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

[adamjedgar]

8 minutes ago, Marilyn C said:

The A/C is not called European, the King of the West, the King of Rome.

God`s word says the A/C is Assyrian, King of the North and King of Babylon.

Where does it state Assyrian?

Where in history can you find evidence in support of such a statement? The king of the North would still fit the Rome area anyway.

 

I dont know if you realise this or not, however, latitude cooordinate for the empire of the A/C in Johns visions in Revelation was to the North...in Constantinople Turkey! The Roman Emperor Constantine made it his capital and this is regarded by many scholars as the time of the prophecy in Revelation regarding the little horn!

 

Turkey is due north of Israel...I can post an image of a map if you like?

Edited December 19, 2021 by adamjedgar

[Marilyn C]

1 hour ago, adamjedgar said:

Where does it state Assyrian?

Where in history can you find evidence in support of such a statement? The king of the North would still fit the Rome area anyway.

 

I dont know if you realise this or not, however, latitude cooordinate for the empire of the A/C in Johns visions in Revelation was to the North...in Constantinople Turkey! The Roman Emperor Constantine made it his capital and this is regarded by many scholars as the time of the prophecy in Revelation regarding the little horn!

 

Turkey is due north of Israel...I can post an image of a map if you like?

Assyrian - (Isa. 31: 8)

King of the North. (Dan. 11: 40) The legacy of Alexander the Great - the Seleucid dynasty identified as Assyria, the king of the North.

 

[Charlie744]

2 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

Actually i dispute that...I would argue that is not in fact true. Most scholars agree that Antiochus Epiphanes was well and truly on the declining end of the Seleucid kingdom...so much so that he in reality could not possibly fulfill all of the prophecy. The truth (which history proves) shows that Antiochus failed in almost everything he did during his reign..the ultimate embarrasment was at the hands of a single Roman politician in Egypt 

Popilius drew a circle in the sand around the king's feet with the stick he was carrying and said, "Before you step out of that circle give me a reply to lay before the senate." For a few moments he [Antiochus] hesitated, astounded at such a peremptory order, and at last replied, "I will do what the senate thinks right."

 

Having said that, i do agree that AE fulfilled at least part of the prophecy (the defilement of Gods Holy Places) which took place soon after the fiasco in Egypt. 

 

My personal belief is that the reign of the "Seleucid kingdom" (of which AE was but one leader) does fulfill Daniel 8. The kingdom was actually at its greatest before his time under the leadership of Antiochus the Great in 200BC (Antiochus III)...approx 3 million sq kilometers.

 

People must stop placing specific leaders names onto the statue in Daniel chapter 2...the statue is not about specific leaders, it is about kingdoms that are to come. If it were about leaders, then future kingdoms would all be over and done with in barely 4 generations...that did not even reach down to the time of Christ, so its not possible to be the correct way to view these visions!

Chapter 2 is meant to establish the 4 kingdoms. They are fixed and there is no movement between each kingdom other than they conquer the one above it. Each kingdom certainly has its own purpose within God's Plan and there are actors that can be identified within each kingdom and their part is only within that kingdom.

Now that the 4 kingdoms have been identified in 2, then God will establish or provide an understanding of the characteristics (military / power / conquering) for each of the 4. And specifically regarding the 3rd kingdom, there can be no doubt for a few reasons, the most definitive is we are told it is Greece by Gabriel.

        a) In 7, Greece is depicted as a powerful leopard - not as powerful as a lion,

        b) It is shown with 4 wings - not the wings of an eagle, but revealing how quick he could strike and he would conquer all 4 corners of the world. Notice the four wings are mentioned before any discussion of the four heads. The Greek kingdom would swiftly conquer all four corners of the world.

       c) It is then shown with 4 heads which are symbols of power and this represents the breaking of Alexander's kingdom into 4 territories (which have already been conquered / established by th 4 wings symbol).

       d) Also, the 4 generals under Alexander took the reign over the four areas AT THE SAME TIME. They were contemporary powers and despite their conflicts between themselves, they or one of the them (most powerful or successful) NEVER succeeded to create or establish a 4th kingdom. Again, if we obey the boundaries in chapter 2, all of these conflicts / events took place WITHIN the physical boundaries and restrictions of the thighs / belly of bronze. This is somewhat like the continued rulers / kings and conflicts that took place AFTER Cyrus in the 2nd kingdom but all stayed within their own boundaries and restrictions. 

