The little horn of Daniel 7 and 8

[JustThinking]

That's all that matters to me. If it does happen in our lifetime, even if you don't believe it now, I want to know that you'll be okay and always choose God!




Jesus used that word to also "signify" the kind of death He would die. He used a symbol (being "lifted up") to point to a very literal, historical event: His crucifixion. The use of a sign does not cancel out the literal reality of the event. It simply means God used imagery to reveal a truth that will actually happen. So all that stuff in Revelation is still yet to come. But if you refuse to see its dual fulfillment and the second complete fulfillment occurs in our lifetime, I don't know if you'll recognize it as such.





You believe all these prophecies already came to pass. I agree with you that the first partial fulfillment already came to pass. I'm guessing you don't believe in dual fulfillment?

I thought you were speaking of a particular second fulfillment - and I did not remember discussing one... so, are you talking about a specific dual fulfillment?

For example: many folks seem to believe that Antiochus Epiphanies is the first fulfillment of either the little horn or the anti-christ. This is indeed a very incorrect interpretation. Epiphanies is nowhere to be found in ALL of scripture, but many commentators have inserted him in either Daniel 8 or Daniel 11 because they have grossly misinterpreted those two very important chapters. He can be found in our history books ONLY, and even then, he was / is a very minor character found in the post Alexander period. He had absolutely NO important and special characteristics or attributes and only reigned in a small portion of the post Greek empire for 13 years before he was murdered by his own troops.

Daniel 7, 8 and 11 do not step back in time. If we look at chapters 2,7, 8 and 11 we find that the first 3 kingdoms are spoken of briefly (and this excludes the 70 years in Babylon where God is giving us a special teaching to the Gentiles). But if you review the amount of ink God has
I think you have identified an important problem. Many people are naturally drawn to the more sensational subjects in prophecy, but that often encourages speculation before the foundational verses have been carefully understood. The more closely I study Daniel, the more impressed I am by how orderly, logical, and consistent its prophetic structure is. We cannot begin interpreting the message somewhere in the middle and expect to understand what follows.

Most interpreters assume that Daniel 2:34 and 2:35 describe the same end-time event. This is largely because traditional commentators have taught it that way and because the two verses appear beside one another. Verse 35 certainly describes the final destruction of all earthly kingdoms. But proximity alone does not prove that verse 34 describes the same moment.

Scripture repeatedly presents two very different appearances of the Messiah. He comes first as the suffering Servant, bringing salvation and division according to how people respond to Him. He later returns as King and Judge. Daniel 2:34–35 may be presenting those two appearances in summary form: the Stone first strikes the feet, and later the entire image is destroyed.

For the moment, we can set aside the first three kingdoms because the decisive events occur during the fourth kingdom—the kingdom in power when the Messiah arrives and fulfills His redemptive mission.

If verse 2:34 represents Christ’s first coming, then verses 2:40–45 explain the consequences of that impact within the fourth kingdom. The kingdom becomes divided, iron and clay remain together without bonding, and important changes begin to unfold within the Roman world and among God’s covenant people.

But if verse 2:34 is only the final destruction at the end of time, what causes the developments described in verses 40–45? Why does God devote so much attention to the divided condition of the fourth kingdom if the entire image has already been destroyed?

This question becomes even more important when we reach Daniel 7.

What causes the ten divisions symbolized by the toes to appear later as ten horns or ruling powers?

Why does God change the symbol from toes to horns?

Why does the little horn arise from the fourth kingdom after the ten?

Why are the ten horns and the little horn already present before the fourth beast is finally destroyed in Daniel 7:11?

These developments do not appear without a cause. Daniel’s prophecies move forward through action and consequence. The events surrounding the Messiah’s first coming—the cross, the division within Israel, the spread of the gospel, and the transformation of the Roman world—provide the cause for the changes later revealed in chapter 7 and beyond.

Unfortunately, many readers feel that identifying Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome is enough to understand Daniel 2. But the four kingdoms are only the framework. The deeper message is found in what God reveals within the fourth kingdom, especially through the clay, the Stone, the divided kingdom, and the events that prepare us to understand the later chapters.

