adamjedgar

If we just go back a little bit...i would like to dissect this quote from you: The little horn comes out of the 4th kingdom after the Stone strikes the feet of the image. After the Cross, pagan Rome would begin to deteriorate and weaken and the pagan side would be replaced by the papal side. This is when the 'little horn' will arise from and take power. 1. We have the 4th kingdom Rome from which the little horn arises 2. you state, this rise of the little horn happens after the stone strikes the feet In the context of the above 2 statements, you are claiming the stone striking the feet is, or begins with, the Incarnation of Jesus?

I would say that the Hittites ruled to the North. Anyway, now explain to me the timeline of exactly how this doctrine is supported from biblical texts (i would think you will need to do quite a bit of referencing from the book of Revelation in your answer here) here is a reference i have for describing and indeed identifying the little horn... "What power came out of Rome and continues its politico-religious influence for at least 1,260 years (see Dan. 7:25)? Only one power fits history and prophecy — the papacy. The papacy came into power among the ten barbarian tribes of Europe and uprooted three of them (Dan. 7:24). The papacy was “different from the previous ones” (Dan. 7:24, NASB) indicating its uniqueness compared to the other tribes. The papacy spoke “pompous words against the Most High” (Dan. 7:25, NKJV) and “exalted himself as high as the Prince of the host” (Dan. 8:11, NKJV) by usurping the role of Jesus and replacing it with the pope. The papacy fulfilled the prediction of persecuting “the saints of the Most High” (Dan. 7:25, NKJV) and casting down “some of the host” (Dan 8:10, NKJV) during the Counter-Reformation when Protestants were slaughtered. The papacy sought “to change times and law” (Dan. 7:25, NKJV) by removing the second commandment and changing the Sabbath to Sunday." https://ssnet.org/blog/tuesday-identifying-little-horn/

IM sorry but that is simply not something i can even comprehend. It simply does not fit with any model that i have studied. The attempt to claim Babylonian kings are kings of the north and then attribute lines in the sand to the antichrist...i honestly can not see how you could possibly come up with that view? The biblical texts that provide us with the characteristics of the antichrist are not represented by that view.

eh???what map is that? I do not recall England, France or areas of french and british control existing at the time of the writing of this prophecy. A big problem with your image is that if you posted a true image of the extent of the Assyrian kingdom, you will find it extends to the south and includes all of Egypt! Babylon, which is usually considered the capital of the Mesopotamian region is definately not north of the holy land. again, you are using a fundamentally flawed model for your doctrine. That means the doctrine is very clearly wrong and the wikipedia definition (as but one example of many) of the Assyrian kingdom clearly proves this fact.

I think you need to read the wikipedia article i quoted on this. It very clearly defines exactly where Assyria is. You cannot claim it was the king of the north based on the extension of the empire...if you do that i can claim it is the king of the south because it also included Egypt! Assyria had its origins in Mesopotamia...that is east. Yes it did encompass the north, but it also encompassed the south to Egypt as well.

no that is a complete misunderstanding of scripture. the Israelites were told that they had made the law a burden The essence of the law and the gospel has always been the following: 1. sin is transgression of the law. We are not saved by the law...we have never been saved by the law! Part of the reason for this is because we are sinful and irrespective of this, the law is not a mechanism for salvation. It is a standard by which we should live! 2. We are saved by faith in Jesus. He paid the price for ALL sin (transgression of God's ETERNAL law) according the biblical truth that "the wages of sin is death". Salvation was not a necessary process prior to the fall of man, Adam had not sinned when the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was shown to him. However, the consequences of any potential for sin were made very very clear to him! What some modern christians are attempting to claim is that once Jesus paid that price, sin is immediately gone! This is a false and a non biblical claim. The wages of sin has always been, and always will be, death! how do i find proof of this truth one might ask? the answer to this question is found before the fall of man in Genesis chapter 2 Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.” So here we have irrefutable proof that Gods law is eternally past...it existed before the fall of man in the garden of Eden and God made it very clear to Adam immediately after he was placed in the middle of the Garden, the wages of disobedience (transgression of the law...sin) was death!

