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

[adamjedgar]

4 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

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

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.

Edited December 9, 2021 by adamjedgar

[Marilyn C]

27 minutes ago, adamjedgar said:

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!

Ancient Assyria was around the Euphrates.

[adamjedgar]

8 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

 

A line in the sand.

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.

Edited December 9, 2021 by adamjedgar

[Marilyn C]

30 minutes ago, adamjedgar said:

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.

The line in the sand refers to the background of the A/C.

[adamjedgar]

2 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

The line in the sand refers to the background of the A/C.

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.

[Marilyn C]

28 minutes ago, adamjedgar said:

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.

The A/c is called the Assyrian, that ancient region is north of Israel, the allies divided it up, the A/C will undivide it. All straight forward. 

[adamjedgar]

20 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

The A/c is called the Assyrian, that ancient region is north of Israel, the allies divided it up, the A/C will undivide it. All straight forward. 

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/

Edited December 9, 2021 by adamjedgar

[Charlie744]

1 hour 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?

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.

There is much to support this... my completed rough draft of chapter 2 is over 22,000 words ... that is how much is embedded in chapter 2... every kingdom was unpacked with the 4th kingdom dominating them all. So, so complex. 

But I can offer a reader's digest version; In the dream sequence EVERYONE assumes the timing of verse 34 walks right into verse 35. Why, because it really is written that way... no one stops to look at this... it is just that simple of consecutive verses.

The only way to determine if there is a 2,000 year difference between these two verses is to completely tear apart Daniel's interpretation sequence - specifically, verses 41 - 43. Sorry but it took me at least 5 months to pull this whole thing completely apart and even then I had much difficulty piecing it back together. 

So sorry for not giving you more, Charlie

PS. verse 44 above is speaking the truth of course - God would and did set up a kingdom that would never be turned over to another (Messiah's Kingdom). And it will never be destroyed.

[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?

Edited December 9, 2021 by adamjedgar

[adamjedgar]

ok so i think i am starting to follow you now...

 

44In 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. 

So the key that you are using is

 

1. "in the days of those kings" 

 

2. God will setup a kingdom that will never be destroyed

 

so the incarnation of Jesus is the commencement of your position because that even falls within the days of the 4th kingdom of Daniel 2.

 

This is a really interesting perspective and i think i am following you now. I have a question though, isnt this the same position that the Jews for centuries had and mistakenly assumed this meant the messiah was come to defeat the Romans and setup an earthly kingdom.

 

I realise that the answer to this question could be that the metaphor was taken literally and it was a heavenly kingdom. The issue i have with this is that one would be forced to deny AD 70 in order to defeat my question and prevent the literal interpretation of the Jewish position. Also, if we then go for the heavenly kingdom, how do we then reconcile that its quite clear that God is not setting up his heavenly kingdom until after the persecution of the saints according to the timeline in the book of Revelation (particularly in light of the signs we are given such as dark days, stars falling from heaven etc). 

Edited December 9, 2021 by adamjedgar