The aftermath

[JawgeFromJawja]

I think you would agree that false doctrines and false beliefs come from only one source, but that doesn't mean that the people holding them are of the Devil. Martin Luther, a great hero of mine, obviously held some false teachings that were of Satan but Luther himself was unquestionably a man of God. There's probably not a single person on earth who doesn't hold some false beliefs. We're all learning.

And no, Satan is definitely not stronger than God. Not even close.

Are you familiar with that old anecdote about Luther and the Devil? On one occasion while working at his desk, Luther felt the presence of Satan so strongly that he threw the ink pot at him. Must've caused quite a mess.

Jawge

[John317]

]I still have a lot of the reading crutches around. I am still using them frequently, but not nearly so much as of yore.

I know what you mean. A few years ago, I started making a list of the archaic words in the KJV. My idea was to eventually make a book of them, along with the modern English word. But I stopped doing it somewhere in Deuteronomy. The reason I stopped is that I doubt many people would use such a book because there are already quite a few helps, and some of these helps are in the text of many editions of the King James Version. One of them is called The Sword KJV. It's a wonderful little Bible. Another is the KJV Open Bible.

[John317]

....Are you familiar with that old anecdote about Luther and the Devil? On one occasion while working at his desk, Luther felt the presence of Satan so strongly that he threw the ink pot at him. Must've caused quite a mess.

Yes, I do remember reading about that. Maybe that ink pot was almost empty. Even a full one wouldn't have made any impression on the Devil, but it does show how completely aware Luther was of the battle, and how real it was for him.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Newton was a loner, suspicious to the point of paranoia, and during several periods of his life almost certainly psychotic. There has been much speculation about causes of his episodic insanity: he has been said to have bipolar disorder, mercury poisoning (from his alchemical experiments and dabbling), and chronic schizophrenia. There is more - much more. Newton's opinions outside physics and math should be taken with caution.

Wow,JawgeFromJawja, you make it appear almost miraculous that the man was such a brilliant scientist and accomplished so much. Based on what you say here, it would seem that if he lived today, he'd be in a mental hospital or at the very least under some pretty serious psychological and medical therapy.

But what's important here is that everything Newton wrote concerning Antiochus IV is founded on sound reasoning in regard to valid historical and biblical evidence. No one is accepting his views simply because of his name and without looking closely at the reason he said what he did. I trust that this will become plain as we continue with our discussion.

Based on Scripture and history, and (Shriek!!!!!) teachings of Desmond Ford, it is impossible for me to see Daniel 8 as referring to any man or entity other than Antiochus IV Epi. However, John, this is an independent and personal view of mine. I have alluded to my exposures to Adventism from age 10, with stronger and more organized exposure from 1959 when I married. Desmond Ford's challenges were in the early 1980's. I have looked at Newton's reasoning about Daniel 8. It seems anything but sound to me.

Don't get me wrong. Newton is one of my top 100 heroes. There were so many true heroes that a shorter list is impossible for me. The way I see it, Newton had a handicap for which he more than compensated. But his expertise was in physics and math. He was no more qualified in theology or Bible scholarship than you and I.

For what it's worth, some of my heroes follow. Jesus belongs to a class Himself, so He transcends my list.

Saint Paul of Tarsus

Judas Maccabees

Sir Thomas More ( with qualifications - he was personally

instrumental in torture and burning of Christians)

Copernicus

Michael Servetus (The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for)

William Harvey

Newton

Galileo

Columbus (with qualifications. But what a persistent cuss!)

Jefferson

Benjamin Franklin

Abraham Lincoln

Socrates

Hippocrates

George Washington

Darwin (Shriek!) No qualifications. It took courage, guts

if you will, for Darwin to do his research,

laboriously compile his notes, and to fly

in the face of conventional wisdom (which is

rarely any too wise.)

Freud (with qualifications. Carl Gustav Jung

contributed far more than Siegmund,

who had a better press.)

Carl Gustav Jung

Henry David Thoreau

Tolstoy

Air Chief Marshall Lord Dowding His World War II heroism is

eclipsed by his post war work with which few

are familiar, and even fewer feel to be

meaningful.

