The Little Horn

[Gregory Matthews]

In a comment published on the Adventist Today website, Clifford Goldstein has argued why one view of the Little Horn of Daniel is wrong.  You may read his comment in the first listed URL.  The author of the view that Cliff rejected has responded, which you may read in the 2nd URL.  The 3rd URL  is another view on this subject:

 

 https://atoday.org/the-little-horn-of-daniel-8/

 

https://atoday.org/the-almost-last-comment-on-the-little-horn-of-daniel-8/

 

 

 

https://atoday.org/36283-2/

[CoAspen]

I guess being an intelligent person, is not enough to grow thick skin. Cliff continues on that downhill slide of disparaging others ideas with his words but whines when it is done to him. A real shame. So much has been made of beasts and men over the years in Advent theology that it no longer is of interest to me. But, when people have differing ideas it would be nice to have some civility.

[Kevin H]

Could not find Goldstein's comments. As to the debate there are important parts being ignored by both groups. The biggest one is that they are using  the same mindset for the interpretation as the dispensationalists are using for their theories. A very cut and dry God describing something happening far off in the future.

However what we find in the Bible is always a local application, something going on at that time and how it either was literally fulfilled at that time or soon thereafter, but whether fulfilled or not was still the living word of God and the principles could be fulfilled over history, an analogy.  As Daniel was sitting besides the waters of Babylon he was not interested in Antiochus, the Flavians (who sound amazingly like Daniel 7's little horn),  nor the  Pope, nor some long in the future antichrist. He was interested in if Deuteronomy 4 was going to be fulfilled and the exile be the last days and the Messiah come to bring them home.  He was also interested in the house of David prophecy, when will God's people be out from under the rule of the four kings (Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius and Cyrus) and back under the rule of a son of David. He saw that the conditions of Deuteronomy 4 were not being fulfilled (the Jews telling about their unfaithfulness and their God's faithfulness, and thus sharing the gospel  with those in exile from other countries so they can bring it home to their country when the exile ended).  The vision of Daniel 8 was given in the third year of Belshazzar. 2300 literal days later came the year that included Medio-Persia approaching Babylon, Belshazzar's feast, and the early days of the rule of Medio-Persia. Our first level of Bible Study (exegesis) needs to have this in mind.  Then in the spirit of "Type/Antitype" or more accurately the principle of analogy we can start to look for fulfillments farther on.

Daniel appears to have been a failed prophecy and was probably disregarded until Antiochus arose in which case they saw a close enough analogy  to reopen the book of Daniel, and yes scribes made notes applying Daniel to Antiochus that eventually became part of the text of Daniel. But Antiochus ends up being a pretty weak analogy .  We have a bit of a stronger analogy with Rome as in one of the arguments against Goldstein points out: "

Quote

THE “COMING OUT OF A WIND” UNDERSTANDING ONLY GETS US INTO A HIGHLY UNLIKELY (LUDICROUS?) SCENARIO.
If we grant, for the sake of discussion, that the horn came out of one of the winds what is the result? There is still no Roman Beast. There is only a horn and this horn arrives floating in mid air. This beastless horn is supposed to be the equivalent of both the great nondescript beast of Daniel 7 and also its papal extension. Is this likely? How believable is that?"

Well, Daniel 8:9 reads "And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land." Antiochus did not wax exceedingly great, but his travels were towards the south and towards the west to the pleasant land.  While the rise of Rome did have her wax exceedingly great and traveled towards the south and towards the east to come to the beautiful land.
 

We need to restudy Daniel 8 in the context of the last 2300 days of Babylon. Then we can make proper analogies. However if we have the same mindset of the dispensationalists that has Daniel focused on things way in the future, then we can spend eternity arguing over which of those things he had in mind.

[TrevorL]

Greetings Kevin H,

On 3/24/2018 at 2:25 AM, Kevin H said:

We need to restudy Daniel 8 in the context of the last 2300 days of Babylon.

I agree that it is important to determine the correct understanding of the 2300 days. I believe that the major fulfillment of the 2300 days is the 2300 years from the major event of the vision of Daniel 8, when Alexander the Great overthrew the Persians in BC 334-333 to when the Jews regained control of Jerusalem in AD 1967.

Kind regards Trevor