Life After People

Major, we are waiting for you to show how the Masculine pronoun "THEM" can refer to the Feminine noun.

To tell you the truth Phoneman.....I do not believe that we can show you anything at all.

You are so bound up and integrated by the SDA dogma that you obviously can not see the trees for the forest.
 
Thanks, Roads. Keep in mind that the majority of scholars are Futurists which is a major determining factor in what they assume is reliable and not. If we lay aside assumptions and just read the text as it is, instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round, then a different picture emerges.

The majority of scholars also assume to the point of embarrassment that Epimanes the Chump who never even expanded his own borders was "exceeding great" beyond the "very great" Alexander the Great, although Alexander the Great sat down at the age of only 32 and wept because he had run out of world to conquer. It was Alexander the Great, not Epimanes the Chump, who awoke from his sleep only to see that the peculiar dressed men of whom he'd just dreamed were approaching from the walls of Jerusalem with scrolls from the book of Daniel to tell him of his greatness, which pleased him so that he turned aside from his intentions to flatten city.

You are a complicated man my friend.

You just said..........
"If we lay aside assumptions and just read the text as it is, instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round, then a different picture emerges".

BUT in comment #7 YOU changed the word DAYS INTO YEARS...........

"Unto 2300 days then shall the SANCTUARY be cleansed" is what Daniel said in chapter 8 but ......
YOU inserted YEARS where the Scriptures clearly say DAYS. Coincidently that matches the SDA teaching.
 
Thanks, Roads. Keep in mind that the majority of scholars are Futurists which is a major determining factor in what they assume is reliable and not. If we lay aside assumptions and just read the text as it is, instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round, then a different picture emerges.

Whenever I read people's interpretations of scripture, my default assumption is that they are trying (consciously or otherwise) to justify their preconceptions.

That being said, where there is a passage like this one that features unconventional usage, making translation unusually difficult, I probably tend to gravitate toward scholarly writing that discusses the complexity and problems in translation, more than toward writing that insists on one particular reading. The questions being asked about the inconsistency of gender agreement throughout this passage seem, to me, to be of the former persuasion, and occur to me, in my own limited understanding, as legitimate questions that are difficult to answer with absolute certainty. So while I do genuinely appreciate your skepticism of the motivations of the people you refer to as "Futurists," I must also remain satisfied to retain a skepticism of the reading you've presented here, for the same legitimate reasons.
 
I'm leaving videos because it is clear to me that you reject anything posted. This study of Daniel (chapts 7&8) covers in context scripture, with history, and patiently explains with scripture throughout the bible, the various arguments - including the SDA point of view - and shows clearly how and why those are unacceptable and don't concur with what is written in scripture. I posted another video on another thread (mistakenly-I'd only watched 1/2) where an ex-catholic uses some of the same sources you cite and altho he agrees with you that Catholics are the "falling away" - only he thinks "Futurist" (your term as if it is a dirty word) and that the Catholic church will lead with the antichrist into the second coming. The video I posted here shows how this is wrong scripturally. Plus it saves me a lot of typing that you seem to be blind to anyway. Try it- maybe you will find something to bolster your own arguments. Or maybe you could learn something. I follow logic and common sense and scripture. I don't follow your use of either history or scripture.
 
Whenever I read people's interpretations of scripture, my default assumption is that they are trying (consciously or otherwise) to justify their preconceptions.

That being said, where there is a passage like this one that features unconventional usage, making translation unusually difficult, I probably tend to gravitate toward scholarly writing that discusses the complexity and problems in translation, more than toward writing that insists on one particular reading. The questions being asked about the inconsistency of gender agreement throughout this passage seem, to me, to be of the former persuasion, and occur to me, in my own limited understanding, as legitimate questions that are difficult to answer with absolute certainty. So while I do genuinely appreciate your skepticism of the motivations of the people you refer to as "Futurists," I must also remain satisfied to retain a skepticism of the reading you've presented here, for the same legitimate reasons.

Now that is an excellent why to answer ! I also agree with you as it is my perception as well.
 
You are a complicated man my friend.

You just said..........
"If we lay aside assumptions and just read the text as it is, instead of trying to fit a square peg into a round, then a different picture emerges".

BUT in comment #7 YOU changed the word DAYS INTO YEARS...........