And so many others. A list of 100? For me it would be a list

of thousands, many of them mavericks and all

too many martyrs.

My favorite maverick of all? Easy. Jesus Christ.

Jawge

[John317]

Based on Scripture and history, and (Shriek!!!!!) teachings of Desmond Ford, it is impossible for me to see Daniel 8 as referring to any man or entity other than Antiochus IV Epi.

But we haven't even looked at all the evidence yet. In fact, we've only just begun to look at it.

Have you read Desmond Ford's commentary on the book of Daniel? In that book, he makes a very strong case that the little horn could not be Antiochus IV. Desmond Ford held and taught that view most of his life. It would be good to compare Desmond Ford's original views with Ford's "new" views about the identity of the little horn.

There are about 14 identifying marks that God has given to us in order to know who this power is. I will present what I believe those marks to be, and I would ask that you study them and tell me if you agree with them, or if you believe there are additional or different identifying marks of this power. If you believe some of these that I've listed do not apply to the little horn power, let me know. You might make up your own list according to what you believe the Bible teaches. We can then study these together.

1) The little horn comes up among the ten divisions of the Roman Empire, placing it geographically in western Europe. (Daniel 7: 8)

2) The little horn came up AFTER the ten arose, because it came up "among them."

3) Third, the prophecy says the little horn would uproot three of the ten as it came to power. Daniel 7: 8.

4) The little horn would have "eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things."

5) The little horn "shall be diverse [different] from the first [horns]" Daniel 7: 24. That is to say, it would be a different kind of power than the first horns that arose.

6) "And he shall speak great words against the Most High." Another verse says, "speaking great things and blasphemies" (Daniel 7: 25; Rev. 13: 5,6; compare John 10: 30-33 & Mark 2:7).

7) It will wear out the saints of the Most High. (Daniel 7:25; Rev. 13: 7)

8) It will attempt to change the divine law (Daniel 7: 25).

9) It will exercise its power over all kindreds and tongues and nations (Rev. 13:7).

10) The dragon would give his power, his seat, and his great authority to this beast (little horn power). Rev. 13: 2

11) It was to continue in world domination for a period of 1260 years (Rev. 13: 5; 12:14; 12: 6; Daniel 7: 25).

12) It would receive a mortal wound (Rev. 13: 3).

13) It would amaze the whole world, because its deadly would be would healed (Rev. 13: 3).

14) The little horn power is also known as "the man of sin," or the "lawless one," in 2 Thess. 2: 8. This power will be destroyed at the Second Coming of Christ. (Daniel 8: 25)

[John317]

... Newton is one of my top 100 heroes. There were so many true heroes that a shorter list is impossible for me. The way I see it, Newton had a handicap for which he more than compensated. But his expertise was in physics and math. He was no more qualified in theology or Bible scholarship than you and I.

I would never ask you to believe something simply because someone said it's true. That was not my reason for quoting Newton. My reason for quoting Newton was simply point out the reasons he gave as to why Antichus IV is not the little horn power of Daniel 8. But the Bible itself, when compared to history, must be the final authority in determining the identity of the little horn.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

For what it's worth, some of my heroes follow. Jesus belongs to a class Himself, so He transcends my list.

Saint Paul of Tarsus

I certainly agree with these two.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Judas Maccabees

Sir Thomas More ( with qualifications - he was personally

instrumental in torture and burning of Christians)

Copernicus

Michael Servetus (The Catholic Church has a lot to answer for)

A protestant, John Calvin, was responsible for Servetus' death, not the Roman Catholic Church.

I agree with you about Copernicus. (He was also one of Marx's primary heroes.)

I found out not too long ago that I'm a descendent of Thomas More, and that many of my ancestors were Catholics in England, but I wouldn't put him on my list of heroes, although I do consider him a great man.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

William Harvey

Newton

Galileo

Columbus (with qualifications. But what a persistent cuss!)

