Days of great tribulation

[OldCoot]

While I suppose some commentators might apply this to Antiochus or someone of bygone era, if one actually reads the passage, many points sure sound only like the same prince who is to come that will affirm and nullify the covenant in Daniel 9:26-27 and many other passages.  Much like "the Assyrian" of Isaiah and the prophets that speaks of the final world ruler, also known as the antichrist.    Do a study on  the individual called "the Assyrian" in the prophets sometime and compare with this passage from Daniel and then compare with the Revelation.  "the Assyrian" is a common thread from Pharaoh in Egypt to the antichrist.  He is the constant that comes against the people of Yahweh.

Daniel 8:23-26 (NKJV) “And in the latter time of their kingdom,
When the transgressors have reached their fullness,
A king shall arise,
Having fierce features,
Who understands sinister schemes.
24 His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power;
He shall destroy fearfully,
And shall prosper and thrive;
He shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people.
25 “Through his cunning
He shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule;
And he shall exalt himself in his heart.
He shall destroy many in their prosperity.
He shall even rise against the Prince of princes;
But he shall be broken without human means.
26 “And the vision of the evenings and mornings
Which was told is true;
Therefore seal up the vision,
For it refers to many days in the future.

Keep in mind, Daniel is told many times that these things are sealed up till the end times.  What a commentator in the Geneva bible put in the margin in 1599 doesn't qualify.   Many current expositors see these passages as speaking of the final world ruler.

Edited June 23, 2019 by OldCoot

[iamlamad]

12 hours ago, OldCoot said:

While I suppose some commentators might apply this to Antiochus or someone of bygone era, if one actually reads the passage, many points sure sound only like the same prince who is to come that will affirm and nullify the covenant in Daniel 9:26-27 and many other passages.  Much like "the Assyrian" of Isaiah and the prophets that speaks of the final world ruler, also known as the antichrist.    Do a study on  the individual called "the Assyrian" in the prophets sometime and compare with this passage from Daniel and then compare with the Revelation.  "the Assyrian" is a common thread from Pharaoh in Egypt to the antichrist.  He is the constant that comes against the people of Yahweh.

Daniel 8:23-26 (NKJV) “And in the latter time of their kingdom,
When the transgressors have reached their fullness,
A king shall arise,
Having fierce features,
Who understands sinister schemes.
24 His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power;
He shall destroy fearfully,
And shall prosper and thrive;
He shall destroy the mighty, and also the holy people.
25 “Through his cunning
He shall cause deceit to prosper under his rule;
And he shall exalt himself in his heart.
He shall destroy many in their prosperity.
He shall even rise against the Prince of princes;
But he shall be broken without human means.
26 “And the vision of the evenings and mornings
Which was told is true;
Therefore seal up the vision,
For it refers to many days in the future.

Keep in mind, Daniel is told many times that these things are sealed up till the end times.  What a commentator in the Geneva bible put in the margin in 1599 doesn't qualify.   Many current expositors see these passages as speaking of the final world ruler.

OF COURSE He appears very similar to the Beast of Rev. 13, because he, Antiochus became a TYPE of the Antichrist Beast. 

When Antiochus tried to prevent the Jews from following the LAW that came from "THE PRINCE OF PRINCES, then Antiochus was rising against Him. All these verses fit Antiocus and IN CONTEXT can ONLY refer to Him. 

It WAS many days into the future of Daniel when Antiochus came into power. 

if I were you, I would take off the preconceived glasses and read this entire chapter over and over: the entire chapter is about Greece and Persia, but ends up being about the end of Greece. To try and make these verses something in OUR future is to do a terrible injustice to CONTEXT. 

There is no doubt, SATAN was behind Antiochus. It was Satan's power and authority given to Antiochus - exactly as it will be Satan's power and authority that will be given to the Antichrist Beast in our future - but in the future, it will go FAR beyond the Middle East. 

Edited June 23, 2019 by iamlamad

[OldCoot]

32 minutes ago, iamlamad said:

OF COURSE He appears very similar to the Beast of Rev. 13, because he, Antiochus became a TYPE of the Antichrist Beast. 

When Antiochus tried to prevent the Jews from following the LAW that came from "THE PRINCE OF PRINCES, then Antiochus was rising against Him. All these verses fit Antiocus and IN CONTEXT can ONLY refer to Him. 