"Unto 2300 days then shall the SANCTUARY be cleansed" is what Daniel said in chapter 8 but ......
YOU inserted YEARS where the Scriptures clearly say DAYS. Coincidently that matches the SDA teaching.
The 70 weeks, which everyone agrees uses the "day for a year" principle, is "determined" or "cut off" from something. What? The 2,300 days (Daniel 8 = "make this man to understand the vision"/ Daniel 9 = "therefore understand the matter and consider the vision"). Chapter 9 is given to clear up Daniel's confusion of the "vision" (Hebrew Chazon) with the 70 Weeks being "cut off" from the 2,300. This was the interpretation of thousands of people during the Great Religious Awakening and led to the discovery that Jesus is coming soon, when the popular consensus taught that He wasn't coming for a thousand years. The crowd, just like in Noah's day, in Jesus' day, and during the Dark Ages of Papal rule, has ALWAYS been wrong.
 
Last edited:
I'm leaving videos because it is clear to me that you reject anything posted. This study of Daniel (chapts 7&8) covers in context scripture, with history, and patiently explains with scripture throughout the bible, the various arguments - including the SDA point of view - and shows clearly how and why those are unacceptable and don't concur with what is written in scripture. I posted another video on another thread (mistakenly-I'd only watched 1/2) where an ex-catholic uses some of the same sources you cite and altho he agrees with you that Catholics are the "falling away" - only he thinks "Futurist" (your term as if it is a dirty word) and that the Catholic church will lead with the antichrist into the second coming. The video I posted here shows how this is wrong scripturally. Plus it saves me a lot of typing that you seem to be blind to anyway. Try it- maybe you will find something to bolster your own arguments. Or maybe you could learn something. I follow logic and common sense and scripture. I don't follow your use of either history or scripture.
Thanks, Silk.
 
Whenever I read people's interpretations of scripture, my default assumption is that they are trying (consciously or otherwise) to justify their preconceptions.

That being said, where there is a passage like this one that features unconventional usage, making translation unusually difficult, I probably tend to gravitate toward scholarly writing that discusses the complexity and problems in translation, more than toward writing that insists on one particular reading. The questions being asked about the inconsistency of gender agreement throughout this passage seem, to me, to be of the former persuasion, and occur to me, in my own limited understanding, as legitimate questions that are difficult to answer with absolute certainty. So while I do genuinely appreciate your skepticism of the motivations of the people you refer to as "Futurists," I must also remain satisfied to retain a skepticism of the reading you've presented here, for the same legitimate reasons.
Fair enough, though I'm convinced that skepticism as to whether gender agreement should be relied upon is rooted in a desired conclusion more so than anything else.
 
Reasons to Accept/Reject Antiochus as the "Little Horn" of Daniel 8


1) Antiochus was a Seleucid king.

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 mākôn 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.


While a healthy skepticism is indeed beneficial, Hosea 4:6 warns us of the perils of willful ignorance. :)
 
While a healthy skepticism is indeed beneficial, Hosea 4:6 warns us of the perils of willful ignorance. :)

I doubt a single person here would disagree with that point. But I want to avoid playing a game of rhetoric that implies rightness or wrongness.

Ultimately, the degree to which I care about a person's interpretation of scripture (especially prophecy) is directly related to the degree to which that position reflects or deviates from the example and teaching of Christ.

So let's get right down to it: what's the practical implication of what you're saying? How does your interpretation of this passage effect your perception of how you are to live your life as a disciple of Christ?
 
The 70 weeks, which everyone agrees uses the "day for a year" principle, is "determined" or "cut off" from something. What? The 2,300 days (Daniel 8 = "make this man to understand the vision"/ Daniel 9 = "therefore understand the matter and consider the vision"). Chapter 9 is given to clear up Daniel's confusion of the "vision" (Hebrew Chazon) with the 70 Weeks being "cut off" from the 2,300. This was the interpretation of thousands of people during the Great Religious Awakening and led to the discovery that Jesus is coming soon, when the popular consensus taught that He wasn't coming for a thousand years. The crowd, just like in Noah's day, in Jesus' day, and during the Dark Ages of Papal rule, has ALWAYS been wrong.

Not so again. There is no principle involved. What is the context is the exact words of Danieal himself.

Read Daniel 9:2 again my friend........
"In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem".

Then Daniel 9:24...........
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."

The word WEEKS in Hebrew is "SHALEM" and can mean or refer to any period of SEVEN. Therefore, since 9:2 has the focus of YERS as its context the same applies to verse 24. There is no principle involved but simple the language which was spoken and understood.
 
I doubt a single person here would disagree with that point. But I want to avoid playing a game of rhetoric that implies rightness or wrongness.

