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

[Charlie744]

On 12/10/2021 at 2:59 AM, Diaste said:

"You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given sovereignty, power, strength, and glory. 38Wherever the sons of men or beasts of the field or birds of the air dwell, He has given them into your hand and has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold." Dan 2

"The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21The shaggy goat represents the king of Greece,b and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. " Dan 8

"It's pretty easy to see the statute represents the mentioned kingdoms beginning with Nebuchadnezzar. We know in fact from Daniel 5 the Kingdom was given to the Medes and Persians. From Dan 8 we know the Medes and Persians were defeated by the shaggy goat of Greece. But Rome???

Old Testament Search

Search results for: rome
 

No results found.

How is Rome mentioned in Daniel? It isn't. I know the world history argument, the ruling over Israel argument, the ruling over the world argument, et.al.

But what does Daniel say about the successor to Greece? God tells us who the successor is:

"Thus the goat became very great, but at the height of his power, his large horn was broken off, and four prominent horns came up in its place, pointing toward the four winds of heaven." Dan 8

"The shaggy goat represents the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes is the first king. 22The four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power." Dan 8

I don't think there is a dispute as to whom the large horn represents, Alexander the Great. The successor to the large horn is the four horns as above. Gabriel explains the four horns represent four kingdoms that arise from the kingdom of Alexander. None of those four were Rome. 

Diaste, let me ask a question if you do not mind: Are you saying the four wings which represent the breaking up of Alexander's empire into the four 'territories' is the fourth kingdom, yet it is found WITHIN  the same section as Alexander's kingdom - Does it establish its own kingdom? Or is it simply showing the break up of the One horn of Alexander?

On 12/10/2021 at 2:59 AM, Diaste said:

So then if we agree the statue of Dan 2 is Golden Babylon [Nebuchadnezzar], Silver Medo-Persia, and Bronze Greece then the successor to Greece in the legs and feet of Iron can only be the one mentioned by Gabriel and that is the four horns that arise after the great horn is broken.

I am fairly certain Rome came after Greece and IS associated with iron. The change in metal types ALONE tells us it is a separate entity of a different nature and Rome was absolutely a BEAST, A MONSTER who destroyed and trampled over anyone and everyone. Greece as an empire was finished with the death of Alexander, now there was left these 4 vultures fighting over territory and power.. they were not kingdoms or empires like Rome - they simply filled in the power vacuum until Rome was ready for God's purpose and mission for them. God gave each of the four kingdoms a very specific mission and purpose within His Plan of Salvation - those four interim wanna be's after Alexander were certainly not given an assignment. AE definitely mistreated the Jews and corrupted the Temple, but he was nothing like a Titus ... he was your neighborhood thug.

On 12/10/2021 at 2:59 AM, Diaste said:

Rome did not rise from Greece. Asia Minor, Egypt, Macedonia and the Seleucid Empire all did. These four replaced Greece; a well-documented historical fact. 

Then if we avail ourselves of the world domination argument but stay within the bounds of the interpretation of the prophecy by Gabriel we do see a world dominator arise from one of the four that replaced Greece, Islam. 

Now if we hear Gabriel and take a single step further, we see "In the latter part of their reign, when the rebellion has reached its full measure, an insolent king, skilled in intrigue, will come to the throne. " Dan 8

So you are saying the word 'their' refers to the four territorial rulers that came after Greece and not Rome? Is it possible the 'insolent king, skilled in intrigue is the 'little horn' who emerges to take power AFTER the demise of pagan Rome?

On 12/10/2021 at 2:59 AM, Diaste said:

This insolent king arises from the end part of 'their reign'. That could only be the end part of the reign of the four horns that replaced the Grecian Empire. Interesting to note that Turkey, Greece, Egypt and the Mesopotamian powers still reign while Rome is long dead. 

I don't think the connection from Rome to the church is valid either. If the argument starts out with the civil and military Roman Empire is the fulfillment of the legs of Iron then it should remain so. Switching directions midstream to a religious Rome when confronted with the undesirable evidence of a dead Roman Empire is futility.

If the legs of iron represents pagan Rome they could they be subjected to the 'Stone'  striking the feet and 'dividing' the 4th kingdom? 

On 12/10/2021 at 2:59 AM, Diaste said:

 

 

Just some questions, Charlie

[Diaste]

5 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

Diaste, let me ask a question if you do not mind: Are you saying the four wings which represent the breaking up of Alexander's empire into the four 'territories' is the fourth kingdom, yet it is found WITHIN  the same section as Alexander's kingdom - Does it establish its own kingdom? Or is it simply showing the break up of the One horn of Alexander?