It WAS many days into the future of Daniel when Antiochus came into power. 

if I were you, I would take off the preconceived glasses and read this entire chapter over and over: the entire chapter is about Greece and Persia, but ends up being about the end of Greece. To try and make these verses something in OUR future is to do a terrible injustice to CONTEXT. 

There is no doubt, SATAN was behind Antiochus. It was Satan's power and authority given to Antiochus - exactly as it will be Satan's power and authority that will be given to the Antichrist Beast in our future - but in the future, it will go FAR beyond the Middle East. 

That is a bit of a stretch.   I did not come to the passage with preconceived glasses.  I was directed there by a Jewish brother in Messiah.  

Throwing around accusations like "preconceived glasses", I could throw the same accusation your direction but that would mean lowering myself.  No need for that.

But...

Daniel 8:19 (NKJV Strong's) And he said, “Look, I am making known to you what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation; for at the appointed time the end shall be

Everything that follows is a history of the world to the end.  The world, the Hebrew people, the land of Israel, none of it ended at the time of Antiochus.   That is what Hanukkah is all about.  And Yeshua celebrated Hanukkah in the scripture.

Greece had been broken into 4, divided among 4 Generals.  Antiochus did not arise later, He was one of those Generals.  So Daniel 8:23 does not apply to Antiochus.   Rome essentially was Greece Part 3.  Even the gods of Rome were just renamed gods of Greece.  But the Roman empire is the kingdom that would be represented by the two legs of the statue that would further be represented by the 10 toes of the end times according to the statue description by Daniel 2.  All originating from Nebuchadnezzar.  

Edited June 23, 2019 by OldCoot

[JoeCanada]

21 hours ago, iamlamad said:

Remember the words of Solomon: there is nothing new under the sun. The truth is, there will be TWO abominations: you are pulling those verses out of their context. 

Dan. 8:

⁸ 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.

⁹ 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.

¹⁰ And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

And now the angel's explanation of the above 3 verses:

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

We cannot just pull verses out of their context to make them say what we want them to say: the context here is Persia being WHIPPED by Alexander the Great, then his death, and the four generals that took over his kingdom. Out of ONE OF THEM, that is the Seleucus kingdom came forth Antiochus. Did you ever read this in the Amplified bible?

 

 ⁷ [In my vision] I saw him come close to the ram (Medo-Persia), and he was filled with rage toward him; and the goat (Greece) struck the ram and shattered his two horns, and the ram had no strength to stand before him. So the goat threw him to the ground and trampled on him, and there was no one who could rescue the ram from his power. ⁸ Then the male goat magnified himself exceedingly, and when he was [young and] strong, the great horn (Alexander) was [suddenly] ^[c]broken; and in its place there came up four prominent horns [among whom the kingdom was divided, one] toward [each of] the four winds of heaven.

The Little Horn

⁹ Out of one of them (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) came forth a rather small horn [but one of irreverent presumption and profane pride] which grew exceedingly powerful toward the south, toward the east, and toward the Beautiful Land (Israel). 

 The CONTEXT is Greece and Persia. It is in the later times of THEIR kingdoms - that is the later times of the four general's kingdom. 

This is why many commentators speak of Antiochus as a TYPE of the Beast of Rev. 13. It is why I disagree with you. You are getting your theory of the FUTURE end by pulling the 19th verse out of its context. The context of the entire chapter is Greece and Persia.

It is possible however that the future Beast of Rev. 13 will come out of the modern day old Seleucus kingdom. 

 

You stated:

"The CONTEXT is Greece and Persia. It is in the later times of THEIR kingdoms - that is the later times of the four general's kingdom".

If you are unable to accept that “the vision is at the time of the end” means anything other than what it clearly says, that it is AT the time of the end, then I don’t think anyone can help you.

Saying the vision pertained until it was over is a ridiculous statement after all. To say it three separate times is even more ridiculous. All visions pertain until they’re over!

The phrase “pertains to” only appears in certain English translation of Dan. 8:17-19. Please do not base an argument on a phrase that doesn’t even appear in the original language. For instance, the KJV says “for the time of the end shall be the vision”, the ESV says “the vision shall be for the time of the end.” The ASV says the vision “belongs to the time of the end”. YLT says “for at the time of the end is the vision.” And I think the Young’s Literal Translation comes the closest to the original Hebrew.