Jefferson

Benjamin Franklin

Abraham Lincoln

Socrates

Hippocrates

George Washington

I agree with all of the above. But I would include Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Darwin (Shriek!) No qualifications. It took courage, guts

if you will, for Darwin to do his research,

laboriously compile his notes, and to fly

in the face of conventional wisdom (which is

rarely any too wise.)

Freud (with qualifications. Carl Gustav Jung

contributed far more than Siegmund,

who had a better press.)

Carl Gustav Jung

I wouldn't include these people, although I understand why others would. They were certainly important in the history of the modern world. The first two were at the forefront of teaching evolution and atheism, along with Marx and Nietzsche.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Henry David Thoreau

Tolstoy

Yes to both men.

I agree with a lot of your list.

My own list would be something like the following:

Jesus Christ

Moses

Paul the Apostle

Martin Luther

Ellen G. White

James White

William Tyndale

Benjamin Franklin

Abraham Lincoln

George Washington

Thomas Jefferson

Robert E. Lee

Ulysses S. Grant

Socrates (Philosopher)

John Knox

Bunyan

Joseph Bates

Squanto

Cochise

[JawgeFromJawja]

Based on Scripture and history, and (Shriek!!!!!) teachings of Desmond Ford, it is impossible for me to see Daniel 8 as referring to any man or entity other than Antiochus IV Epi.

[Gail]

Yay for Squanto!! :)

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Darwin (Shriek!) No qualifications. It took courage, guts

if you will, for Darwin to do his research,

laboriously compile his notes, and to fly

in the face of conventional wisdom (which is

rarely any too wise.)

Freud (with qualifications. Carl Gustav Jung

contributed far more than Siegmund,

who had a better press.)

Carl Gustav Jung

I wouldn't include these people, although I understand why others would. They were certainly important in the history of the modern world. The first two were at the forefront of teaching evolution and atheism, along with Marx and Nietzsche.

You shouldn't automatically class atheists and those who believe in evolution together. You will eventually learn that. I am a former professing atheist. I believe in evolution. (GASP!) As a medical scientist who accepts the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I see no conflict. After all, I have personally seen God's miracles firsthand. I am a Christian, a stronger, more devout Christian than ever before in my life. Saint Paul said, in 1 Corinthians:

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Not that those who do not accept my world view are children.

"God forbid!" - St. Paul, KJV

But only that we all walk different paths. No two of our life paths have been the same. We have all experienced the world in different ways. For any of us to deny the validity of our experiences would be a denial of the reality of our life. Would God expect such a denial? I think not. Insanity is, after all, a relatively uncommon disorder.

JawgeFromJawja

Believe it or not, a charismatic, but still a relatively quiet, Baptist. My wife disapproves somewhat of my charismatic stance. My beloved mother in law disapproves much more. I love 'em both, but still would be hard pressed if asked a preference, "Yer wife, or yer mother in law?" Neither will be seeing this post.

.

[JawgeFromJawja]

riginally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Henry David Thoreau

Tolstoy

Yes to both men.

I agree with a lot of your list.

My own list would be something like the following:

Jesus Christ

Moses

Paul the Apostle

Martin Luther

Ellen G. White

James White

William Tyndale

Benjamin Franklin

Abraham Lincoln

George Washington

Thomas Jefferson

Robert E. Lee

Ulysses S. Grant

Socrates (Philosopher)

John Knox

Bunyan

Joseph Bates

Squanto

Cochise

Wow! Yes, Cochise, Squanto! And of course, Tyndale. I considered editing my short list to include Tyndale. But it began as a short list.

And how about Chief Joseph?

[JawgeFromJawja]

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

... To make matters worse, there have been blatant later additions made to Scripture despite dire warnings against such. For example, one addition you are certainly familiar with is the entire last sentence of The Lord's Prayer as given in Matthew Chapter 6: for Thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever, amen. That sentence was for some reason added to the original text.

Let me ask you two very important questions:

1) How is it that you are able to determine that this line of the Lord's prayer has been added?

2) Where are those lines from and do they add anything that teaches false doctrine?

I didn't determine any of this. It is a commonly known fact, based on the absence of these lines from earilier manuscripts. Even so, the preter- earlier manuscripts did not have them. Unfortunately, these lines are not the only extant lines not in previous manuscripts.