Like you, I see all of the book of Daniel as interconnected. There are diverse images of the players in the scenario, but this reveals attributes of the same important players throughout. 

So when I see the little horn it's the same little horn throughout. I feel the entire book begins with mysterious prophecy and stunning imagery but progresses into clarity, and continued astonishing imagery, as it moves along. Like you can't understand the end of the book apart from the beginning and the Statue cannot be reconciled without the rest of the book. 

So then from the whole book and the entire body of evidence the little horn only arises out of the 4 horns that rise from the broken great horn. 

Thus the goat became very great, but at the height of his power, his large horn was broken off, and four prominent horns came up in its place, pointing toward the four winds of heaven.

9From one of these horns a little horn emerged and grew extensively

And this is interpreted for us by Gabriel and leaves no doubt:

"The four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power."

The next 3 verses after this describe the little horn that arises from one of the four kingdoms that rose from Greece after the death of Alexander. Because of this I propose that whatever comes about as the fulfillment of the prophecy the little comes out of one of the kingdoms. If that's a revival of the massive power of that kingdom from which the insolent king rises, or a new kingdom in its own right isn't clear. It's mandatory this little horn rises from Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt or Mesopotamia, however.

 

5 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

I am fairly certain Rome came after Greece and IS associated with iron. The change in metal types ALONE tells us it is a separate entity of a different nature and Rome was absolutely a BEAST, A MONSTER who destroyed and trampled over anyone and everyone. Greece as an empire was finished with the death of Alexander, now there was left these 4 vultures fighting over territory and power.. they were not kingdoms or empires like Rome - they simply filled in the power vacuum until Rome was ready for God's purpose and mission for them. God gave each of the four kingdoms a very specific mission and purpose within His Plan of Salvation - those four interim wanna be's after Alexander were certainly not given an assignment. AE definitely mistreated the Jews and corrupted the Temple, but he was nothing like a Titus ... he was your neighborhood thug.

In the timeline Rome was an entity during the reign of Alexander. But there is a thing I think is missed by many and it's in the description of the 4th beast. We have all read about this beast but a vital point needs discussion.

"After this, as I watched in my vision in the night, suddenly a fourth beast appeared, and it was terrifying—dreadful and extremely strong—with large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed; then it trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the beasts before it, and it had ten horns."

It was different. I glossed this over for a long time like it didn't matter. But since it's there it should be explored. It's odd to me this statement appears in the first place. This 4th beast is already very different from the first three. So why point out it was different when the description is already visually arresting and quite different from the first three?

So I looked into it. I found the political, economic, social and religious characteristics of Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece to be so similar one might think there was no defeat and leadership hadn't changed. Under all three there was religious and economic freedom so long as it wasn't undermining the regime, one could rise from the gutter to the halls of power on merit, and social interactions remained nearly the same in respect to family, gatherings, entertainment and law. 

When I looked at the Roman Empire these societal norms remained about the same. Most striking to me was the amount of religious freedom in all four. None cared what god was worshiped so long as society was not cast into turmoil and the regime wasn't challenged to the point of usurpation. Peace and revenue was the goal and all four kept the peace; and sought to assimilate other lands to build an empire and that all important requirement of any class of ruler; revenue.

So then Rome wasn't different; "shena; alter, change, be diverse" as nothing really changed in the societies. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." the lyric goes. True in this case. So then it's not the Roman Empire. What other empire could fit the description from Dan 7:7?

Another world power came on the scene during the timeline of the Roman Empire, Islam. While Babylon Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome were forms of civil government of secular authority Islam was strictly theocratic. So much so Islam required forced conversion under pain of death, tax or enslavement and broke down and trampled all religious icons, statuary and edifices to any god. We saw this when ISIS was doing this very thing in Iraq and Syria. I saw video of ISIS members jackhammering religious symbols then kicking and stomping on the pieces. 

It's not the entire fulfillment of prophecy but it is a stunning image. 

Is anyone going to argue the Islamic scourge was tame compared to the Roman Empire? You should look it up. Islamic conquests were shockingly brutal. Have you heard of "Tears of Jihad" by Bill Warner? A real eye opener. 

