Who is the Little Horn of Daniel 8? Can this be linked with the Little Horn in Daniel 7?

[adamjedgar]

1 hour ago, Charlie744 said:

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. 

I am not sure what Diaste is saying... I took it that the 'little horn' came from the post Alexander territories and WAS from the Greek kingdom - AE or the Seleucids or the Ptolemies, etc. -- was not sure. But once again, Greece is the  3rd of the 4 kingdoms in chapter 2. They are the same in 7 and 8. There is only ONE Horn, ONE dominate power / ruler in the 3rd kingdom and it certainly isn't some unimportant evil little thug like AE. If the Scriptures did not mention the 'four winds' there would not be any reason to consider the post Alexander rulers. God would use the 'four winds' to identify where the 'little horn' would come from but He never used the 4th kingdom or pagan Rome etc., 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. Again, you will not find AE or the Ptolemy's or the Seleucids in chapter 2. 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. 

 

 

"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

Edited December 9, 2021 by adamjedgar

[Charlie744]

2 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

"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.

Chapter 7 establishes the little horn will come out of the 4th kingdom (Daniel 7:7 and 8) - after Alexander died and his kingdom was divided into 4 territories.

Chapter 8 identifies this little horn as ' he' in 8:11.

2 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

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!

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. 

Each of the 4 kingdoms have a very unique mission given to them by God in His Plan of Salvation. When each has completed their mission, as a kingdom, they are dismissed, if  you will. The Medes-Persians certainly had a specific part to play and then they were out of power. Greece's mission was ....? They only had one mission and you might find that by looking in chapter 2. Greece who may have had the greatest military genius the world would ever see was perfectly placed to perform / complete one mission.  They were to be God's right arm in punishing all the nations that had severely mistreated / killed, etc. Israel prior to their Babylon exile. See Zechariah 9. Alexander was given such tremendous military abilities by God to destroy not only the Medes-Persians but those powers surrounded Israel (Syrian cities of Hadrach, Damascus and Hamath, then the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon (9:1-4). From there it moves down the coastal plain to conquer the Philistine cities of Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron and Ashdod). Also, take a look at Alexander's conquests - they turned back from India (they never harmed Israel), and other nations he could easily have conquered but he had finished God's task ... and he died. The mission of the 3rd kingdom was over and time for the coming 4th kingdom... and there is NO way God had a reason or mission to insert a wan a be thug like AE ... The commentators of Daniel are the  only ones who believe he should be inserted between the 3rd and 4th kingdoms.

 

2 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

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

First, there are so many wonderful papers in Andrews ... tremendous works by truly dedicated and brilliant scholars. So much can be found there and as I mentioned, they are so right in most of their writings (my opinion of course). However, even they can not get everything right - certainly more than a few issues in Daniel and Revelation but again, they are JUST INTERPRETATIONS and not doctrine. They have the two most important things to follow: The Scriptures and Jesus... that is it.

Thanks for your thoughts and responses, I certainly continue to learn the more we communicate and I am sure all the others interested in this topic benefit from your comments. Charlie

[adamjedgar]

55 minutes ago, Charlie744 said:

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. 

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.

Edited December 9, 2021 by adamjedgar

[Charlie744]

12 minutes ago, adamjedgar said:

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?

I agree with you that almost everyone, if not everyone contends the Stone is the second coming. 

My opinion is it represents His first coming. Take a quick look at v41. If the Stone strikes the feet to ‘divide’ it, which He does, why is there a continuation... 

There is so much more to support this... 

Charlie

[Marilyn C]

6 hours ago, angels4u said:

Lol, we have to wait and see where's he's coming from..

Glad we wont be here when that happens.

[Marilyn C]

5 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

Marilyn, if you do not mind, does your answer address:

1) who or where the 'little horn' will be and come from? or,

2) who or where the AC will be and come from? or,

3) are they the same entity perhaps?

Thanks, Charlie

Hi Charlie,

I certainly don`t mind.

1. The `little horn` comes up from the 10 king Federation/kingdom, (Dan. 7: 8,  Rev. 17: 12 & 13). He builds a power base on 3 regions - Iraq, Syria & Jordan. These were divided up by the allies after WW 1 and given to the British and French. However the A/C will do away with those divisions, (`plucked out by the roots` v. 8) and that will be his first sphere of influence - regional. When the other 7 regions join him then he will have a national base of 10 kings, and finally after deceiving the world he will control Globally.

2. The A/C is called the Assyrian, (Isa. 31: 8) and the king of the north, (of Israel) (Dan. 11: 40) plus he is king of Babylon. (And that city is now getting rebuilt. see utube) The northern part of the divided up Greek Empire is the former Assyrian Empire.  

3.  Yes. 

 

Marilyn.

[adamjedgar]

11 minutes ago, Charlie744 said:

I agree with you that almost everyone, if not everyone contends the Stone is the second coming. 

My opinion is it represents His first coming. Take a quick look at v41. If the Stone strikes the feet to ‘divide’ it, which He does, why is there a continuation... 

There is so much more to support this... 

Charlie

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!

[adamjedgar]

12 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

2. The A/C is called the Assyrian, (Isa. 31: 8) and the king of the north, (of Israel) (Dan. 11: 40) plus he is king of Babylon. (And that city is now getting rebuilt. see utube) The northern part of the divided up Greek Empire is the former Assyrian Empire.  

 

 

 

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.

Edited December 9, 2021 by adamjedgar

[Marilyn C]

54 minutes ago, adamjedgar said:

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.

Look on a map and you will see that ancient Assyria was Iraq, Syria & Jordan. North and partly East. Let`s find a map.

[Marilyn C]

 

A line in the sand.