      e) If we move over to chapter 8, there is a change in the focus from describing or providing the characteristics for each KINGDOM to the characteristics associated with the KINGS. Regarding the 3rd king, the goat (Alexander) is shown with ONE horn, not any reference whatsoever to the 4 heads of the leopard (the heads are NOT HORNS but powers) which does not transfer to chapter 8's focus point. 

     f) The focus in chapter 8 is on KINGS and this 'little horn' will NOT come out of the 4 NOTABLE ONES (8:8) but instead it will come out of the 4 WINDS OF HEAVEN.

    g) There is or should not be any argument that pagan Rome conquered Greece. 

    h) The 10 horns came up OUT OF THE BEAST, meaning they existed before the 'little horn' arose OUT OF THE BEAST. The 'little horn' was not one of the 10 but was unlike the 10 in that it had eyes, etc., - it was a MAN. 

           1) the 'beast' was the kingdom that was the 2 iron legs and feet (iron and clay and toes) identified in chapter 2 (none of these actors trickled down or moved down FROM the 3rd kingdom. Chapter 2 established 4 separate KINGDOMS, chapter 7 described their characteristics (can not add another kingdom to the 4 or move actors between each kingdom - other than the SUCCEEDING KINGDOM CONQUERS THE EARLIER KINGDOM), and chapter 8 speaks to identity of each KING - pagan Rome was not ruled by a king... BUT there is a perfect reason why God inserted the word 'little' in 'little king'...... And this 'little king' would come to be the papacy or the pope who would THINK to represent God on earth. However, there is ONLY ONE KING IN THE 4TH KINGDOM - THE STONE (GOD WHOSE KINGDOM WILL NEVER END). But Daniel is really not a historical book as everyone believes. The 4th kingdom is where EVERYTHING important happens - look for the Messiah and HIs Plan of Salvation in the 4th kingdom and throw away your history books.

Just my opinion, Charlie

 

[Diaste]

14 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

If you were to recall your history...https://romecorruptedchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/a-time-when-the-bible-was-banned-and-burned/

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies [shall lie] in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.  And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth. And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them and  they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

I don't think the attributes in bold above can be likened to a book. No matter how one would try books don't have bodies, feet or ears.

[Diaste]

4 hours ago, Marilyn C said:

Assyrian - (Isa. 31: 8)

King of the North. (Dan. 11: 40) The legacy of Alexander the Great - the Seleucid dynasty identified as Assyria, the king of the North.

 

Quite right. I just don't get the strict adherence, by some, to Rome as an end time player. I can't find Rome anywhere, and I have looked. 

I do think much of Daniel 11 came to pass in the Wars of the Successors. I read quite a few articles chronicling those Wars and one can see many parallels in Dan 11.

An interesting parallel is when Rome arrived in Egypt to confront Antiochus IV and turn him back from his intent to conquer Alexandria. That seems to be the ships of the west confronting the King of the North from Dan 11:29-31. It did happen just as spoken.

[adamjedgar]

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

Quite right. I just don't get the strict adherence, by some, to Rome as an end time player. I can't find Rome anywhere, and I have looked. 

I do think much of Daniel 11 came to pass in the Wars of the Successors. I read quite a few articles chronicling those Wars and one can see many parallels in Dan 11.

An interesting parallel is when Rome arrived in Egypt to confront Antiochus IV and turn him back from his intent to conquer Alexandria. That seems to be the ships of the west confronting the King of the North from Dan 11:29-31. It did happen just as spoken.

Would you mind just explaining to us, where is Constantinople in relation to Israel...west, east north or south?

[Reinitin]

12 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

there are fundamental reasons why it is not Islam...and why it cannot be Islam. Already discussed this in the past. There is good reason (and history supports this too) as to why the little horn can only come from the 4 specific kingdoms from Daniel 2 (these are historically proven to be Babylon, Medo Persia, Greece, and Rome).