If we do not carefully unpack verses 2:40–45, we may recognize the kingdoms while missing the prophetic foundation upon which the remainder of Daniel is built.
given us for the 4th kingdom in those chapters, you will not find they move backwards in time. Daniel 8 builds on Daniel 7 and most of the chapter discusses the 4th kingdom - not much on the first 3. Chapter 11 speaks entirely of the 4th kingdom with the e

That seems very plausible to me

Perhaps you might offer me your understanding of the clay please....

I see the start of it as the first coming but also V 35 as the second - I guess that is where we differ, but that would not stop me understanding the rest of your position.

Sorry Wayne, I do not understand this comment. It is my interpretation that 2:34 clearly represents His first coming and 2:35 represents His return some 2000 years later. Verses 2:41-45 are given to us to explain the consequences of this "first strike" at His first coming.

But your comment above is alittle confusing to me because it seems to say the same thing - 34 is His first coming and 35 is His second.....

I have posted my view on those verses before - I hold the Historist position - sorry

If you have already posted your interpretations for 41-45 please tell me what post # they are found in and I will go back and read.... thanks.

 

[cv5]

Does the C in your name stand for cardinal by any chance ? lol

I am not a RC nor have I ever been.
The RC doctrine is a sincretistic disaster zone. Frankly, my advice would be to run do not walk to the nearest exit.

I would say the same to anybody attending a hard core Reformed Church.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

I think the three main religions of the world - Islam, Judaism, and Christianity (the ones that love war because they think it will rush the second coming) will bring the world to another world war, then either Christ will return at that time orrrrr He will have the nations defeated and true Christians will take power - and then He will return to be with us.

By the way the three main religions i see as the croaking frogs in Revelation, always spouting their propaganda day and night.

So there's no one world government, no antichrist or false prophet and no mark?

 

[JustThinking]

@2ndTimeIsTheCharm

Please forgive me... I inadvertently responded to you in post #281 but only the following should have been sent... I was working on another response to Wayne and somehow my response to you got corrupted and included part of his... here is the only part that I meant to send to you...so sorry,



I thought you were speaking of a particular second fulfillment - and I did not remember discussing one... so, are you talking about a specific dual fulfillment?

For example: many folks seem to believe that Antiochus Epiphanies is the first fulfillment of either the little horn or the anti-christ. This is indeed a very incorrect interpretation. Epiphanies is nowhere to be found in ALL of scripture, but many commentators have inserted him in either Daniel 8 or Daniel 11 because they have grossly misinterpreted those two very important chapters. He can be found in our history books ONLY, and even then, he was / is a very minor character found in the post Alexander period. He had absolutely NO important and special characteristics or attributes and only reigned in a small portion of the post Greek empire for 13 years before he was murdered by his own troops.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

@2ndTimeIsTheCharm

Please forgive me... I inadvertently responded to you in post #281 but only the following should have been sent... I was working on another response to Wayne and somehow my response to you got corrupted and included part of his... here is the only part that I meant to send to you...so sorry,



I thought you were speaking of a particular second fulfillment - and I did not remember discussing one... so, are you talking about a specific dual fulfillment?

For example: many folks seem to believe that Antiochus Epiphanies is the first fulfillment of either the little horn or the anti-christ. This is indeed a very incorrect interpretation. Epiphanies is nowhere to be found in ALL of scripture, but many commentators have inserted him in either Daniel 8 or Daniel 11 because they have grossly misinterpreted those two very important chapters. He can be found in our history books ONLY, and even then, he was / is a very minor character found in the post Alexander period. He had absolutely NO important and special characteristics or attributes and only reigned in a small portion of the post Greek empire for 13 years before he was murdered by his own troops.

I think they think that because he desecrated the temple. Who do you think is the little horn or the anti-christ?

 

[JustThinking]

@WayneNSO, unfortunately, I was trying to respond to more than one post and I must have inadvertently copied the following script into another's response.

The following is what I meant to send to you:

Most interpreters assume that Daniel 2:34 and 2:35 describe the same end-time event. This is largely because traditional commentators have taught it that way and because the two verses appear beside one another. Verse 35 certainly describes the final destruction of all earthly kingdoms. But proximity alone does not prove that verse 34 describes the same moment.