Jawge

[John317]

And how about Chief Joseph?

Certainly. By teaching his people not to continue to make war, he saved them from certain slaughter. The same with Cochise.

[John317]

... To make matters worse, there have been blatant later additions made to Scripture despite dire warnings against such. For example, one addition you are certainly familiar with is the entire last sentence of The Lord's Prayer as given in Matthew Chapter 6: for Thine is the Kingdom, the power, and the glory, forever, amen. That sentence was for some reason added to the original text.

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Let me ask you two very important questions:

1) How is it that you are able to determine that this line of the Lord's prayer has been added?

2) Where are those lines from and do they add anything that teaches false doctrine?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

I didn't determine any of this. It is a commonly known fact, based on the absence of these lines from earilier manuscripts.

That's exactly my point. I don't mean to ask how do you personally and individually decide this. I was asking how does anyone know that those lines were added? The answer is that the ancient manuscript evidence is such that it is not difficult to distinguish the genuine from those that are not genuine. In the case of the NT, there are many hundreds of manuscripts, and by comparing them, it is possible to determine which verses were added and which were not. Matthew 6:13 is a perfect example.

But as I say, too, even when verses have been added-- as, again, with Matt. 6:13-- they are almost never harmful to Bible doctrine. I only know of one that is: John 5:4. But as pointed out earlier, everyone can see by the evidence that it was not an original part of the story. It was probably a gloss [marginal note] that worked its way finally into the main text. This occurred often in the NT as well as in the OT. 1 John 5: 7 was initially also probably a gloss.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Even so, the preter- earlier manuscripts did not have them. Unfortunately, these lines are not the only extant lines not in previous manuscripts.

You are right that they are not the only extant lines not in previous manuscripts. There are hundreds, but as I said before, we can identify them because of the great numbers of manuscripts, and even those that were added do not cause fundamental changes in Bible doctrines.

Which added lines in either the NT or Old Testament cause you the greatest concern?

Also, are there any changes that occurred in Daniel that you believe affect the subject we are studying at this time?

[John317]

Have you read Desmond Ford's commentary on the book of Daniel? In that book, he makes a very strong case that the little horn could not be Antiochus IV. Desmond Ford held and taught that view most of his life. It would be good to compare Desmond Ford's original views with Ford's "new" views about the identity of the little horn.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

I'm not sure I have read Ford's commentary. Ford's position would probably be that The Little Horn is The Antichrist, of end times. After all, Ford remains an Adventist.

Most Protestants believed the same thing, including Martin Luther and John Wesley, until about 1900. But it is not automatic that Ford would hold SDA beliefs, since he now actually disputes some of them, including the SDA view of Daniel 8: 8-14. But Ford supported the SDA view of the little horn until after he wrote his outstanding commentary on Daniel.

As far as the identity of "THE antichrist" is concerned, SDAs believe that the Devil himself is the primary reference. Satan uses various powers and people and even nations to do battle against Christ, his self-declared enemy.

Originally Posted By: =JawgeFromJawja

As far as prophecy, I am a preterist, until someone shows me a more credible position through Scripture, guided by The Holy Spirit.

OK, a preterist is one believes that the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled during the first century, or within a very short time of the writing of the Apocalypse. They generally deny that there are any genuine predictions in the book of Revelation. Is this your belief? All of the preterists that I know of also believe the book of Daniel was written in the second or first century BC. But I understand you to believe Daniel was written in the 6th century BC.

Originally Posted By: =JawgeFromJawja

If Dr. Ford holds The Little Horn to be "The" Antichrist, see 1 John 2: 18:

1Jn 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 2: 18 is simply saying that there are many people who are antichrists. But John is not denying that there will be specific powers, such as "the little horn," or "the lawless one," that work against Christ, or will try to take Christ's place before Jesus returns in glory for His church.

[John317]

There are about 14 identifying marks that God has given to us in order to know who this power is.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Very well, but at this point in presenting doctrine, the exercise begins to look like a Roman Catholic Catechism. So well organized. And so meaningless,

Is it how well organized the argument is that bothers you? If so, would it help at all if I made the argument disorganized?