To help with the issue over Rome, might i suggest that one reflects on the "Dark Ages" where under the direction of the Roman Catholic church, millions of bibles were burned (as well as thousands of apparent heretics who owned them) and approx 10% of the population were able to read. The combination of church and state that resulted in this power welding by Catholocism only came from the pagan Roman empire. That is where the two natures of this vision come from...pagan Rome and papal Rome!

Islam has issues, however, realistically it is of no significance to the narrative or prophecies concerning the history of the powers of the end times. If one is going down the pathway of Islam, very soon down that pathway Communism pops up... proponents arguing Communism is the little horn. Trouble is, Islam and Communism are fundamentally opposed for obvious reasons! We are then left with a bigger hole than before...who is it, communism or Islam? The reality is, almost no one takes any notice of an Islamic leader when it comes to economics and religious guidance...western society generally views it as nothing more than a thorn in our sides. The Pope on the other hand, now he has huge world wide influence in almost every corner of the globe and essentially this has been the case for hundreds of years 

The key to the little horn is found in its nature..."wolf in sheeps clothing". As i have said before, historically there is no secret about the aim of Islam. It has never professed to be Christian...no trickery going on there. The little horn comes out of the Christian church...and what better way to fool the nations than pretend to be something you are not...to infiltrate the very Gospel of Christianity with false doctrines etc! 

also, the Seleucid kingdom is part of the Macedonian/Greek empire...The bible is ver yclear on this...it is self evident and does not need an enlightened mind to understand this when compared with world history. I do not understand why it is that proponents of the Antiochus Epiphanes theory continue to completely ignore that historical fact! 

No the idea of the little horn is 100% Greeko-Roman in origin..i say Greeko-Roman because i believe the little horn found in Daniel 7 and 8 and Revelation 13 are not a person...but they most certainly are the same philosophical entity. 

I find strong evidence for this because:

1. Daniel says in Chapter 8 - 1In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar, a vision appeared to me, Daniel, subsequent to the one that had appeared to me earlier.

2. the nature of the little horn in all 3 visions is identical...it seeks to do exactly the same thing in all three visions...clearly its purpose is the same, therefore it is the same entity! (to be honest that is pretty self evident)

 

Finally, a human drawing of the statue in Daniel 2 standing with one foot in one place, and a second foot in another place, and toes pointing to locations on a map, there is absolutely no evidence in the Daniel vision for this model. One thing that has to be understood about academia, it does not need to provide truth or error rather, its goal is to simply provide evidence to support a point of view. What this means is that there is in fact no right or wrong answer in academia, only what the evidence provided can support! So in this case, that is nothing more than artistic license based on flawed base theory...it is not biblical fact nor is it logically and, more importantly, consistently supported by the historical evidence.

 

I believe that there are huge flaws in that theory that end up contradicting scripture and require explaining away of bible truths in order to make it fit! The worst of it is that we are then left with enormous holes in theology that cannot be explained...the answer then becomes "we just dont know enough yet to explain that". Where have we heard that statement before? Evolutionary science in it efforts to explain where the energy and matter came from that started the big bang! (they actually dont know yet)

I think the professor i had at the Dallas Theological Seminary knew his Bible and Greek history and he contributed to the Greek and Arabic and is credited as a translator for the Holman Christians Standard.

I don't have much interest and have not had much revelation on eschatology.

But he presented a sound teaching on the little horn that included Dan 2 and 7. Rome didn't, fall fast it took 13 to 1400 years. Parts of the empires like Babylon and 4 other empires mentioned in last day prophesie were never conquered by Rome but Islam swept through this whole area.

He presented alot of text from the other prophets in the old Testament and New. Not just a map. He said he doesn't know for sure but Islam fits the modles more then Rome. 

If my study on this was fresh I could probably make a strong scriptual debate against your speculations, but its not. At the time the evidence presented was biblical and historically accurate. He had a whole university of young theologians That took his classes holding him to accountability LOL

[Reinitin]

13 hours ago, adamjedgar said:

there are fundamental reasons why it is not Islam...and why it cannot be Islam. Already discussed this in the past. There is good reason (and history supports this too) as to why the little horn can only come from the 4 specific kingdoms from Daniel 2 (these are historically proven to be Babylon, Medo Persia, Greece, and Rome).

