36 indignation is obviously a keyword, as you yourself pointed out. It is the Hebrew word za`am and is only found in 2 verses in the book of Daniel.

Daniel 8:19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation(za`am) : for at the time appointed the end shall be.

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(za`am) be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

Shall prosper till what indignation be accomplished? How about the one recorded in Daniel 8:19? Why not, assuming anyone disagrees? And since Daniel 8:19 is obviously connected with Daniel 11:36, the little horn in Daniel 8 can't be A4E because the king meant in Daniel 11:36 can't be A4E and that they are one and the same, meaning the little horn in Daniel 8 and the king in Daniel 11:36. Unless one wants to argue something preposterous, though A4E apparently worshiped Greek gods as did his fathers, this still equals--Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor regard any god--rather than contradicts that.

I think both are prophecies regarding Antichrist. A4E may have been a foreshadow, but because of discrepancies I do not believe he is the fulfillment.

I simply refuse to handwave away the discrepancies and say "good enough" which is what is required to view these things as historical.

 

[Jamdoc]

Those that insist Daniel 8 and the little horn is meaning A4E then need to convincingly show how and by whom Daniel's shut up words were opened during or prior to the days involving A4E.

Daniel 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.


Did not the angel say shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days? So, who opened the vision during to or prior to the days of A4E? Does not Daniel 12 clearly tell us when a shut up vision is no longer shut up?

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Obviously, the time of the end meant here is the same time of the end meant in Daniel 8. It is preposterous that Daniel 12:4 is meaning prior to or during the days of A4E, being when the book is no longer sealed.

Daniel is the one book of the bible you cannot use "the early church fathers thought.." or "(x), a great theologian from the middle ages/enlightenment period. thought..." because it's explicitly sealed, great they had meditations on a sealed book, sure we'll read it but we won't accept their views dogmatically because it's sealed so the meanings they got are going to be inevitably flawed.
all our interpretations now are likely also flawed. We should be reading and rereading Daniel because who knows when it gets unsealed and we finally "get" it the way God intends it.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Here's the point. The term is translated "Greece" because people thought it was "obvious" that it meant the historical Persian Empire and the Empire that followed it was Greece historically, so they translated the term that was used for Javan in Genesis and Chronicles and Ezekiel as Greece, because it fit the history.
It's a little like how some people now see "Rosh" in Ezekiel 38 as being "Russia" because it fits their view of who Gog is, even though rosh is a hebrew term that means "head" "chief" or "root" it means the primary in importance of a set. It is the "Chief Prince" of Meshech and Tubal, but since the 20th century had people interpret the then Godless communist Soviet Union as Magog... they take that term rosh, used 598 times in the bible as "head" "chief" or "root" ... and say "ah, this one time it means Russia"
If the term was always translated Greece, then sure, that'd be the correct term.
But because over half of the uses of the term are translated Javan, it is inconsistent and influenced by a historicist interpretation.

as for Daniel 8:20, it is the Persians, the problem is there has been multiple Persian Empires, including ones that existed after the Alexandrian Empire collapsed, the Parthians and the Sasanians, and Persia is now known as Iran today.
It's the assumption that the text is referring to the same Empire referred to in Nebuchadnezzar's dream.
THAT dream pertained to Nebuchadnezzar, it was shown to him because this was stuff that directly concerned Nebuchadnezzar, THIS vision, and Daniel 7 while we're at it, were NOT pertaining to Nebuchadnezzar specifically, they are pertaining to the end of the age.

But it's powered by assumption. "It's obvious" so they translate Javan as Greece, because "it's obvious it's about the historical empires", and then handwave discrepancies such as Gabriel saying the vision would take place at the time of the end, and that it would be the first king of Javan, and Alexander was not the first king but the 23rd. They also ignore that the little horn in Daniel 8 would stand up against the prince of princes (Jesus the Messiah). Jesus wasn't known, the Messiah had not come yet, during Antiochus' reign.

It is Antichrist who is the little horn that will stand up against the Prince of princes.

Sorry, but I'm not finding your arguments to be convincing at all. It's so obviously referring to the Medo Persian and Greek empires that it's not worth any more of my time discussing it. No need to spend a lot of time discussing things like this that are spelled out for us in scripture like we see in Daniel 8:20-21. It's a great example of how God knows the future in great detail.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Daniel is the one book of the bible you cannot use "the early church fathers thought.." or "(x), a great theologian from the middle ages/enlightenment period. thought..." because it's explicitly sealed, great they had meditations on a sealed book, sure we'll read it but we won't accept their views dogmatically because it's sealed so the meanings they got are going to be inevitably flawed.
all our interpretations now are likely also flawed. We should be reading and rereading Daniel because who knows when it gets unsealed and we finally "get" it the way God intends it.