How does the presentation look like a Roman Catholic Catechism? I have a number of them, and I don't see how my presention of this evidence is similar to a Catholic Catechism, unless you just mean by virtue of its being well organized. But I have many Protestant sytematic theologies that are also well organized. That is the nature of well written books and good presentations. I have never before heard of anyone argue successfully against a presentation of evidence-- or any other written or spoken communciation-- on the basis that it was too well organized.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

viz:

Point 1. Blah, blah, blah.

Where did I say this or anything similar to it?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

A. supported by scripture (oft quoted, but

to discriminating students, irrelevant, even

tortured to make a point.)

Can you give a specific example? Perhaps then I can show that the arguments are not "tortured" and "irrelevant."

Who are the "discriminating students"?

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

B. Supported by other scripture (oft quoted, but

to discriminating students, irrelevant, even

tortured to make a point.)

Please show which "oft quoted" Scripture is irrelevant or "tortured."

It may be, but we won't know until you point out which verses you refer to and why you believe they are irrelevant and "tortured."

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Then a note on supporting scripture to the effect

"we are the only ones qualified to judge the

relevance and validity of this scripture."

Where do you believe I implied this? Could you quote the lines that you feel indicate that idea?

[John317]

...You shouldn't automatically class atheists and those who believe in evolution together. You will eventually learn that. I am a former professing atheist. I believe in evolution.

I really don't believe that Darwin did the Christian, Bible-believing world a service by writing books in which he taught that all the life-forms we see around us today evolved over long periods of time.

As to whether or not evolution is related to atheism, do you think it is merely coincidence that Marx, a militant atheist, wanted to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin?

Was it mere coicidence that Nietszsche, the father of modern atheism, used evolutionary theory to make his attacks against Christianity and belief in God, and to support his views of the will to power?

I see a connection between evolutionary theory and lack of belief in the Bible. That doesn't mean I think everyone who believes in evolutionary theory disbelieves in God. But what it does mean is that evolutionary theory and doubt about God's existence tend to go hand in hand. Wherever militant atheism is taught, such as in the USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, or North Korea, there we find governments inculcating evolutionary theory as fact.

[John317]

I will present what I believe those marks to be, and I would ask that you study them and tell me if you agree with them, or if you believe there are additional or different identifying marks of this power. If you believe some of these that I've listed do not apply to the little horn power, let me know. You might make up your own list according to what you believe the Bible teaches. We can then study these together.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

J, I will study them, prayerfully. Allow one addition: my list will be partially based on a tyro's knowledge of history. This will be so indicated.

What is a tyro's knowledge of history?

[John317]

1) The little horn comes up among the ten divisions of the Roman Empire, placing it geographically in western Europe. (Daniel 7: 8)

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

The Roman Empire? For many reasons, the horrific beast beast could be Alexander's brigands, particularly symbolizing the Seleucid Empire.

What are the "many reasons" for this?

The leopard beast in Daniel 7: 6 represents the Grecian Empire. The leopard of 7: 6, then, corresponds to the male goat of Daniel 8: 5, which the angel of God identifies as the kingdom of Greece. That would mean that the fourth beast, which follows Greece, is the Roman Empire. It just so happens that every school-boy knows from history that the Roman Empire followed the Greek Empire. The Greek Empire collapsed in 168 BC.

When Rome collapsed in 476 AD, the Western Empire split up into about ten nations: the Anglo-Saxons, Alemanni, Heruli, Vandals, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Suevi, Lombards, Bergundians, and Franks. Seven of those tribes are still in existence today, having grown into modern nation-states. Three of them have disappeared from the stage of history. The ones which disappeared are: the Heruli, Vandals, and Ostrogoths.

No one is claiming that these are the only tribes that existed in Western Europe, but historians are agreed that these are the primary peoples of that period in the Western Roman Empire.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

And pray tell me, what "places it geographically in western Europe? The symbology and the facts are just not there.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

As for the ten divisions of The Roman Empire, are we not speaking of 18, 24, or even more divisions of the Roman Empire on its fall?