 This passage in no way even comes close to saying that the vision will have an effect on the future. It says the vision is at the time of the end. If it was going to say it effects the future, that word would be used. It isn’t.

 Your theory of “this vision will effect the future” doesn’t address “I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation” . Obviously if he is letting us know what will happen in the future, he is explaining actual events. If he is showing effects, then effects would be shown, but it is events that are described, and those events are the events of Dan. 8:1-8, the vision. And universally, the description of Dan. 8:25 about opposing the Prince of Princes and being broken without human agency uniquely describes the Antichrist.

 Immediately after this three fold repetition, Gabriel interprets the vision for Daniel. If he had just said it would have effects on the future, this is where he’d show it. But he doesn’t, he begins with the Ram and Goat from Dan. 8:1-8, not effects of the future.

The vision of Dan. 8 is about the rise of Antichrist both in the historic foreshadow of the rise of Antiochus IV and the the final fulfillment.

Many believe that Daniel 8 was fulfilled thousands of years ago by the Persians and the Greeks because events then were similar to the prophecy.  This close but not quite accurate fulfillment is known as a “foreshadow.”

You stated:

We cannot just pull verses out of their context to make them say what we want them to say: the context here is Persia being WHIPPED by Alexander the Great, then his death, and the four generals that took over his kingdom. Out of ONE OF THEM, that is the Seleucus kingdom came forth Antiochus. Did you ever read this in the Amplified bible?

 

Alexander was the King of Macedon, not a newly established empire. He greatly expanded his empire as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians did in the past but none of these created a “new” empire. He never considered himself king of a new empire. He was Alexander III, King of Macedon. Even his name clearly shows he was not a “first” king.  Alexander’s empire was broken up into about 20 regions of the Diadochi , then  to five, then to four, and finally consolidated to three. These three lasted the longest, over 200 years. The historic fulfillment of Dan. 8 was not exact. However, the coming First King of Yavan will be a first king and Yavan will be broken up into 4. 

 Historians do not consider a division of four separate and distinct “horns” as ever being the definitive division of Alexander’s empire. Forcing this division on history is just that: “forcing.”

Who is the goat?  The Hebrew word translated “Greece” is actually Yavan.  Yavan were an ancient people that occupied eastern Greece and western Turkey.  The principle city within the region is Istanbul.  The Angel is not referring to Greece but rather to the Yavan people who occupy modern Turkey!  Turkey is the goat.

 

[iamlamad]

8 hours ago, JoeCanada said:

You stated:

"The CONTEXT is Greece and Persia. It is in the later times of THEIR kingdoms - that is the later times of the four general's kingdom".

If you are unable to accept that “the vision is at the time of the end” means anything other than what it clearly says, that it is AT the time of the end, then I don’t think anyone can help you.

Saying the vision pertained until it was over is a ridiculous statement after all. To say it three separate times is even more ridiculous. All visions pertain until they’re over!

The phrase “pertains to” only appears in certain English translation of Dan. 8:17-19. Please do not base an argument on a phrase that doesn’t even appear in the original language. For instance, the KJV says “for the time of the end shall be the vision”, the ESV says “the vision shall be for the time of the end.” The ASV says the vision “belongs to the time of the end”. YLT says “for at the time of the end is the vision.” And I think the Young’s Literal Translation comes the closest to the original Hebrew.

 This passage in no way even comes close to saying that the vision will have an effect on the future. It says the vision is at the time of the end. If it was going to say it effects the future, that word would be used. It isn’t.

 Your theory of “this vision will effect the future” doesn’t address “I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation” . Obviously if he is letting us know what will happen in the future, he is explaining actual events. If he is showing effects, then effects would be shown, but it is events that are described, and those events are the events of Dan. 8:1-8, the vision. And universally, the description of Dan. 8:25 about opposing the Prince of Princes and being broken without human agency uniquely describes the Antichrist.

 Immediately after this three fold repetition, Gabriel interprets the vision for Daniel. If he had just said it would have effects on the future, this is where he’d show it. But he doesn’t, he begins with the Ram and Goat from Dan. 8:1-8, not effects of the future.

The vision of Dan. 8 is about the rise of Antichrist both in the historic foreshadow of the rise of Antiochus IV and the the final fulfillment.