It was to be sealed until "the time of the end" which I take to refer to the same time period as "the last days" which scripture indicates began long ago already (see Acts 2:16-21) and lasts up until the future second coming of Christ (2 Peter 3:3-4). How can we not think that the Old Testament prophecies from Daniel were not unsealed in the New Testament? Does the New Testament not shine light on the Old Testament prophecies and unseal them for us? Of course it does!

 

[Jamdoc]

Sorry, but I'm not finding your arguments to be convincing at all. It's so obviously referring to the Medo Persian and Greek empires that it's not worth any more of my time discussing it. No need to spend a lot of time discussing things like this that are spelled out for us in scripture like we see in Daniel 8:20-21. It's a great example of how God knows the future in great detail.

Where did Antiochus stand up against Jesus?
Why didn't Antiochus die in Jerusalem like Daniel 11 says he would if you interpret Daniel 11 to be about Antiochus?
Why didn't he come from a campaign in the South like Daniel 11 says he would if you interpret Daniel 11 to be about Antiochus? Antiochus died of a disease returning from fighting the Parthian empire in the east, he died somewhere in modern day Iran.

Handwave these away, please.

 

[David Kent]

Where did Antiochus stand up against Jesus?

Why didn't Antiochus die in Jerusalem like Daniel 11 says he would if you interpret Daniel 11 to be about Antiochus?

Why didn't he come from a campaign in the South like Daniel 11 says he would if you interpret Daniel 11 to be about Antiochus? Antiochus died of a disease returning from fighting the Parthian empire in the east, he died somewhere in modern day Iran.

Handwave these away, please

Daniel 11 is not all about Antiochus. There are multiple kings involved.

Antiochus did return from a campaign in the South when he went to attack Egypt and the Roman ambassador confronted him and drew a line around him in the sand and said if he crossed that line without confirming he would not attack Egypt, he would be at war with Rome.

Daniel11:30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

The ships of Chittim were the Romans. Egypt was a Roman protectorate.

The king in verse 36 is not Antiochus, but a later king.

If you refer to history you need to check that you know the history.

 

[Jamdoc]

Daniel 11 is not all about Antiochus. There are multiple kings involved.

Antiochus did return from a campaign in the South when he went to attack Egypt and the Roman ambassador confronted him and drew a line around him in the sand and said if he crossed that line without confirming he would not attack Egypt, he would be at war with Rome.

Daniel11:30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

The ships of Chittim were the Romans. Egypt was a Roman protectorate.

The king in verse 36 is not Antiochus, but a later king.

If you refer to history you need to check that you know the history.

there's literally no indication that it's a different person than the vile man.
that is square peg in round hole tactics. just dicing up scripture as you see fit.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Where did Antiochus stand up against Jesus?

I don't recall saying that he did, so why ask me a question like this? Why don't you ask me questions in response to things I actually say instead? It's clear to me what Daniel 8:20-21 are referring to, but not necessarily some of the rest of it. But, should the foundation of one's doctrine be formed from such difficult and debatable passages? Definitely not. And, yet, your doctrine seemingly hinges only on highly debatable scripture rather than on other more straightforward scripture. I don't get that.

Why didn't Antiochus die in Jerusalem like Daniel 11 says he would if you interpret Daniel 11 to be about Antiochus?
Why didn't he come from a campaign in the South like Daniel 11 says he would if you interpret Daniel 11 to be about Antiochus? Antiochus died of a disease returning from fighting the Parthian empire in the east, he died somewhere in modern day Iran.

Handwave these away, please.

Did I even mention Daniel 11 in my post? No. I referenced Daniel 8:20-21 as being obviously about the ancient Medo-Persian and Greek empires and that's it.

 

[Jamdoc]

I don't recall saying that he did, so why ask me a question like this? Why don't you ask me questions in response to things I actually say instead? It's clear to me what Daniel 8:20-21 are referring to, but not necessarily some of the rest of it. But, should the foundation of one's doctrine be formed from such difficult and debatable passages? Definitely not. And, yet, your doctrine seemingly hinges only on highly debatable scripture rather than on other more straightforward scripture. I don't get that.

Daniel 8

21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.
22 Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in his power.

Establishing context for the next verse for who is referred to by "their kingdom"

23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

Establishing who is being talked about from this point on, the king of fierce countenance that rises out of the Javan/Greek empire after it is split up.

24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

The King of fierce countenance that came out of the splintered kingdoms out of the kingdom in verse 21. That is who stands up against Jesus.

If you are telling me that this is Antiochus Epiphanes. Then you must show how Antiochus Epiphanes stood against Jesus hundreds of years before Jesus was incarnated.