I see an immediate problem here...Assyria is not north of the holy land...it is east. I dont think that fits the illustration given. My understanding is that Assyria has never had its home territory to the North even though it may have extended that far, it also extended south to Egypt. Am i wrong on this? Assyria (/əˈsɪriə/) (Akkadian: ??, Classical Syriac: ܐܬܘܪ‎ or ܐܫܘܪ), also at times called the Assyrian Empire, was a Mesopotamian kingdom and empire of the Ancient Near East that existed as a state from perhaps as early as the 25th century BC (in the form of the Assur city-state[4]) until its collapse between 612 BC and 605 BC, thereby spanning the periods of the Early to Middle Bronze Age through to the late Iron Age.

here is the timeline i read from Daniel's interpretation of the dream in chapter 2 1. vs 36-43 ...4 kingdoms (Babylon, Medo Persia, Greece, Rome, then divided kingdom of Rome thus essentially same kingdom) 2. vs 44 the second coming and destruction of sin ("It [the stone] will shatter all these kingdoms and bring them to an end") The reason why i read the timeline of verses 36-44 sequentially is because of the phrase found in verse 44 "It will shatter"...this is clearly referring to the end (it is the period from second coming until final judgement after millenium) I am not seeing how this can be his first coming exactly? I do kind of get what you are trying to suggest and Im thinking it could be on the money...i just need some more statements to clear the image of how this would work in my head!

can we just confirm...are you saying that you read from Daniel 2 that the stone striking the feet of potters clay and iron is after? my understanding is that, universally it is believed that the stone striking the feet of clay and iron is talking about 2 things: 1. the second coming of Jesus 2. the final consuming/cleansing of the world from all sin and the sinful earth by fire after the millenium where do you reference the stone striking the feet outside of the belief that this is the second coming? Because vs 44 of daniel 2 says... In the days of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will shatter all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, but will itself stand forever.

"The 'little horn' is not pagan Rome. The legs of iron are pagan Rome. The 'little horn' comes out of the beast after the 10 horns come out of the beast. " sorry i accidentally left out "Papal" in my statement. The 'beast' is a composite of all the kingdoms including pagan Rome, therefore, he does not come directly out of pagan Rome but the territory of the post Alexander territories. The ' little horn' is buried in the 4th kingdom and will not be revealed until the 4th kingdom has been struck by the Stone and has been 'divided". Out this 'little horned monster' arises. I think this is exactly where i am at currently. Here is why i think this is the case: Alexander the great was deified by a number of Roman rulers. Some went to his tomb, others tried to copy his styling and clothing, his military tactics became a standard, and Greek culture still has immense influence even today in so many areas of expertise. What i notice about two narratives for the little horn in the bible: 1. the daniel 8 little horn does not have eyes or a mouth 2. the Daniel 7 little horn has eyes and a mouth and blasphemes against the most high God Daniel7:8 I considered the horns, and behold, there came up among them another horn, a little one, before which three of the first horns were plucked up by the roots. And behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things. I think that it highly significant that we see the addition of eyes and a mouth to the little horn in Daniel 7 (referring to the empire of the period after Greece). To my way of thinking this supports your view that it is out of the territories of the post Alexander the Great rule from which the little horn arises. More than just territories or empires, i see that this is a kind of philosophical parallel between the two chapters and that is the significance here. I think that we must not get too focused on the Little Horn being an individual or an earthly empire...i think it is what it represents philosophically that is the ultimate focus (ie... that Satan is opposed to God) My wife just mentioned to me something i think may apply here...i havent had time to really think this through to word it better however in a nutshell...we know that AG of Greece recognised the importance of military and political strategy, the romans combined church and state thus giving voice to the church side of this coin... there is clearly a progression going on here. It (the little horn) moves from an idea in the Greek empire, to an active entity in the pagan and especially the papal roman empire! Strangely enough, i was reading only yesterday a paper on this that i found through google searching: its a research paper that focuses on bible prophecy "progression" the principles of which i think would be relevant to the little horn starting from the Greece and progressing through to Rome (gaining eyes and ears at this point) etc. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=jats