To help with the issue over Rome, might i suggest that one reflects on the "Dark Ages" where under the direction of the Roman Catholic church, millions of bibles were burned (as well as thousands of apparent heretics who owned them) and approx 10% of the population were able to read. The combination of church and state that resulted in this power welding by Catholocism only came from the pagan Roman empire. That is where the two natures of this vision come from...pagan Rome and papal Rome!

Islam has issues, however, realistically it is of no significance to the narrative or prophecies concerning the history of the powers of the end times. If one is going down the pathway of Islam, very soon down that pathway Communism pops up... proponents arguing Communism is the little horn. Trouble is, Islam and Communism are fundamentally opposed for obvious reasons! We are then left with a bigger hole than before...who is it, communism or Islam? The reality is, almost no one takes any notice of an Islamic leader when it comes to economics and religious guidance...western society generally views it as nothing more than a thorn in our sides. The Pope on the other hand, now he has huge world wide influence in almost every corner of the globe and essentially this has been the case for hundreds of years 

The key to the little horn is found in its nature..."wolf in sheeps clothing". As i have said before, historically there is no secret about the aim of Islam. It has never professed to be Christian...no trickery going on there. The little horn comes out of the Christian church...and what better way to fool the nations than pretend to be something you are not...to infiltrate the very Gospel of Christianity with false doctrines etc! 

also, the Seleucid kingdom is part of the Macedonian/Greek empire...The bible is ver yclear on this...it is self evident and does not need an enlightened mind to understand this when compared with world history. I do not understand why it is that proponents of the Antiochus Epiphanes theory continue to completely ignore that historical fact! 

No the idea of the little horn is 100% Greeko-Roman in origin..i say Greeko-Roman because i believe the little horn found in Daniel 7 and 8 and Revelation 13 are not a person...but they most certainly are the same philosophical entity. 

I find strong evidence for this because:

1. Daniel says in Chapter 8 - 1In the third year of the reign of King Belshazzar, a vision appeared to me, Daniel, subsequent to the one that had appeared to me earlier.

2. the nature of the little horn in all 3 visions is identical...it seeks to do exactly the same thing in all three visions...clearly its purpose is the same, therefore it is the same entity! (to be honest that is pretty self evident)

 

Finally, a human drawing of the statue in Daniel 2 standing with one foot in one place, and a second foot in another place, and toes pointing to locations on a map, there is absolutely no evidence in the Daniel vision for this model. One thing that has to be understood about academia, it does not need to provide truth or error rather, its goal is to simply provide evidence to support a point of view. What this means is that there is in fact no right or wrong answer in academia, only what the evidence provided can support! So in this case, that is nothing more than artistic license based on flawed base theory...it is not biblical fact nor is it logically and, more importantly, consistently supported by the historical evidence.

 

I believe that there are huge flaws in that theory that end up contradicting scripture and require explaining away of bible truths in order to make it fit! The worst of it is that we are then left with enormous holes in theology that cannot be explained...the answer then becomes "we just dont know enough yet to explain that". Where have we heard that statement before? Evolutionary science in it efforts to explain where the energy and matter came from that started the big bang! (they actually dont know yet)

Dang after thoughts:) 

1. People like Miller who used the 2300 in Dan to predict the coming of Christ make errors because they come up with some crazy theory from a verse instead of studying everything the Bible has to say about a prophetic event or person. They get a theory first then use the Bible to prove it instead of letting The Word and the Holy Spirit reveal to them knowledge about a mystery and form their opinions though open to recieve learning from God with out bias to the outcome.

2. The other common mistake we see  through history of theologians with great errors of prophetic prediction is applying the prophecies to their time, events and part of the world they have knowledge of.

Prophecy comes through one group of people in one part of the world that God has revealed His plan to over a 5000 year span of time. We see nations rise and fall but it doesn't mean the prophetic fulfillment of that final battle between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan will be in our time.

Personally I think we are close but Peter did too. 

[JoeCanada]

7 hours ago, Charlie744 said:

Chapter 2 is meant to establish the 4 kingdoms. They are fixed and there is no movement between each kingdom other than they conquer the one above it. Each kingdom certainly has its own purpose within God's Plan and there are actors that can be identified within each kingdom and their part is only within that kingdom.