Did I even mention Daniel 11 in my post? No. I referenced Daniel 8:20-21 as being obviously about the ancient Medo-Persian and Greek empires and that's it.

Daniel 11 is intimately connected with Daniel 8

Daniel 11:

1 Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.
2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.
3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will.
4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.

Most people see Daniel 8, and Daniel 11 being about Alexander the Great, and Antiochus Epiphanes.
I however find too many holes in those scenarios that do not add up.

 

[David Kent]

Daniel 8

Establishing context for the next verse for who is referred to by "their kingdom"


Establishing who is being talked about from this point on, the king of fierce countenance that rises out of the Javan/Greek empire after it is split up.


The King of fierce countenance that came out of the splintered kingdoms out of the kingdom in verse 21. That is who stands up against Jesus.

If you are telling me that this is Antiochus Epiphanes. Then you must show how Antiochus Epiphanes stood against Jesus hundreds of years before Jesus was incarnated.



Daniel 11 is intimately connected with Daniel 8

Daniel 11:

Most people see Daniel 8, and Daniel 11 being about Alexander the Great, and Antiochus Epiphanes.
I however find too many holes in those scenarios that do not add up.

Actually most people historically believed that it was a history of the various kings of the seleucid kindom and the Ptolmys .

Why don't you start a thread giving your understanding of Daniel 11? This is one part of Daniel that opponents of the scripture used as teaching that it is so accurate that it must have been written afterwards.

 

[Zao is life]

The King of fierce countenance that came out of the splintered kingdoms out of the kingdom in verse 21. That is who stands up against Jesus. If you are telling me that this is Antiochus Epiphanes. Then you must show how Antiochus Epiphanes stood against Jesus hundreds of years before Jesus was incarnated.

Standing up against God is standing up against Jesus. Antiochus IV stood up against God.​

Daniel 11 is intimately connected with Daniel 8. Most people see Daniel 8, and Daniel 11 being about Alexander the Great, and Antiochus Epiphanes.

I however find too many holes in those scenarios that do not add up.

Of course it does not ALL add up. Much of what is written in Daniel 8 & 11 is referring to Daniel's 4th beast.

What you're failing to understand is this: (See how point #2 below contradicts point #1):

1. In Daniel, Antiochus IV Epiphanes fulfilled what was prophesied about the 4th beast and the little horn.

2. In Daniel, Antiochus IV did not fulfill ALL that was prophesied regarding the 4th beast and the little horn.​

3. In the Old Testament temple, the Abomination of Desolation in the holy place was an idol in the holy place of the Old Testament temple, which Antiochus IV Epiphanes identified with himself.

4. In the New Testament Temple, the Abomination of Desolation in the holy place is the man of sin making himself the head of the church and claiming not only to be God, but to be higher than God Himself. He is the idol in the Temple.

The following parts of Daniel's prophecy were fulfilled in the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, BUT were not completely fulfilled:

Daniel 7:26-27
"But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his rulership (done by the Maccabees), to cut off and to destroy until the end. And the kingdom and rulership, and the greatness of the kingdom under all the heavens, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom." (The kingdom of God in Judea was given to the saints of the Most High after Antiochus IV was ousted)

"And all kingdoms shall serve and obey Him." - still not fulfilled in the way described.

The scattering of the power of the holy people and only the wise understanding applied just as much to the faithful Jewish remnant during the days of Antiochus IV (the type) as it will (still future tense) to the faithful remnant in Christ (the antitype).

Daniel 12
"And at that time Michael shall stand up, the great ruler who stands for the sons of your people" (God helping the Maccabees, and God helping the saints when Christ returns in judgment of the beast).

"And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation; until that time" (indeed the time of Antiochus IV was such a time, and the end of the Age before the return of Christ will be such a time - Matthew 24:21).

"And at that time your people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book" (the faithful Jewish remnant were delivered from the hand of Antiochus IV, and the faithful saints will be delivered when Jesus returns). Also the saints at the end of this Age.

The verse below is also true of the time of Antiochus IV, and will be true at the end of the Age before the return of Jesus:

"And those who are wise shall shine as the brightness of the sky; and those who turn many to righteousness shall shine as the stars forever and ever."

8 And I heard, but I did not understand. Then I said, O my lord, what shall be the end of these things?
9 And He said, Go, Daniel! For the words are closed up and sealed until the end-time.

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried. But the wicked shall do wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand. (happened during the time of Antiochus IV also).

- but the verse below was not fulfilled:

2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Daniel's 4th beast is projecting forward in time to the final kingdom, and vice-versa.