In Islam we have the rise of a kingdom from one of the four kingdoms [Seleucid], a dreadful and terrifying beast that breaks and tramples everything, astoundingly powerful even to the point of driving out the Romans who sought safety in their fortified cities, and a total opposite in leadership ideology. 

Islam fits Dan 7:7 much better than Rome.

Not sure how Titus was a thug. Maybe the Jews should not have rebelled. That's what caused Rome to crush Israel and Jerusalem, not caprice on the part of Vespasian and Titus. Well...rebellion and God's decree, that is.

6 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

So you are saying the word 'their' refers to the four territorial rulers that came after Greece and not Rome? Is it possible the 'insolent king, skilled in intrigue is the 'little horn' who emerges to take power AFTER the demise of pagan Rome?

This is clear as the idea is mentioned 3 times:

1)"Thus the goat became very great, but at the height of his power, his large horn was broken off, and four prominent horns came up in its place, pointing toward the four winds of heaven."

[interpretation]"The four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power." Dan 8

2) "Then a mighty king will arise, who will rule with great authority and do as he pleases. 4But as soon as he is established, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the authority with which he ruled, because his kingdom will be uprooted and given to others." Dan 11

There is an allusion to the above in Dan 7 and I count that as another mention of the same idea. I don't think difficult to see though it is bit more subtle than Dan 8 and 11.

The little horn is after Rome. It comes to power in the latter part of the 4 kingdoms after Alexander. 

"In the latter part of their reign," has as the direct antecedent, "the four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power."

6 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

If the legs of iron represents pagan Rome they could they be subjected to the 'Stone'  striking the feet and 'dividing' the 4th kingdom? 

I don't see Rome. If it was Rome, then maybe. But it's not so, no.

I think it's quite clear the most viable candidate for the Iron kingdom and 4th beast and little horn is Islam. In fact, it can be argued that the toes of the statue represent what we see happening in the world now with the pseudo integration of Muslims in every country.

They show up, move in, increase the size of the community and then remain apart from greater society. They don't join in with the society in which they live. Just like clay doesn't mix with iron. This is a telling feature of their migration into all societies. It's an extension of the legs and feet of iron. Rome isn't doing this as Rome is dead and gone. Islam and the Muslim faith is deeply engaged in living among but not sticking; evidenced by their demands society change to fit their requirements carving out territory and enforcing their own ideology and laws. In Mpls, MN the Muslim community has Sharia police. In the UK the authorities won't venture into Muslim enclaves. This is terrifyingly true and widespread to the point Japan bans Muslim immigration. I would imagine it's the same reason Hungary and Poland refuse Middle Eastern immigration as well. 

Not Rome. Can't stress this enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Diaste]

On 12/10/2021 at 3:49 PM, adamjedgar said:

Rome was not an empire until after Greece"...your statement there that Rome was long dead is historically false. No historian I know of agrees with that statement. You have your history wrong.

I didn't say that. Rome was in its infancy in 330 BC, still fighting for its life against the tribes in Italy. Rome's power was robust by 169 BC when it confronted the Syrian Antiochus. But this was well after the Seleucids consolidated their powerful Empire.

 

On 12/10/2021 at 3:49 PM, adamjedgar said:

 

Second, the Seluecid empire was a GREEK empire...it is not a unique entity. If you read your history you will quickly realise that to be true, however, for the sake of this comment i will post reference for this...

The Seleucid Empire was founded by Seleucus I Nicator, following the division of the Macedonian Empire that existed previously, which had been founded by Alexander the Great. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_Empire

It was not Greek. Seleucid ruled over Mesopotamia I think as far east as the Hindu Kush. His empire was centered in Syria and Iran and the seat of power was in Babylon. That's not Greek, it's Arab. Sure, Seleucus was born Macedonian but he ruled over the population of Mesopotamia, not Greece. Cassander ruled Greece, Macedonia proper. And the Diadochi were very much unique entities as evidenced by the wars they fought with and against each other while consolidating their own empires.

On 12/10/2021 at 3:49 PM, adamjedgar said:

Now your statement that Rome is not mentioned is also fundamentally flawed...we know that these kingdoms are true by more than just the words (Medo-Persia or Greece...because Babylon is also not directly named...only that the man, "Nebuchadnezzar himself", is the head of Gold).

You mean except for the fact that Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar are intimately linked in a dozen places in scripture? Here's one example:

"Twelve months later, as he was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30the king exclaimed, “Is this not Babylon the Great, which I myself have built by the might of my power as a royal residence and for the glory of my majesty?”"