Now that the 4 kingdoms have been identified in 2, then God will establish or provide an understanding of the characteristics (military / power / conquering) for each of the 4. And specifically regarding the 3rd kingdom, there can be no doubt for a few reasons, the most definitive is we are told it is Greece by Gabriel.

        a) In 7, Greece is depicted as a powerful leopard - not as powerful as a lion,

        b) It is shown with 4 wings - not the wings of an eagle, but revealing how quick he could strike and he would conquer all 4 corners of the world. Notice the four wings are mentioned before any discussion of the four heads. The Greek kingdom would swiftly conquer all four corners of the world.

       c) It is then shown with 4 heads which are symbols of power and this represents the breaking of Alexander's kingdom into 4 territories (which have already been conquered / established by th 4 wings symbol).

       d) Also, the 4 generals under Alexander took the reign over the four areas AT THE SAME TIME. They were contemporary powers and despite their conflicts between themselves, they or one of the them (most powerful or successful) NEVER succeeded to create or establish a 4th kingdom. Again, if we obey the boundaries in chapter 2, all of these conflicts / events took place WITHIN the physical boundaries and restrictions of the thighs / belly of bronze. This is somewhat like the continued rulers / kings and conflicts that took place AFTER Cyrus in the 2nd kingdom but all stayed within their own boundaries and restrictions. 

      e) If we move over to chapter 8, there is a change in the focus from describing or providing the characteristics for each KINGDOM to the characteristics associated with the KINGS. Regarding the 3rd king, the goat (Alexander) is shown with ONE horn, not any reference whatsoever to the 4 heads of the leopard (the heads are NOT HORNS but powers) which does not transfer to chapter 8's focus point. 

     f) The focus in chapter 8 is on KINGS and this 'little horn' will NOT come out of the 4 NOTABLE ONES (8:8) but instead it will come out of the 4 WINDS OF HEAVEN.

    g) There is or should not be any argument that pagan Rome conquered Greece. 

    h) The 10 horns came up OUT OF THE BEAST, meaning they existed before the 'little horn' arose OUT OF THE BEAST. The 'little horn' was not one of the 10 but was unlike the 10 in that it had eyes, etc., - it was a MAN. 

           1) the 'beast' was the kingdom that was the 2 iron legs and feet (iron and clay and toes) identified in chapter 2 (none of these actors trickled down or moved down FROM the 3rd kingdom. Chapter 2 established 4 separate KINGDOMS, chapter 7 described their characteristics (can not add another kingdom to the 4 or move actors between each kingdom - other than the SUCCEEDING KINGDOM CONQUERS THE EARLIER KINGDOM), and chapter 8 speaks to identity of each KING - pagan Rome was not ruled by a king... BUT there is a perfect reason why God inserted the word 'little' in 'little king'...... And this 'little king' would come to be the papacy or the pope who would THINK to represent God on earth. However, there is ONLY ONE KING IN THE 4TH KINGDOM - THE STONE (GOD WHOSE KINGDOM WILL NEVER END). But Daniel is really not a historical book as everyone believes. The 4th kingdom is where EVERYTHING important happens - look for the Messiah and HIs Plan of Salvation in the 4th kingdom and throw away your history books.

Just my opinion, Charlie

 

Hi Charlie,

There is a notable problem with equating Alexander to the shaggy goat in Daniel 8:21.

" The shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king...."

Alexander the 111 of Macedonia, he was the 111 Alexander, and he was not the FIRST king, he was the 23 king.

The first king will die and his empire will be split into four. Scripture is very specific..... "first king"...."split into 4"

I have stated numerous times that the outcome of the Wars of the Diadochi was 3 empires. And these 3 empires were significant and they remained for close to two hundred years. There were actually two that were dominant, the Seleucids and Ptolemy. It is only in the writings of theologians where we see the kingdom broken up into 4. Even then, there is disagreement on who the fourth one was. 

Then there is the problem of Antiochus Epiphanes.... King of the Seleucid Empire, and equating him to the little horn.

AE did not cause some of the stars of heaven (angels) to fall to the earth... Dan 8:6

AE didn't magnify himself to be equal to the Prince of Princes and oppose Him, as Jesus was not born for another 160 years....Dan 8:11.... How could he have known about Jesus?