Such a great answer Charlie...I can see this is going to turn into a very wide ranging discussion, of course you are right Daniel is clearly a massively complex book that i think is intertwined into not only the immediate future of the captive Israelites, it meshes with the coming messiah and his gospel, and obviously the end of time thus a prequel to the book of Revelation. I am not sure exactly how to start in my thoughts on your comment above...its a great response. For example, i love this comment... "he kingdoms are not the story, the kings are not the story, the story is all about the Messiah and His Plan of Salvation for mankind." I would probably add that Daniel is aiming to set out of kind of timeline for the future fulfilment of the plan of salvation. I know this is going to diverge from your view a bit (i am sorry for that but i find it difficult to avoid) in that he [Daniel] is drawing a roadmap of the future given to him in vision by God. We know that roadmaps provide archeological and historical evidence and this will immediately taint your statement, thus my historicist view of this book...but I am not wanting to take anything away from your Gospel statement as that is really the essence of it i think. A second great statement you make that i agree with: God gave us the blue print - chapter 2. You have heard the phrase, 'If it happens in Vegas, it stays in Vegas'. Well, if it happened in chapter 2 it stays in the rest of Daniel This is think is the key that links all of the prophecies and timelines set out in the Book of Daniel. It is a real shame that scholars (such as Des Ford) missed that wonderful truth. I think if i understand our previous discussion on this on another thread, this is the area that you were interested in exploring in detail. This is the point where i currently diverge from my own church beliefs somewhat, as also i tend to take the historicist view but strangely enough, my view that it begins with the Seleucids brings me into conflict with the SDA historicist view of the very same Chapters 7&8 of Daniel (how weird is that?). This also seems to be the place where a lot of scholars argue that the little horn in Daniel 8 cannot be Rome. "The 4 kingdoms in chapter 2 are the same as in 7 and 8. Further, they determine the meaning of where the 'little horn' will come from (area / territory)" . yep thats the place. you have nailed it and i think this is also consistent with Charlies view that all of the chapters of Daniel are intimately linked so that would automatically sustain the view you above two verses are talking of the same entity.

And that is the new covenant...the writing of His laws in our minds and on our hearts. The law is very much in the second covenant. Btw, let's not forget the first mention of the new covenant was hundreds of years before the Messiah came.

I thought that rather than state my position, i would simply start with an abstract from a paper written by Ville Suutarinen where he makes the case that in Daniel 8 "it is more probable that the little horn comes from one of the four winds (the northern wind) than one of the four horns" (btw at present i do not personally hold this position) Ville Suutarinen Newbold College of Higher Education The Little Horn in Daniel 8: The defense of Historicism November 2018, August 2019 The identity of the little horn power in Daniel 8 (and 7) is largely determined by the method of interpretation of that chapter, the book of Daniel as a whole, apocalyptic prophecies, and the entire Bible. The Maccabean thesis, which is built on preteristic interpretation method, believes that the little horn corresponds for a Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who stood against the Jews in the second century BCE. There is also a view, that claims that the little horn in Daniel 7 is not the same little horn as in Daniel 8, as André Reis argues (André Reis, “A Response to Glifford Goldstein on the Little Horn on Daniel 8,” ResearchGate, April, 2018, accessed August 18, 2019, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324758761_A_RESPONSE_TO_CLIFFORD_GOLDSTEIN_ON_THE_LITTLE_HORN_OF_DANIEL_8.). However, this interpretation has many problems. For example, it breaks the unity and apocalyptic-universal and end-time characteristics of the book of Daniel. Historicism, on the other hand, stands on these characteristics. As a matter of fact, the principles of Protestant biblical hermeneutics point to the direction of historicism, as will be shown when textual, lexical, and theological areas are researched. The goal of this paper is to bring the following contributions: It establishes a chiastic structure for Daniel 7-12, which thematic peaks are Christ and the Day of Atonement. It offers answers for André Reis' grammatical, lexical, textual, and theological arguments for Antiochus Epiphanes being the little horn in Daniel 8. It shows that when the little horn continues the philosophical and spiritual legacy or continuum of the king of the north, it establishes the little horn's coming from the cardinal point of north, without the little horn needing to come from one of the four horns of the goat. The thesis statement: This research argues that Antiochus IV Epiphanes cannot be the little horn of Daniel 7 and/or 8 because: (1) The historicist view for the origin of the little horn is the most probable; (2) Epiphanes was not great enough and the preeminent in the land for the proportions of the little horn, but Rome was preeminent in its imperial stage, and was and is preeminent in its papal stage; (3) the time prophecies of Daniel do not fit into the reign of this Seleucid king; (4) Epiphanes did not rise at the latter period of the Seleucid kingdom; (5) the book of Daniel is mainly a universal book, and Christocentric interpretation model leads to that conclusion; (6) because the book is universal in scope, the little horn grants universal proportions, which are also seen in history; (7) it is more probable that the little horn comes from one of the four winds (the northern wind) than one of the four horns, because the little horn continues the philosophical and spiritual legacy or continuum of the king of the north; and (8) the “abomination of desolation”, ultimately, has a spiritual and end-time meaning, which is fulfilled in history. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335229819_The_Little_Horn_in_Daniel_8_In_Defense_of_Historicism

so you do believe in dual prophecy...thats interesting as few do follow this kind of theology in the way SDA's do. I have always seen these two verses in Daniel 9 as referring to multiple periods in history past and future. Certainly there is a direct correlation with the Seleucid empire (we know Antiochus Epiphanes defiled/desecrated the temple by sacrificing pigs on the alter), but there is also clearly correlation with the coming messiah and his ministry in AD27-31 and to the stoning of Stephen in AD34, however it also represents the end of time just prior to the second coming. So with the above principles in mind, i do agree with you that this prophecy does have a distant future fulfilment too (where distant is relative to the time of Daniel)