Ultimately, the degree to which I care about a person's interpretation of scripture (especially prophecy) is directly related to the degree to which that position reflects or deviates from the example and teaching of Christ.

So let's get right down to it: what's the practical implication of what you're saying? How does your interpretation of this passage effect your perception of how you are to live your life as a disciple of Christ?

My interpretation of the passage affects me in this way: It leads me to an understanding of the true identity of Antichrist and its satanic lies which have corrupted truth as it is in Jesus, and is preparing the entire world for the coming of the the false Christ (Satan). Since only total surrender to Jesus and His commandments will keep my family and I safe from these events to come, as well as the many current false ideas that promote extra-Biblical Christs today which claim to save souls while they are yet in deliberate rebellion to God's law, then daily supplication for God to impart His love into my life so that I may impart it to others is paramount and the only means by which such surrender is obtained.

Having said that:
  • Antiochus arose during the first half of the Seleucid kingdom, not during its "latter time" when the "little horn" is said to have risen.
  • Antiochus did not even come close to the greatness of the "very great" Alexander the Great while the "little horn" is said to be "exceeding great".
  • Antiochus did not "cast the sanctuary to the ground". Men who long after his death accomplished this.
  • The "little horn" was to "take away the daily (Hebrew "Tamid"), which means "continual" and applies to the entire sanctuary service. It is not limited to just the "sacrifice", the word being absent in the original but was added by the translators in this verse. Antiochus may have sacrificed a pig, but he did NOT "take away the daily" and cannot be the "little horn". Besides, was this a greater abomination than that of Belshazzer, whose just prior to his death, was met with immediate manifestations of divine power and judgement for desecrating the consecrated temple vessels with putrefied, alcoholic wine and the slime of his idolatrous throat?
  • The grammatical, syntactical, and contextual evidence points to the origin of the "little horn" as coming out of the "winds", NOT "horns".

Roads, if the above points are invalid, I'd like to hear why. Thanks.
 
Not so again. There is no principle involved. What is the context is the exact words of Danieal himself.

Read Daniel 9:2 again my friend........
"In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem".

Then Daniel 9:24...........
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy."

The word WEEKS in Hebrew is "SHALEM" and can mean or refer to any period of SEVEN. Therefore, since 9:2 has the focus of YERS as its context the same applies to verse 24. There is no principle involved but simple the language which was spoken and understood.
The 70 weeks are "cut off" from the larger prophecy. Why should the one be literal weeks and the other not?
 
Reasons to Accept/Reject Antiochus as the "Little Horn" of Daniel 8


1) Antiochus was a Seleucid king.

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 mākôn 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.


While a healthy skepticism is indeed beneficial, Hosea 4:6 warns us of the perils of willful ignorance. :)

That is a lot of copy and pasting my brother. Have you ever considered using your own words and learning instead of others. You know, anyone can produce anything that want to on the internet and not have one little bit of responsibility to whether it is true or false.

As your post states and I agree with this person,...........
"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".

Daniel 8:8 is the place where this is found.........
"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."

History proves that the FOUR generals of Alexander the Great was......
1. Ptolemy. He took control of Egypt, Palestine and Arabia.
2. Cassander. He took control of Macedonia and Greece.
3. Lysimachus. He took control of Trace and Bithynia.
4. Selecusus 1. He took control of Turkey and Syria.

Daniel 8:9........
"And out of one of THEM came forth a little horn........"

Again, real proven world history says that a man named ANTIOCHUS EPHIPHANES was the 8th in a long line of Seleucids who ruled Syria from 175 to 163 BC.

If you choose to reject the historical accounts which prove Daniel to be 100% correct, and follow instead the mussing of the internet......fine with me.
 
I'm confused - who said Antiochus was the little horn? He is a typical (for scripture) foreshadow of things to come. Actual understanding of what Daniel's 4 visions in Chapters 7-12 are further definitions off what Neb dreamed in Chapter 2. Neb's dream is from man's point of view. Daniel's visions are from God's POV. The 4 metals of the statue match the 4 beasts - the 5th stage is the toes with clay and iron trying to mix. The 4 winds are depicted elsewhere in scripture as God's sovereign power striving with men (Psalms 35:5, Psalms 48:7, Psalms 107:25, Isaiah 27:8, & Isaiah 41:16)
 
The 70 weeks are "cut off" from the larger prophecy. Why should the one be literal weeks and the other not?

They are both literal!!

What was "CUT OFF" was the Messiah.