AE did not destroy mighty men and the holy people...Dan 8:24.... Yes, he did persecute the Jews, but he never conquered the Egyptians, and he backed down and turned away from the Romans. He was quite ineffective as a military leader.

AE was not broken without human agency...Dan 8:25... he was defeated by the Maccabees, some say he got sick and died, others say he was defeated by hostile tribesmen.

Prophecy tells us that the little horn will arise when the four nations reaches its end, when the transgressors have run their course...Dab 8:23...as well the angel Gabriel tells us three times that the vision pertains to the end of time...Dan 8:17,19............ Antiochus reigned around 160 BC but the Diadochi continued their reign for another 100 years until the Romans finally acquired the territory.

Almost every book written on Daniel in the first two millennia is flawed. Why do I say that? It's because the book of Daniel was sealed.... and it is only being unsealed since the start of this millennia. We still see thru a glass darky, but  scripture is being opened up more and more. We just have to keep digging.

If some piece of the puzzle doesn't quite fit, getting a bigger hammer won't help. 

Everything has to line up exactly with scripture. 

 

 

 

 

[Reinitin]

27 minutes ago, JoeCanada said:

Hi Charlie,

There is a notable problem with equating Alexander to the shaggy goat in Daniel 8:21.

" The shaggy goat represents the kingdom of Greece, and the large horn that is between his eyes is the first king...."

Alexander the 111 of Macedonia, he was the 111 Alexander, and he was not the FIRST king, he was the 23 king.

The first king will die and his empire will be split into four. Scripture is very specific..... "first king"...."split into 4"

I have stated numerous times that the outcome of the Wars of the Diadochi was 3 empires. And these 3 empires were significant and they remained for close to two hundred years. There were actually two that were dominant, the Seleucids and Ptolemy. It is only in the writings of theologians where we see the kingdom broken up into 4. Even then, there is disagreement on who the fourth one was. 

Then there is the problem of Antiochus Epiphanes.... King of the Seleucid Empire, and equating him to the little horn.

AE did not cause some of the stars of heaven (angels) to fall to the earth... Dan 8:6

AE didn't magnify himself to be equal to the Prince of Princes and oppose Him, as Jesus was not born for another 160 years....Dan 8:11.... How could he have known about Jesus?

AE did not destroy mighty men and the holy people...Dan 8:24.... Yes, he did persecute the Jews, but he never conquered the Egyptians, and he backed down and turned away from the Romans. He was quite ineffective as a military leader.

AE was not broken without human agency...Dan 8:25... he was defeated by the Maccabees, some say he got sick and died, others say he was defeated by hostile tribesmen.

Prophecy tells us that the little horn will arise when the four nations reaches its end, when the transgressors have run their course...Dab 8:23...as well the angel Gabriel tells us three times that the vision pertains to the end of time...Dan 8:17,19............ Antiochus reigned around 160 BC but the Diadochi continued their reign for another 100 years until the Romans finally acquired the territory.

Almost every book written on Daniel in the first two millennia is flawed. Why do I say that? It's because the book of Daniel was sealed.... and it is only being unsealed since the start of this millennia. We still see thru a glass darky, but  scripture is being opened up more and more. We just have to keep digging.

If some piece of the puzzle doesn't quite fit, getting a bigger hammer won't help. 

Everything has to line up exactly with scripture. 

 

 

 

 

Cassander, Ptolemy, Antigonus, and Seleucus (known as the Diadochi or 'successors')?

I even know who the fourth is and I only took one course in Macedonia history.

Who are your scholars?

Look them up. 

the Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt, the Seleucid Empire, the Attalid Dynasty of the Kingdom of Pergamon, and Macedon. 

Pergamon is where Satan's Throne is according to Jesus.. a lot of theologians speculate it's where The anti Christ (little horn) will come from. 

Others say its the alter of Zeus and Hitler disassembled and moved to Germany.

Or Russia who made a duplicate of Zeus alter to empower their anti christ.

I wish I had y'all's hunger to study all this. I studied in the 90's from books before world history was on the internet. I bet there is so much new information to dig through.

Edited December 19, 2021 by Reinitin