History records that the Romans Empire broke up into about a dozen nations. Whether it was exactly 10 or 12 is not important, the essential point being that the onced united Empire was broken up into distinct and seperate nations.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

In enumerating the kingdoms gobbling up the Roman civilization somewhere about Rome's umpteenth fall in 476 BC., depending on which event one takes as "The Fall of The Roman Empire, there will be found far more than ten during any year referenced.

From the wikipedia:

"The year 476 is generally accepted as the formal end of the Western Roman Empire."

It doesn't matter if you want to give a different date for the end of the Western Roman Empire. The point is that at about this time, the Roman Empire broke up and was no longer united.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

I personally doubt if there were ever as few as ten kingdoms as such occupying the borders of fallen Rome.

What are some of the other nations or kingdoms in the Western Roman Empire in addition to the ones I've listed above? Again, however, no one is saying that it's important for the Roman Empire to have divided into exactly ten kingdoms. The point is that prophecy predicted that the fourth empire would break up.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Fallen? When? Kingdoms left after the fall? Which year? Or even which month of a particular year?

Again, the wikipedia:

"After 395, the emperors in the Western Roman Empire were usually figureheads, while the actual rulers were military strongmen. The year 476 is generally accepted as the formal end of the Western Roman Empire. That year, Orestes refused the request of Germanic mercenaries in his service for lands in Italy. The dissatisfied mercenaries, led by Odoacer, revolted, and deposed the last western emperor, Romulus Augustus. This event has traditionally been considered the fall of the Western Roman Empire."

Originally Posted By: quote=JawgeFromJawja

In Britannia alone, immediately after the fall seven kingdoms, "The Septarchy", gained sway. These English kingdoms were actual kingdoms that continued more or less successfully to vie for Rome's lost position.

There's no one who looking at history would question whether the Roman Empire was no longer united after 476 AD. The prophecy was not a prediction that there wouldn't be powers vying for Rome's lost position. That fact is that no one succeeded in gaining Rome's position or Empire, and that it has never been united again since that time, though many have tried.

[John317]

..Wow! Yes, Cochise, Squanto! ....And how about Chief Joseph?

There's a web-site you might be very interested in: it's Geronimo's autobiography, which he dictated through an Apache translator to someone who took it down word for word. It's an amazing document. In it, the old warrior says that he knows Christianity it better than his own Apache religion, and he is glad to learn the Christian way. He talks about its helping his character. That is pretty amazing when you consider his background. I believe it's very likely that Geronimo will be in heaven. Squanto also was a Christian, having been kidnapped and taken to England as a slave. There he learned the English language and eventually obtained his freedom, returning to America where he helped the pilgrams survive that harsh first winter.

Here's the link to Geronimo's autobiography:

http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Geronimo/GerStory.htm

[John317]

4) The little horn would have "eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things."

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

That certainly could be Ant. IV Epi. He was crazy as a loon, if they have such birds in the Middle East. He spoke great things, to the point of claiming to be the reincarnation of the god Zeus - hence the name "Epiphanes".

Could you explain why having "eyes like the eyes of man" would indicate someone's who is crazy as a loon?

If that were the intention of the writer, it would seem better to say the little horn had eyes like the eyes of a some kind of wild animal.

A mouth speaking great things suggests boasting of its power.But there is evidence in the book of Daniel that the little horn power was both a political and a religious power, so that its speaking great things is likely a reference to blasphemies and speaking against the truth found in God's word.

The following is from the wikipedia:

Quote:

It is important to note that the Little Horn power according to the progression shown in Daniel 8 will have more influence and dominion than did the Persian Empire which controlled from India to Ethiopia (Esther 1:1) and Alexander the Great who conquered the then known world before the age of 32. The historical evidence shows that the exploits of Antiochus Epiphanes is lacking in this regard.

The little horn was also to "stand up against the prince of princes" Daniel 8:25. That the prince of princes represents Jesus Christ is of little dispute (Revelation 1:5, Revelation 17:14, Revelation 19:16). Antiochus IV died some 160 years before Jesus Christ was born. Rome, however was the dominant power that held sway during the attempt to kill Christ as a child (Herod) and His crucifixion (Acts 4:26-27).