Many believe that Daniel 8 was fulfilled thousands of years ago by the Persians and the Greeks because events then were similar to the prophecy.  This close but not quite accurate fulfillment is known as a “foreshadow.”

You stated:

We cannot just pull verses out of their context to make them say what we want them to say: the context here is Persia being WHIPPED by Alexander the Great, then his death, and the four generals that took over his kingdom. Out of ONE OF THEM, that is the Seleucus kingdom came forth Antiochus. Did you ever read this in the Amplified bible?

 

Alexander was the King of Macedon, not a newly established empire. He greatly expanded his empire as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians did in the past but none of these created a “new” empire. He never considered himself king of a new empire. He was Alexander III, King of Macedon. Even his name clearly shows he was not a “first” king.  Alexander’s empire was broken up into about 20 regions of the Diadochi , then  to five, then to four, and finally consolidated to three. These three lasted the longest, over 200 years. The historic fulfillment of Dan. 8 was not exact. However, the coming First King of Yavan will be a first king and Yavan will be broken up into 4. 

 Historians do not consider a division of four separate and distinct “horns” as ever being the definitive division of Alexander’s empire. Forcing this division on history is just that: “forcing.”

Who is the goat?  The Hebrew word translated “Greece” is actually Yavan.  Yavan were an ancient people that occupied eastern Greece and western Turkey.  The principle city within the region is Istanbul.  The Angel is not referring to Greece but rather to the Yavan people who occupy modern Turkey!  Turkey is the goat.

 

So you are willing to pull the phrase " AT the time of the end" out of its context. Well, it seems many are willing. If you just keep reading the angel TELLS US what He meant by "the time of the end." it is the end of THEIR  T-H-E-I-R meaning the 4 generals. I did not write it - Daniel wrote it. It really does not matter which translation you use for "the time of the end:" the angel DEFINES what He meant:

¹⁹ And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.

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.

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.

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.

IN this context, how in the world can ANYONE think or iimagine this is about anything else but Greece and Medo-Persia? it is written in black and white! 

By the way, just to set the record straight, ALL OF THIS VISION was about the future! It was God FORETELLING what would happen in the future. 

Again, just do you will know, when Antiochus came again the LAW given by GOD through Moses, he, Antiochus was coming against the Prince of Princes. He was preventing them from following the Law. 

Note carefully, Antiochus lived 200 BC. That is like 2200 years before the Antichrist will do his thing.  Antiochus became a TYPE of the future Antichrist Beast.

But he doesn’t, he begins with the Ram and Goat from Dan. 8:1-8, not effects of the future.  So WHY DON"T YOU BELIEVE HIM? It is not about the Antichrist; it is about Antiochus.

Please tell us you are not trying to take Alexander the Great out of this chapter. OF COURSE He is in it as the king with one horn that is broken and four come up.

[iamlamad]

10 hours ago, OldCoot said:

That is a bit of a stretch.   I did not come to the passage with preconceived glasses.  I was directed there by a Jewish brother in Messiah.  

Throwing around accusations like "preconceived glasses", I could throw the same accusation your direction but that would mean lowering myself.  No need for that.

But...

Daniel 8:19 (NKJV Strong's) And he said, “Look, I am making known to you what shall happen in the latter time of the indignation; for at the appointed time the end shall be

Everything that follows is a history of the world to the end.  The world, the Hebrew people, the land of Israel, none of it ended at the time of Antiochus.   That is what Hanukkah is all about.  And Yeshua celebrated Hanukkah in the scripture.

Greece had been broken into 4, divided among 4 Generals.  Antiochus did not arise later, He was one of those Generals.  So Daniel 8:23 does not apply to Antiochus.   Rome essentially was Greece Part 3.  Even the gods of Rome were just renamed gods of Greece.  But the Roman empire is the kingdom that would be represented by the two legs of the statue that would further be represented by the 10 toes of the end times according to the statue description by Daniel 2.  All originating from Nebuchadnezzar.  

The attacks by Antiochus, and the poluting of the temple, the transgression of desolation, it DID come to an end. But it would take 2300 days. It was a terrible time for them to live through. Yes, He did say what you wrote in red. But He also said: 

 

¹⁹ And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.

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.

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.

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.