On 12/10/2021 at 3:49 PM, adamjedgar said:

 

The reasons that almost all scholars know for certain that Rome is the fourth kingdom are because:

1. the most obvious is world history of course (Rome is absolutely the next world empire after Greece)

That's not interpretive criteria. 

On 12/10/2021 at 3:49 PM, adamjedgar said:

2. The Romans deified Alexander the Great...exactly as prophesied they would (roman emporers visited his grave, pompey attempted to style himself after Alexander even to the point of obtaining the identical method of dress, Romans followed his style of military tactics etc

Care to post that prophecy? Again, this isn't interpretive criteria in identification. This is:

"Thus the goat became very great, but at the height of his power, his large horn was broken off, and four prominent horns came up in its place, pointing toward the four winds of heaven."

This is the Diadochi. Well established from every written history. Then there is this:

"The four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power."

Gabriel says it's the Diadochi as they must rise FROM the empire of Alexander. That isn't Rome. Rome did not rise from Greece.

It seems out of place to understand that Greece succeeded the Persians and the Persians succeeded Babylon then read the Diadochi succeeded Greece and just ignore that and claim, "Rome!" The succession from Nebuchadnezzar to the Diadochi and then to the Seleucid ruler Antiochus IV is quite clear and none of it hints at Rome.

On 12/10/2021 at 3:49 PM, adamjedgar said:

3. The kingdoms very much followed the trend of the value vs strength of the metals associated with the statue in Daniel 2 (even down to the kingdoms of mixed iron and clay). You see history tells us that Babylon was an exceedingly rich kingdom...the city shone like gold, it was a glorious city to behold, we also know that Rome was absolutely a kingdom of Iron exactly as shown in the statue. Strangely enough, Rome struggled with its financing for most of its time in power...contrasting the riches of the Babylonian empire.

This is not compelling, nor does it align with the words of Gabriel in Dan 8 and 11.

Dan 11:

"But as soon as he is established, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the authority with which he ruled, because his kingdom will be uprooted and given to others."

It's indisputable this is the Diadochi and not Rome. Dan 11 narrative follows the Seleucid line of kings through Antiochus IV. No Roman empire is in view here.

 

On 12/10/2021 at 3:49 PM, adamjedgar said:

4. when we also compare the statue in Daniel 2 with further revelation given to Daniel in chapters 7 and 8 etc, it is very clear what kingdoms are being represented in Daniel 2. Clearly the fourth is 100% Rome. It might pay for you to move across into new testament study in parallel with Daniel 2 so that you dont get led up the garden path with the statement, Rome isnt mentioned in Daniel 2. That is the same line of thinking that JW's use to say "show me the word trinity in the bible"! Its a deeply flawed argument.

Are you referring to Rev 17:10 and the dispensationalist interpretation?

If you would, align Dan 7 and 8 with Rome. 

It's clear the gold is Babylon. The silver is Medo-Persia. The bronze is Greece. The Iron Kingdom is not named but the others are. I'm not contending the word 'Rome' doesn't appear in Scripture, the connection of Rome to the Iron kingdom does not.

Especially not when Gabriel himself says the successor to Alexander the Great is Egypt, Asia Minor, Macedonia and Mesopotamia and from one of these comes the little horn. The little horn is associated with the Iron Kingdom and arises from one of the Empires that rose after Alexander and ruled his kingdom. That ain't Rome. 

[DeighAnn]

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

"After this, as I watched in my vision in the night, suddenly a fourth beast appeared, and it was terrifying—dreadful and extremely strong—with large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed; then it trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the beasts before it, and it had ten horns."

Daniel 2:32 This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,

Daniel 2:33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.

Daniel 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

Could you help me and correct the mistakes as you see them  so I can see what you are saying.  

1    Gold  His head Babylon  586  BCE
2   Silver His breast Persia  539  BCE
3   Silver  His arms  Medo
4   Brass His belly Greece    332  BCE    I have no problem with these
5   Brass His thighs Seleucid  332 BCE

One is - or WAS when the BOOK was being written
6   Iron  His legs  Roman  141  BCE  Roman

The Other to come
7   Iron and clay His feet   638  AD Muslim  -  THIS IS THE KINGDOM SATAN AND THE FALLEN ANGELS  TAKE OVER 

And when he cometh  a short time
8  Satan and angels cast out 2026

The Lords DAY  -   Satan into perdition

 

Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

All the inhabited lands of the world
 

Revelation 17:10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Revelation 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Revelation 17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Revelation 17:13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.


THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE LORDS DAY

Revelation 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

 

[Diaste]

17 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

One is - or WAS when the BOOK was being written
6   Iron  His legs  Roman  141  BCE  Roman

Why?

If this 'one is' is true it would be either Nero or Domitian depending on when the book was written; 65 AD or 95 AD. That would mean the 7th and 8th would have come long ago and Jesus would also have returned long ago.

I just don't think Rev 17:10 is past, present and future in the space of sentence fragment. 

The whole of Revelation has to happen in either 7 years or 3.5 years. If it's true that 'one is' is Nero or Domitian, then it's all long over including the Millennium, and this is a new earth under a new heaven.

17 hours ago, DeighAnn said:

1    Gold  His head Babylon  586  BCE
2   Silver His breast Persia  539  BCE
3   Silver  His arms  Medo
4   Brass His belly Greece    332  BCE    I have no problem with these
5   Brass His thighs Seleucid  332 BCE

One is - or WAS when the BOOK was being written
6   Iron  His legs  Roman  141  BCE  Roman

The Other to come
7   Iron and clay His feet   638  AD Muslim  -  THIS IS THE KINGDOM SATAN AND THE FALLEN ANGELS  TAKE OVER 

I only see 4 kingdoms. Daniel says, "Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom" Finally... the end. No more kingdoms. The Iron Kingdom is the 4th and that's it. Just the 4. Not 5 or 6 or 8. Four. The Iron Kingdom comes into existence then it wanes or is reconstituted with flaws or mixed with incompatible elements like people, ideology, etc. Just like Daniel says in 2:41-43.

But it never goes away. It crushes the other three but itself endures till the end. This isn't Rome as Rome is dead and gone. 

And if the feet and toes have iron in them then the legs of iron and the iron in the feet should be the same kingdom. 

And if this Iron kingdom was to crush all the others, Islam fits this much better than Rome. Islam swept all across Mesopotamia, across Northern Africa, into Asia Minor and across Southern Europe into Spain; taking over the realms previously held by the Precious Metal Kingdoms. Even Rome retreated from the Parthians and so did not hold Seleucid territory except for the Levant. 

Islam is also the major religion in Mesopotamia, Turkey and Egypt with Greece being mostly Orthodox.

 

[adamjedgar]

I don't see islam working. The final power has to come out of the iron kingdom...it's clear from history that Rome followed Greece. This is an historically proven fact...it must be the correct interpretation.

So, that means the little horn must rise out of the Roman Empire to fit the imagery in the vision

A quick observation...an antichrist is a "wolf in sheep's clothing"...a pretender. 

Islam does not pretend to be Christian...they do not believe in Jesus as Mighty God. Islam I think see their own version of the Abrahamic narrative.. their own version of the chosen people. There is no trickery going on there...it's plainly obvious and not a particularly good effort at deceiving using antichrist (imho).

So this leaves a dilemma...how would a "wolf in sheep's clothing" come out of the Roman Empire?

There is an important characteristic about Greece and particularly Rome, they realised that in order to maintain control, both state and religion were vital...this is how the Papacy got its power, the combining of a pagan state with the christian church...what better way to achieve the "wolf in sheep's clothing" goals than to corrupt the messiahs own message from within his own group of followers...the future Judaces! 

If we look back in history, we hear the term "dark ages". What happened during this time and who was at the helm? Terrible oppression and persecution at the hands of "the church" with the power and blessing of the state...so much so, the pope was like God on earth...he ruled his roost and influenced monarchies everywhere...just look at the crusades! Heretics were killed by the hundreds, thousands...some say millions died at the hand of religious zealots.

This sort of record fits the prophetic writings I think better than Islam...the wolf in sheep's clothing came from Christianity itself!

Many churches claim the "wolf in sheep's clothing" to be manifested through the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't like to point the finger at denominations...I would really prefer a different interpretation...but I honestly think history is against me on this one.

 

[luigi]

The Lord provides us with numerous correlations in His Word so that we may confirm what is being described. In Daniel 8:10 we see the little horn casting some of heavens hosts and its stars to the ground and stomping over them. These stars are then explained as Gods illuminating truth to us (Daniel 8:12), which is through His angels/stars . In Revelation 12:4 we see a similar description where 1/3 of Gods stars are cast to the earth by the dragons tail.