Daniel 9:26
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

The 69th week ended just prior to His crucifixion, IMO at the Triumphal entry to Jerusalem. That again is HISTORICAL FACT.
From the giving of the order to rebuild Jerusalem from Artaxeres to the event of His entering the city was 173,880 days or 483 years exactly as Daniel said to the very day!!!!!!! (prophetical year is 360 days x 483 years = 173,880 days).

That mean that there are 7 LITERAL YEARS yet to be live which is exactly the number of Years Jeremiah said who be the judgment of God.
 
I'm confused - who said Antiochus was the little horn? He is a typical (for scripture) foreshadow of things to come. Actual understanding of what Daniel's 4 visions in Chapters 7-12 are further definitions off what Neb dreamed in Chapter 2. Neb's dream is from man's point of view. Daniel's visions are from God's POV. The 4 metals of the statue match the 4 beasts - the 5th stage is the toes with clay and iron trying to mix. The 4 winds are depicted elsewhere in scripture as God's sovereign power striving with men (Psalms 35:5, Psalms 48:7, Psalms 107:25, Isaiah 27:8, & Isaiah 41:16)

Antiochus was the "little horn" of chapter 8:8-14.

He came up out of the FOUR generals that ruled Alexander's army and took control after he died. (Chapter 8:8-9.)

THE coming antichrist of the last day in which we live now is the "Little Horn" of Daniel 7:24.

Daniel 7:23-24
"Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.
24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings."

Antiochus came out of the four Greek rulers and the Antichrist shall come up out of the 10 nation revived Roman Empire of the last days.

TWO different "Little Horns" separated by about 2500 years or so.
 
OK - rofl oops. I kept seeing little horn and automatically translated to antichrist. Antiochus IS the horn of chapter 8. and a foreshadow of antichrist.
 
Just to clarify - @Phoneman777 posted in Chapter 8 at the top of his post and I missed it but he goes on to prove that Antiochus IS NOT the horn of Chapter 7. Which I agree with. Apparently, he is trying to prove Antiochus is not the horn of Chapter 7 and I agree, he is not. He matches exactly the horn of Chapt 8. TWO distinct horns.
 
My interpretation of the passage affects me in this way: It leads me to an understanding of the true identity of Antichrist and its satanic lies which have corrupted truth as it is in Jesus...

We can recognize a claim as a truth or fallacy, avoiding being deceived, simply by comparing that claim with the teachings and example of Christ. The scriptures teach us to recognize an antichrist by the message they teach: namely, if they deny that Christ is the Messiah of prophecy (1 John 2:20-22). If it is necessary for us to discern the precise identity of the antichrist (as opposed to an antichrist) by some other means, the scriptures do not discuss it.

I expect you mean well, in that you don't want to see believers deceived. Neither do I.

Allow me to simply observe, though, that the gospel of Christ is easy to recognize, and something upon which disciples of Christ by definition universally agree. Interpreting prophecy, however, is vastly more complex. People who have dedicated their entire lives to the study of history and translation passionately disagree on various points. I will then simply offer this: to be able to recognize the gospel of Christ being spoken requires only that one have experienced salvation through it. But to analyze a scholarly argument about a prophecy involving issues in history and translation requires that one actually be an expert in those fields. Surely, then, to avoid being deceived, it is enough for us to simply know the gospel, and recognize where Jesus is being denied as the Messiah in someone's claim.

Roads, if the above points are invalid, I'd like to hear why. Thanks.

The amount of effort it would require for me to be able to make an authoritative assessment about these points is staggering. It would take a near lifetime of study in history and translation, and even those who have done so themselves cannot agree.

In the study of history and translation, I am a simple neophyte. How important is it for me to study history and translation enough to be able to adequately assess the claims of seasoned scholars? I know the simple gospel demonstrated by Jesus. If a person denies that Jesus is the Messiah, that will be enough for me to recognize them in the way that 1 John 2 teaches. I know no better way to assess a claim. Will my confidence in the gospel of Christ somehow prepare me less to "keep my family and I safe from these events to come" than my own ability to assess academic positions in history and translation?

I have an amateur's interest in translation, which is what initially made me interested in this thread (it was the "checkmate" comment to Major), but quite frankly, I don't want to insist on something that is actually irrelevant. If we can agree that holding fast to the gospel of our salvation is enough for us to avoid deception (as is taught in 1 John 2), and that conforming to discipleship in Christ is more important than academic expertise, then I don't really care what you believe about the identity of each of the elements of this prophecy, but I do encourage you to stick with the simplicity of the gospel as your warning against false teaching, and that should be enough for anyone.
 
Back
Top