The covenant has nothing to do with the failure of Gods law or its limitations! You start out by making an assumption that in the old testament Gods people were saved by keeping the law. This is categorically a false assumption...no one has ever been saved by the law. Paul clearly states this as fact in the first few chapters of the book of Romans. Again, the covenant God made started in Genesis Chapter 3. I cannot understand why it is that non sabbath keeping denominations jump on this bandwagon and head down a rugged pathway that leads around in circles. The significant theme of the Bible overrides all other interpretations to the contrary and its really really simple: 1. man sinned 2. God set a plan of salvation in motion to rescue man from "the wages of sin" which is death according to GODS ETERNAL LAW! 3. Jesus came and "paid the price" for the "wages of sin" which is transgression of GODS ETERNAL LAW! 4. The apostle Paul then further explained that the free gift of salvation, as demonstrated by Abraham, can only be received through faith in Jesus Christ atonement for our sins! 5. Finally, The apostle John summed all of this up in the final chapter of his vision of earths history as we know it...we cannot enter into the promised land (God eternal rest) if we do not "keep his commandments AND have the faith of Jesus" (patience of the saints in Rev 12:9).

David knew nothing of the book of Hebrews when he wrote this, he answers his opening statement in this same passage of scripture. One could also refer back to the warning Samuel gave the Israelites when they demanded a king to I suppose. I don't see any problem here. The issue is Hebrew language has about 8,000 words...how many does English have, 100's of thousands? It's hard to bridge such a gap when the traditional language is so limited numerically

The answer to this dilemma is self explained in the same passage...read verses 6&7 of Psalm 82! I find it best to avoid isolating texts. There is a good commentary on this too...https://biblehub.com/commentaries/psalms/82-1.htm

No one is calling Jesus a liar, you do not correctly interpreted some of the texts you have quoted to apparently support that statement. The covenant God made with us started with Adam and Eve in Genesis chapter 3...it has always been about redemption. People seem to lose sight of this truth and starting claiming one covenant is about the faulty law and a new covenant is about the free gift of salvation and separate the two. This is wrong. Paul in the first few chapters of Romans clearly proves this... It also clearly stated, even Abraham was saved by faith!

Hi Marilyn, I do not believe that Daniel 9:27 can be the antichrist. The reason why this cannot be the case is because in order to fulfill the nature of this verse...ie the confirmation of "The Covenant" you are breaching what Jesus himself states in Matthew 12:26&27 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. Jesus himself clearly stated that Satan cannot make a covenant with people that is against himself. The Abrahamic covenants made by God were as follows: 1. The promised land 2. you shall become a great nation 3. the promise of blessing and redemption (remembering that this also refers to what God told the serpent in Genesis 3..."he shall crush your head") (https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zppnqhv/revision/2) We know that when Satan tempted Jesus, it was not in an effort to glorify God...the temptation specifically asked that Jesus bow down and worship Satan...the glorification was for the devil himself. This is not what daniel 9 is talking about. Very clearly, that is the covenant made for the coming of the true messiah. Jesus fulfilled this very covenant at the end of his ministry when he was cut off in the middle of the week (crucified) Remember, Jesus ministry was 3.5 years. From AD 27 until AD 31, or AD29-AD33 (either way its still same time duration). "Where is the remaining 3.5 years of this prophecy" you ask? Stephen was stoned exactly 3.5 years after the crucifixion of Christ. So there are 7 years from Jesus baptism until the stoning of Stephen (you can check the history... it is accurate)

I like your insight Charlie...very thoughtful stuff and right on the money!