Further corroboration appears in Daniel 7 where the little horn is described as the beasts mouth who speaks great things. We see this same boisterous mouth of the beast who speaks great things in Revelation 13, who is associated with the dragon and the beast. We can then assess that the dragons tail who casts 1/3 of heavens stars to the earth in Revelation 12, is another description for the little horn who casts Gods host/stars, being the Lords truth to the ground in Daniel 8:10 & 12.

 

[Charlie744]

On 12/12/2021 at 4:03 AM, Diaste said:

Like you, I see all of the book of Daniel as interconnected. There are diverse images of the players in the scenario, but this reveals attributes of the same important players throughout. 

So when I see the little horn it's the same little horn throughout. I feel the entire book begins with mysterious prophecy and stunning imagery but progresses into clarity, and continued astonishing imagery, as it moves along. Like you can't understand the end of the book apart from the beginning and the Statue cannot be reconciled without the rest of the book. 

Agreed. Everything must connect and move THROUGH Daniel but the starting point is chapter 2- it defines all the boundaries, kingdoms, etc. They can not change as they continue forward into 7 & 8 - more information is just revealed about them. 

On 12/12/2021 at 4:03 AM, Diaste said:

So then from the whole book and the entire body of evidence the little horn only arises out of the 4 horns that rise from the broken great horn. 

I think there is a major issue here. Nowhere does the ‘little horn’ arise OUT of the 4 horns, and secondly, there are no 4 horns within Greece (there is only ONE great horn that represents Alexander). 

On 12/12/2021 at 4:03 AM, Diaste said:

Thus the goat became very great, but at the height of his power, his large horn was broken off, and four prominent horns came up in its place, pointing toward the four winds of heaven.

9From one of these horns a little horn emerged and grew extensively

Four notable ones are not four horns... and verse 9 is ‘from one of ‘them’ came came a ‘little horn’. 

Four ‘notable ones’ came up toward the four winds of heaven. And out of one of them came the little horn... 

The little horn did not come from out of the ‘four notable ones’, but he came out of the ‘four winds’. Alexander ‘s Kingdom was the one horn which was broken into 4 territories (not kingdoms) and given or taken by the 4 generals. None of which were anything but ‘notable’. They had no relationship with chapter 2- metal type, two legged (conquered the world and would stamp and crush their foes, Rome was brutal. And in a physical or natural view, as they ‘stamped and crushed’ their way among the nations, their feet would not and could not stand the punishment- they began to crack and break down - this meant they would have to bring into their empire the pagans - those they conquered to help control their borders. 

 

 

 

 

On 12/12/2021 at 4:03 AM, Diaste said:

And this is interpreted for us by Gabriel and leaves no doubt:

"The four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power."

They will not have the same power... 

On 12/12/2021 at 4:03 AM, Diaste said:

The next 3 verses after this describe the little horn that arises from one of the four kingdoms that rose from Greece after the death of Alexander. Because of this I propose that whatever comes about as the fulfillment of the prophecy the little comes out of one of the kingdoms.

Again, the interpretations of chapter 8 cannot contradict chapter 2. Greece as a ‘kingdom’ (the 3rd kingdom) regardless of how it ended after the one horn (Alexander) died did end. There is a complete change in metal type, military methods, etc., that identified a new 4th kingdom. Pagan Rome was that 4th kingdom and would continue until they deteriorated and became too weak as they spread out over the world. This became the opportunity for the papal church to gain control and power from pagan Rome. The little horn is the head of this power and must continue to the end of days (which it is certainly doing). 

On 12/12/2021 at 4:03 AM, Diaste said:

If that's a revival of the massive power of that kingdom from which the insolent king rises, or a new kingdom in its own right isn't clear. It's mandatory this little horn rises from Greece, Asia Minor, Egypt or Mesopotamia, however.

 

In the timeline Rome was an entity during the reign of Alexander. But there is a thing I think is missed by many and it's in the description of the 4th beast. We have all read about this beast but a vital point needs discussion.

"After this, as I watched in my vision in the night, suddenly a fourth beast appeared, and it was terrifying—dreadful and extremely strong—with large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed; then it trampled underfoot whatever was left. It was different from all the beasts before it, and it had ten horns."

It was different. I glossed this over for a long time like it didn't matter. But since it's there it should be explored. It's odd to me this statement appears in the first place. This 4th beast is already very different from the first three. So why point out it was different when the description is already visually arresting and quite different from the first three?