That the little horn is "broken without hands" (Daniel 8:25) seems to be a reference to the events described in (Daniel 2:34) where a stone "cut out without hands" strikes the statue at the feet representing the divided kingdoms of Rome.

Antiochus IV also paid tribute to Rome . The power that is described as "exceeding great" would most likely be the power collecting a tribute rather than paying one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes

[John317]

....14) The little horn power is also known as "the man of sin," or the "lawless one," in 2 Thess. 2: 8. This power will be destroyed at the Second Coming of Christ.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

As far as relating this to either Revelation or Daniel, water vapor has more substance. With no apologies, that's the way Holy Spirit reveals it to me.

Why?

Do you believe it is the Holy Spirit who is revealing to you that it is no more than water favor to study what Revelation teaches us?

The books of Daniel and Revelation are both prophecies of God dealing with many of the same issues, events, and powers.

[John317]

....5) The little horn "shall be diverse [different] from the first [horns]" Daniel 7: 24. That is to say, it would be a different kind of power than the first horns that arose.

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Antiochus IV Epiphanes absolutely fits this bill. Hereto fore, Jews, "The Saints", had at least been able to retain the integrity of their religious faith. Antiochus IV

What does the Bible mean when it says that the little horn will be diverse from the first horns that rise up?

The other horns were regular governments or states.

Other descriptions of the little horn show that the little horn is a combination of state and religion. How do we know? Because the Bible says the Little Horn power will blaspheme. The Bible defines "blaspheming" as claiming to forgive sins. So this little horn power is both a state and a religion.

What power that has existed since the early years of the church claims to forgive sins; is both a state and a church; has killed many Christians; and came out of the fourth Empire? Those are just a few of the marks of identity.

But the Bible gives many more marks, and the true little horn power must meet all the identifying marks, not just a few of them. When you examine all of them, I believe you will find that there is only one power in the world that fits all of the prophetic specifications.

[John317]

6) "And he shall speak great words against the Most High." Another verse says, "speaking great things and blasphemies" (Daniel 7: 25; Rev. 13: 5,6; compare John 10: 30-33 & Mark 2:7).

Originally Posted By: JawgeFromJawja

Yes, ole Antiochus fills the bill here quite nicely.

Did you look up the references? What does the Bible say "blasphemy" is? It says that blasphemy is claiming to forgive sins. Did Antiochus ever claim to be able to do this?

Did Antiochus IV ever claim to speak for God? Or did he ever claim to be God?

You say that Antiochus IV claimed to be Zeus. But Zeus is a false god, and does not even exist, so that is simply foolishness, not blasphemy.

What great things or great words did Antiochus speak against the Most High God?

[John317]

...7) It will wear out the saints of the Most High. (Daniel 7:25; Rev. 13: 7)

This identifying mark states that the little horn power of Daniel 7 and 8 will be a great persecuting power. It will destroy many of God's people.

While it is true that Antiochus IV persecuted the Jews of of that period, his persectution can't be said to have "worn out the saints." This language indicates that the work of the persecuting power not only results in the death of saints but that it continues killing them for a significant period of time.

Antiochus IV only ruled from 175 to 164 BC, that is, only about 11 years.

[John317]

Quote:

...8) It will attempt to change the divine law (Daniel 7: 25).

Twice again, Antiochus. As far as changes, Antiochus denied circumcision on pain of death, denied any reading of Tanach, stopped celebration of the sabbath, and other things totally intolerable to those courageous folks who brought us Hanukkah.

The prophecy predicted that the little horn power would "intend to change times and law.

Daniel 7:25

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

Question: did Antiochus IV attempt to change times and law?

This of course is divine law, not human-- because human law is changed all the time, probably every day of the year. So we need to look for a power that has intended to change God's law in relation to time. There's only one law of God having to do with time, and that is the Sabbath commandment.

Now it is true that Antiochus IV attempted to keep people from celebrating the Sabbath, but is that the same as intending to change the law of God or teaching people to disobey it?