i agree Charlie, there is neither Jew nor Greek....100%. I do not see that any relationship between the former Jewish claim to religious exlusivity and the current (post Messiah) model. The jews were never exclusively saved, they were supposed to be the shining light to all humanity so that all could be saved. Eve was told that ALL her descendants could recieve the gift of salvation...we are all descendants of Adam and Eve. In terms of the Israelites, they failed miserably in this area...They did not live up to their agreement in the first covenant given by Moses (remember that the Israelite answer to Moses and to God was "all these things we will do"). As a result the Gospel was given to the gentiles to further to the world. (that is my belief anyways) Now the interesting thing about Judaism, I am not sure that they believe even today that Jesus is God...the Almighty God. In effect that means they are not Christians does it not? Also, in terms of the Russian war (I am assuming the extended on again/off again wars with Turkey/ottoman empire, this seems to be of no biblical value. I do not see it influencing the Holy land in any way, nor did it impact on them. Russian also tended to fail miserably in most of that long series of campaigns against turkey.

An interesting thing about the SDA Sanctuary doctrine and those who disagree with it using Antiochus epiphanes (the little horn) but discredit any additional distant future application... How does one then explain Revelation 11? This appears to be the exact same event...or a (then) future anti type of it! Rev 11 cannot be Epiphanes...it's written hundreds of years later and is clearly vision of end times... There is almost certainly a direct correlation between Daniel 8 and Revelation 11 This is why SDA's believe what they do about 1844. (Note the rev11 vision does not end in 1844...that is not the point...it's the start date for Daniel 8 that is key...and this must be related to Daniel 7 and the statue in Daniel 2. Those are the links to the 457bc start dat and I think the sanctuary is the glue that binds them all together

Except that in Hebrews it states that the Most Holy Place has BOTH 1.the Alter of Incense AND 2. the Ark of The Covenant! 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place,c 4containing the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. this is not what Exodus is saying The significance of these differences are also highlighted in the book of Revelation where it appears the veil is not in fact even there...and this i think is because Jesus is also the veil in the heavenly antitype. In Rev 8 we read 3Then another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne. 4And the smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, rose up before God from the hand of the angel. In Rev 11 we see the 24 elders who are before the throne fall on their faces...the ark is revealed in the heavenly sanctuary 16And the twenty-four elders who sit on their thrones before God fell on their faces and worshiped God, 19Then the temple of God in heaven was opened, and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple. All of the above indicate to me that the heavenly sanctuary remains comprised of two compartments. There is still a ministry going on in the holy place (according to Leviticus 16-intercession for sins committed in the current age) and the Most Holy place. Jesus death on the cross was a necessary process for the forgiveness of sins, however, the interceding on our behalf continues on a daily basis throughout time until the second coming. Also i note in Revelation that there will be a sanctuary/temple on the new earth,however, it is not a physical building as was the case on our sinful earth. It is interesting, Revelation still uses two entities when describing it... Rev 21 22But I saw no temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. I also have another thought (or curve ball), it is my belief that: 1. Jesus death on the cross and ongoing intercession are also necessary for the forgiveness of the sins of the heavenly beings who initially followed Lucifer (originally half the angels rebelled). 2. The heavenly sanctuary was defiled by those angels who followed Lucifer in heaven and thus it needs cleansing as well!

Exodus 30:6 6And thou shalt put it before the vail that is by the ark of the testimony 7And Aaron shall burn thereon sweet incense every morning: when he dresseth the lamps, he shall burn incense upon it. However, clearly in Exodus 40, the Veil is between the Ark of the Covenant and the Alter of Incense... 3And thou shalt put therein the ark of the testimony, and cover the ark with the vail. 4And thou shalt bring in the table, and set in order the things that are to be set in order upon it; and thou shalt bring in the candlestick, and light the lamps thereof. 5And thou shalt set the altar of gold for the incense before the ark of the testimony, and put the hanging of the door to the tabernacle. The Alter of Incense is mentioned again by the writer of the book of Hebrews, however, in this instance it appears to indicate the writer of Hebrews is stating they are both in the Most Holy Place. Clearly based on Exodous account written by Moses, that is not the case. Hebrews 9:3 "3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place,c 4containing the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant." Hebrews is a book dedicated almost entirely to this topic. How could the writer of the book of Hebrews appear to be making a mistake? Is he wrong?

I hardly think that has any bearing on the location of the tabernacle...where did the pillar of cloud reside when the Egyptian army were chasing after the Israelites at the Red Sea? Do you honestly think that God, the same God who struck Hophni and Phinehas down dead for making strange offerings in the Tabernacle, needed to protect it from foreign invaders by surrounding it with a million scapegoats? I think this an unlikely scenario given the evidence in the Bible to the contrary.