Notice that this also identifies the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2 with the beast of Revelation 13:1-10, and suggests that the miracles and lying wonders mentioned as accompanying the revealing of the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians Chapter 2 are not performed by the man of sin himself, but by the false prophet (the "beast from the earth", Revelation Chapter 13). Which implies that the man of sin is the same as the beast of Revelation 13:1-10.

Indeed it does not ALL add up to Antiochus IV Epiphanes - but that's because what was not fulfilled then is still to be fulfilled.​

 

[Jamdoc]

sure, Antiochus can be a type or foreshadow, I never disputed that, but I am saying that everything in Daniel 8 and 11 will be more perfectly fulfilled by Antichrist, where Antiochus imperfectly fulfilled parts.

 

[Jamdoc]

Actually most people historically believed that it was a history of the various kings of the seleucid kindom and the Ptolmys .

Why don't you start a thread giving your understanding of Daniel 11? This is one part of Daniel that opponents of the scripture used as teaching that it is so accurate that it must have been written afterwards.

I understand this, but there are also discrepancies to where people will claim that up to verse 35 is antiochus but from verse 36 on is about the future Antichrist with no discernable transition to explain the thousands of years gap and change to a different person.

what I am saying is that Antichrist will fulfill the entire thing start to finish perfectly. Antiochus was a type, but Antichrist is the perfect fulfillment.
When Jesus referred to Daniel in Matthew 24, He referred to the AoD as a yet future event. People point at AE4 as having set up the AoD, but that was hundreds of years before Jesus talked about it happening in the future.

Therefore while AE4 is a type, the real fulfillment is future.

 

[David Kent]

I understand this, but there are also discrepancies to where people will claim that up to verse 35 is antiochus but from verse 36 on is about the future Antichrist with no discernable transition to explain the thousands of years gap and change to a different person.

what I am saying is that Antichrist will fulfill the entire thing start to finish perfectly. Antiochus was a type, but Antichrist is the perfect fulfillment.
When Jesus referred to Daniel in Matthew 24, He referred to the AoD as a yet future event. People point at AE4 as having set up the AoD, but that was hundreds of years before Jesus talked about it happening in the future.

Therefore while AE4 is a type, the real fulfillment is future.

Verse 36 seems to apply to the entry of the Romans at the end of the Greek kingdoms.
Although I have two commentaries one applies ii to the papal Antichrist, the other to the Turkish Muslims in Jerusalem who he considers to be Antichrist.

 

[Jamdoc]

Verse 36 seems to apply to the entry of the Romans at the end of the Greek kingdoms.
Although I have two commentaries one applies ii to the papal Antichrist, the other to the Turkish Muslims in Jerusalem who he considers to be Antichrist.

what I'm saying is that the future final Antichrist will fulfill all of Daniel 7, 8, 9 and 11 all as one person, rather than seeing history play out and saying "this fits here" and "this fits there" when the final antichrist comes, the perfect fulfillment, it will just be "this fits"
the bible does not shy away from history repeating itself, in fact biblically there are many "types" of Antichrist beginning with Nimrod, if not all the way back to Cain.
But there is a specific one being referred to repeatedly in scripture who all types (including future types that would come after the bible was completed) are predecessors to, including AE4, including Caesar, including Mohammad. including Hitler.
the final antichrist will be like Nimrod, like Pharaoh, like Antiochus, like Mohammad, and like Hitler.

like, yes, there was a Greek empire that took over the Persian empire, I agree with that, what I'm saying is there will be another one. an empire from that region of Western Turkey/Greece from the area that biblically the Javanites were, will attack Iran, then be split up, and a little horn will come from the Northern state of the 4 splintered states.

Logically speaking, there's rationale to it even in modern times. Erdogan wants to reestablish the Ottoman Empire, they're Sunni, Iran is Shia.
Hypothetical scenario, Iran declares they have the 12th Imam, and begins to make campaigns in Afghanistan, and Iraq and other neighboring countries, conquering under the black flag of Khorasan (an Islamic prophecy about the Mahdi, the reason why ISIS used the black flag). Erdogan declares the revival of the Ottoman Empire, and himself as the Caliph. You now have a Shi'a, and Sunni leaders declaring themselves Caliphs, one they proclaim to be the Mahdi. Do you think the Sunni Erdogan, is going to accept a Shi'a Mahdi? No he'd likely attack Iran, and Turkey is much stronger than Iran militarily.
In this scenario, Erdogan is the first king of a newly declared Empire.
He would then be killed, as the rest of the world won't just allow the Ottoman Empire coming back.. and divide it up. It can go on from there.
Obviously that's a hypothetical, not saying it will happen, but something like it could happen, and something like it will happen, not necessarily with those players but those regions of the world.