Out OF the beast came the 10 horns meaning that they already in existence- in chapter 2 they were the 10 toes. But they came out of the beast or they came to the surface and made themselves known. THEN, ANOTHER little horn came forth that was completely different than the 10. There has been a major or drastic change within the 4th kingdom: began as iron legs (pagan Rome) and controlled the feet of iron and clay (parts of their conquered nations by their military and pagans). They also controlled the 10 separate toes. 

Chapter 8 shows us what happens to these 3 parts of the 4th kingdom- a ‘Stone’ strikes them and breaks apart the iron and the clay into separate components. In chapter 8 this is now seen as a ‘beast’ (all the peoples and nations conquered by pagan Rome meshed together but initially still ruled by pagan Rome). But the 10 toes rise to the surface. Also a completely new power (little horn) comes to the surface AFTER the 10. 

On 12/12/2021 at 4:03 AM, Diaste said:

So I looked into it. I found the political, economic, social and religious characteristics of Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece to be so similar one might think there was no defeat and leadership hadn't changed. Under all three there was religious and economic freedom so long as it wasn't undermining the regime, one could rise from the gutter to the halls of power on merit, and social interactions remained nearly the same in respect to family, gatherings, entertainment and law. 

When I looked at the Roman Empire these societal norms remained about the same. Most striking to me was the amount of religious freedom in all four. None cared what god was worshiped so long as society was not cast into turmoil and the regime wasn't challenged to the point of usurpation. Peace and revenue was the goal and all four kept the peace; and sought to assimilate other lands to build an empire and that all important requirement of any class of ruler; revenue.

So then Rome wasn't different; "shena; alter, change, be diverse" as nothing really changed in the societies. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." the lyric goes. True in this case. So then it's not the Roman Empire. What other empire could fit the description from Dan 7:7?

Another world power came on the scene during the timeline of the Roman Empire, Islam. While Babylon Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome were forms of civil government of secular authority Islam was strictly theocratic. So much so Islam required forced conversion under pain of death, tax or enslavement and broke down and trampled all religious icons, statuary and edifices to any god. We saw this when ISIS was doing this very thing in Iraq and Syria. I saw video of ISIS members jackhammering religious symbols then kicking and stomping on the pieces. 

It's not the entire fulfillment of prophecy but it is a stunning image. 

Is anyone going to argue the Islamic scourge was tame compared to the Roman Empire? You should look it up. Islamic conquests were shockingly brutal. Have you heard of "Tears of Jihad" by Bill Warner? A real eye opener. 

In Islam we have the rise of a kingdom from one of the four kingdoms [Seleucid], a dreadful and terrifying beast that breaks and tramples everything, astoundingly powerful even to the point of driving out the Romans who sought safety in their fortified cities, and a total opposite in leadership ideology. 

Islam fits Dan 7:7 much better than Rome.

Not sure how Titus was a thug. Maybe the Jews should not have rebelled. That's what caused Rome to crush Israel and Jerusalem, not caprice on the part of Vespasian and Titus. Well...rebellion and God's decree, that is.

This is clear as the idea is mentioned 3 times:

1)"Thus the goat became very great, but at the height of his power, his large horn was broken off, and four prominent horns came up in its place, pointing toward the four winds of heaven."

[interpretation]"The four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power." Dan 8

2) "Then a mighty king will arise, who will rule with great authority and do as he pleases. 4But as soon as he is established, his kingdom will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the authority with which he ruled, because his kingdom will be uprooted and given to others." Dan 11

There is an allusion to the above in Dan 7 and I count that as another mention of the same idea. I don't think difficult to see though it is bit more subtle than Dan 8 and 11.

The little horn is after Rome. It comes to power in the latter part of the 4 kingdoms after Alexander. 

"In the latter part of their reign," has as the direct antecedent, "the four horns that replaced the broken one represent four kingdoms that will rise from that nation, but will not have the same power."

I don't see Rome. If it was Rome, then maybe. But it's not so, no.

I think it's quite clear the most viable candidate for the Iron kingdom and 4th beast and little horn is Islam. In fact, it can be argued that the toes of the statue represent what we see happening in the world now with the pseudo integration of Muslims in every country.