You have never said it that I know of: are you thinking that the kings of MODERN DAY Media and Persia will be with the Antichrist Beast? Is that what you are thinking? Also the King of modern Day Greece? 

I really don't think these have ANYTHING to do with our future: it was all about Antiochus. Notice carefully how this angel MAKES VERY CLEAR what his meaning is of "at the appointed time the end shall be:" What is the very next words? THE RAM! It is not about our future, it is about Medo_Persia and Greece! 

 Antiochus did not arise later, He was one of those Generals.   Old Coot, you really really need to go back and study your history!  

Here are the four Generals:  Lysimachus, Cassander, Ptolomy 1, Seleucus

It was around 323 BC when Alexander died and these 4 took over.

Antiochus Epiphanes began to reign in 175 BC, just as Daniel wrote, "in the latter time of THEIR kingdoms..."

 

 The world, the Hebrew people, the land of Israel, none of it ended at the time of Antiochus.  That is not what was to end. What was to end was Antiochus' ATTACKS against Israel, and the desecration of their temple. Daniel TELLS US the end: after 2300 days.

 

I give up. You amaze me. 

[OldCoot]

41 minutes ago, iamlamad said:

The attacks by Antiochus, and the poluting of the temple, the transgression of desolation, it DID come to an end. But it would take 2300 days. It was a terrible time for them to live through. Yes, He did say what you wrote in red. But He also said: 

 

¹⁹ And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.

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.

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.

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.

You have never said it that I know of: are you thinking that the kings of MODERN DAY Media and Persia will be with the Antichrist Beast? Is that what you are thinking? Also the King of modern Day Greece? 

I really don't think these have ANYTHING to do with our future: it was all about Antiochus. Notice carefully how this angel MAKES VERY CLEAR what his meaning is of "at the appointed time the end shall be:" What is the very next words? THE RAM! It is not about our future, it is about Medo_Persia and Greece! 

 Antiochus did not arise later, He was one of those Generals.   Old Coot, you really really need to go back and study your history!  

Here are the four Generals:  Lysimachus, Cassander, Ptolomy 1, Seleucus

It was around 323 BC when Alexander died and these 4 took over.

Antiochus Epiphanes began to reign in 175 BC, just as Daniel wrote, "in the latter time of THEIR kingdoms..."

 

 The world, the Hebrew people, the land of Israel, none of it ended at the time of Antiochus.  That is not what was to end. What was to end was Antiochus' ATTACKS against Israel, and the desecration of their temple. Daniel TELLS US the end: after 2300 days.

 

I give up. You amaze me. 

 

You as well.   Many expositors see the same thing i do in the passage.  Dr. J. Vernon McGee, Dr. John Walvoord, among others.  Hardly slouches when it comes to scripture expostion.  They also make the assertion that the view of Daniel 8:23-26 is relative to the final world ruler / antichrist.

Edited June 24, 2019 by OldCoot

[iamlamad]

1 hour ago, OldCoot said:

 

You as well.   Many expositors see the same thing i do in the passage.  Dr. J. Vernon McGee, Dr. John Walvoord, among others.  Hardly slouches when it comes to scripture expostion.  They also make the assertion that the view of Daniel 8:23-26 is relative to the final world ruler / antichrist.

God does not give everyone the same Revelation knowledge.  Do you see my point on "context?" I must agree, when I consult the commentators on most anything in Revelation, I must disagree with them. It seems there was NO revelation knowledge of John's great book back then. 

I went through all the commentators I could find. I agree, some are on your side of this discussion. However, I cannot pull verses out of their context - I just can't. I won't even if it would prove me wrong. Context is KING.

[iamlamad]

7 hours ago, Da Puppers said:

Let me give you 4 reasons why Daniel 8 is not about the time of ANTIOCHUS. 
1.  It is not about the latter time of their kingdoms (plural), but it is about THEIR kingdom. 
2.  The word transgressors refers ONLY to the children of Israel.   Transgression is a violation of the commandments of God.   And only the children of Israel are/ were under the Old covenant given to Moses.   Sin and death affected everyone from Adam onward.   But death came upon everyone because of the transgression of Adam. 
3.  "Transgressors [are] come to the full" means that these are the last of the transgressors.   It's not about the last (end) of the abomination.   Its about the last end of the children of Israel transgressing against God.  The antecedent to "their kingdom" are the transgressors.  At the very least,  a liberal interpretation [not my view] of Daniel 9:24, does not "finish the transgression" of Israel, until 200 years later at the crucifixion.   The transgressions of Israel did not cease with the ANTIOCHUS generation.   The time of the vision of Daniel 8 can only refer to a time subsequent to the death of Christ. 
4.  Daniel 8 is an expansion of the events of Daniel 7.  There are a host of reasons why this is true. 
A.  Daniel 8 identifies the little horn as proceeding from one of the four notable (there were more than just 4 kingdom's) kingdoms that proceeded from Alexander's Greek empire.       This part does refer to an earlier point in time than the fulfilment of the vision.   Even with an application to ANTIOCHUS,  there is an unspecified gap of time between time of the Ram & He-goat and the rise of the little horn.   
B.  The little horn is the one who: 
   1.  Causes the daily sacrifice to cease,  &
   2.  Comes against the Prince of the host. 
   3.  Caused the sanctuary to be cast down. 
C.  The time of the indignation of God will result in the sacrifices ceasing.   Daniel 12 was probably given at a later time than Daniel 7,8, but from it we know that the sacrifices will cease during the time of great tribulation involving the wrath of God. 
D. According to Daniel 7, there are 2, and not just 1, prominent figures involved in these times of the indignation of God.   Dan 7:24 says that ANOTHER shall arise after the 10 horns,  and that the children of Israel will be given into this latter rulers hands for a shorter period of time [... and the dividing of time]  than the time, times and half a time of Daniel 12.  
E. Daniel 8 says that this vision concerns: 
  1.  The LAST END of the indignation,  and
  2.  Covers the period of time AFTER the daily sacrifice ceases AND during the time of the transgression of desolation.
This phrase, "transgression of desolation" designates a very unusual period of time.   For starters,  we know that the little horn is responsible for: 
   1.  Causes the daily sacrifice to cease,  &
   2.  Comes against the Prince of the host. 
   3.  Causes the sanctuary to be cast down. 
To be guilty of transgression during this period in which the daily sacrifice has ceased and the sanctuary to be trodden down,  means that the sacrificial system has to be restored (again! ).From Rev 11:1,2 we know that the city of Jerusalem shall be trodden under foot for 42 months.   Don't forget that this occurred under the guise of the little horn.   And from Daniel 8, we learn that the "sanctuary AND the host"  shall they "tread under foot".    So,  if the little horn has brought desolation upon Jerusalem that lasts for 42 months,   how can there be a transgression in the midst of Jerusalem's desolation?   Scripture answers that question. 

Dan 8:12 KJV And an host was given 'him' against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and IT cast down the truth to the ground; and it practised, and prospered.

The word "him" is italicized and is not part of the text.   And the word "IT" alludes back to either the host or the "him".  Because this is part of a mysterious,  hidden truth,  the translators were confused about what is being said in this verse.   Since,  Rev 11 & Luke 21, confirms that Jerusalem is trodden down BY the little horn of Daniel 7,8 for a period of 42 months,  AND we know that "a host" will be given to allow the daily sacrifice to be resumed somewhere outside of Jerusalem BECAUSE OF TRANSGRESSION,  for a period of 2300 daily sacrifices (1150 days),  it will be at this alternative host site that "truth will be cast to the ground".  42 months equals 1239 or so days,  and sacrifices will be offered for 1150 days,  which means that sacrifices will resume 89 days after the 42 month desolation of Jerusalem begins.   The point being that the "last end of the indignation" of Daniel 8 pertains to the last 1150 days of God's indignation, when the transgressors are come to the full. 

Be Blessed 

The PuP 
 

1. Yes, the latter time of the Seleucus kingdom. That is kingdom from which  Antiochus came.

2. Since The Beast will do similar things that Antiochus did, your 2nd answer is really moot. Antiochus caused the daily sacrifices to cease. And in trying to force the people against Moses Law (Given by the Prince of Princes) then he was coming against the Prince of Princes.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Because of rebellion, a host, together with the daily sacrifice, will be given over. The horn will throw truth to the ground and will be successful in whatever it does. 

God allowed these things to happen because Israel was yet again in rebellion against God. 

I disagree with you. Chapter 8 is about Medo-Persia and then Greece almost to the end of Greece.