They show up, move in, increase the size of the community and then remain apart from greater society. They don't join in with the society in which they live. Just like clay doesn't mix with iron. This is a telling feature of their migration into all societies. It's an extension of the legs and feet of iron. Rome isn't doing this as Rome is dead and gone. Islam and the Muslim faith is deeply engaged in living among but not sticking; evidenced by their demands society change to fit their requirements carving out territory and enforcing their own ideology and laws. In Mpls, MN the Muslim community has Sharia police. In the UK the authorities won't venture into Muslim enclaves. This is terrifyingly true and widespread to the point Japan bans Muslim immigration. I would imagine it's the same reason Hungary and Poland refuse Middle Eastern immigration as well. 

Not Rome. Can't stress this enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JoeCanada]

@Charlie744 @Diaste @luigi @adamjedgar @DeighAnn @The Light @Marilyn C

I have with great interest read these 7 pages and I find it interesting that all the responders repeat the same, well, what I call a mistake. I'm not sure how far back this goes.....I'm guessing maybe a century or more. I'm only guessing as I really don't know.

It all has to do with Alexander the Great and what followed after his death.

I think that everyone here mentioned, all follow thru with the story (I can't call it a fact, though there are some who do) that after his death, his kingdom was divided into 4....Dan 8:8

After Alexanders death, there were about two dozen generals and mercenaries battling for control. This eventually, after some 50 years, 3 main dynasties emerged.... though even here, there is some discrepancy as to who they were. 

Scripture says, in Daniel 8:8..... "that the goat magnified himself  exceedingly, but as soon as he was mighty, the large horn was broken, and in its place there came up four conspicuous horns toward the four winds of heaven"

So the question (s).... 

What sort of time frame is allotted to the coming up of four horns? Is it right away?

Since the results of the wars between all his generals.....there were only 3 conspicuous (notable) dynasties that remained for a considerable length of time, (150 years) how does this work with scripture that states there were four? Does a fourth for a very short time count? Are not the final 3 the most significant since they remained for a century and a half?

How does all this work with the interpretation by the Angel Gabriel in Dan 8:17-19, where Gabriel say THREE TIMES.... "The vision pertains to the time of the end, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation, for it pertains to the appointed time of the end"....THREE TIMES he states it's at the time of the end?????????

Why is this interpretation by Gabriel ignored?

 I have more questions, but this will do for now. 

Here is some evidence for the 3 dynasties after Alexanders death:

With the death of Seleucus the Diadochi Wars came to an end. Alexander’s empire was split in three – Macedonia, Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire, which briefly held most of the area that had made up the Persian Empire in the years before Alexander’s invasion. After a period of frequent and dramatic changes, these three states would now gain a certain amount of permanence, and would form the basis of the Hellenistic World for the next century and a half.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_diadochi.html

 

Diadochi: The Founders Of The Three Great Dynasties

As we saw, the three great dynasties that emerged after Alexander’s death were the Ptolemies, the Seleucids, and the Antigonids. The first two were established by the original Diadochi who had served in Alexander’s army. Only the Antigonids were established by Antigonus II Gonatas, the grandson of the original Diadochos, Antigonus I Monophthalmos.

http://turningpointsoftheancientworld.com/index.php/category/wars-of-the-diadochi/

Finally, nearly fifty years after the death of Alexander, relatively stable dynasties ruled Alexander's kingdom. The Ptolemies ruled Egypt and Southern Judea until the Age of Cleopatra, the Attalids ruled in Asia Minor, became allies of Rome and eventually voluntarily became a Roman province, and the Seleucid Dynasty, ruled much of the old Persian empire until being gradually conquered by the Parthians in the East, and Rome in the west.

https://www.heritage-history.com/index.php?c=resources&s=war-dir&f=wars_diadochi

By 276 BC, there were just 3 Diadochi Dynasties left, their territories roughly divided between the three continents that the Empire straddled: the Antigonids in Europe; the Seleucids in Asia; and the Ptolemies in Egypt (see map 4 - 276 BC). These three kingdoms gradually stabilized themselves and would remain ruled by the same dynasties for another couple of centuries.................... http://explorethemed.com/diadochi.asp?c=1

https://medium.com/exploring-history/the-cast-of-alexander-the-greats-sequel-the-diadochi-5bacaab33220

[Marilyn C]

• Joe Canada said -

How does all this work with the interpretation by the Angel Gabriel in Dan 8:17-19, where Gabriel say THREE TIMES.... "The vision pertains to the time of the end, I am going to let you know what will occur at the final period of the indignation, for it pertains to the appointed time of the end"....THREE TIMES he states it's at the time of the end?????????

Why is this interpretation by Gabriel ignored?

 

Hi Joe, who is ignoring it?

 

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.  

Marilyn.