Scripture repeatedly presents two very different appearances of the Messiah. He comes first as the suffering Servant, bringing salvation and division according to how people respond to Him. He later returns as King and Judge. Daniel 2:34–35 may be presenting those two appearances in summary form: the Stone first strikes the feet, and later the entire image is destroyed.

For the moment, we can set aside the first three kingdoms because the decisive events occur during the fourth kingdom—the kingdom in power when the Messiah arrives and fulfills His redemptive mission.

If verse 2:34 represents Christ’s first coming, then verses 2:40–45 explain the consequences of that impact within the fourth kingdom. The kingdom becomes divided, iron and clay remain together without bonding, and important changes begin to unfold within the Roman world and among God’s covenant people.

But if verse 2:34 is only the final destruction at the end of time, what causes the developments described in verses 40–45? Why does God devote so much attention to the divided condition of the fourth kingdom if the entire image has already been destroyed?

This question becomes even more important when we reach Daniel 7.

What causes the ten divisions symbolized by the toes to appear later as ten horns or ruling powers?​

​

Why does God change the symbol from toes to horns?​

​

Why does the little horn arise from the fourth kingdom after the ten?​

​

Why are the ten horns and the little horn already present before the fourth beast is finally destroyed in Daniel 7:11?​

These developments do not appear without a cause. Daniel’s prophecies move forward through action and consequence. The events surrounding the Messiah’s first coming—the cross, the division within Israel, the spread of the gospel, and the transformation of the Roman world—provide the cause for the changes later revealed in chapter 7 and beyond.

Unfortunately, many readers feel that identifying Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome is enough to understand Daniel 2. But the four kingdoms are only the framework. The deeper message is found in what God reveals within the fourth kingdom, especially through the clay, the Stone, the divided kingdom, and the events that prepare us to understand the later chapters.

If we do not carefully unpack verses 2:40–45, we may recognize the kingdoms while missing the prophetic foundation upon which the remainder of Daniel is built. God has given us for the 4th kingdom in those chapters, you will not find they move backwards in time. Daniel 8 builds on Daniel 7 and most of the chapter discusses the 4th kingdom - not much on the first 3. Chapter 11 speaks entirely of the 4th kingdom with the exception of verses 11:1-4.

Would you mind answering the above four questions? Thanks.

 

[dkontner]

The ten horns...

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.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
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.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

 

[WayneNSO]

For example: many folks seem to believe that Antiochus Epiphanies is the first fulfillment of either the little horn or the anti-christ. This is indeed a very incorrect interpretation. Epiphanies is nowhere to be found in ALL of scripture, but many commentators have inserted him in either Daniel 8 or Daniel 11 because they have grossly misinterpreted those two very important chapters. He can be found in our history books ONLY, and even then, he was / is a very minor character found in the post Alexander period. He had absolutely NO important and special characteristics or attributes and only reigned in a small portion of the post Greek empire for 13 years before he was murdered by his own troops.

I have my doubts about him, he is called exceedingly great ? I don't think so. We learn about and see movies about people like Alexander the Great etc but did we learn about Antiochus in History class ? maybe in a Jewish school IDK

Most interpreters assume that Daniel 2:34 and 2:35 describe the same end-time event. This is largely because traditional commentators have taught it that way and because the two verses appear beside one another. Verse 35 certainly describes the final destruction of all earthly kingdoms. But proximity alone does not prove that verse 34 describes the same moment.

I agree

Scripture repeatedly presents two very different appearances of the Messiah. He comes first as the suffering Servant, bringing salvation and division according to how people respond to Him. He later returns as King and Judge. Daniel 2:34–35 may be presenting those two appearances in summary form: the Stone first strikes the feet, and later the entire image is destroyed.

For the moment, we can set aside the first three kingdoms because the decisive events occur during the fourth kingdom—the kingdom in power when the Messiah arrives and fulfills His redemptive mission.

Most of the narrative is about the fourth Kingdom yes

If verse 2:34 represents Christ’s first coming, then verses 2:40–45 explain the consequences of that impact within the fourth kingdom. The kingdom becomes divided, iron and clay remain together without bonding, and important changes begin to unfold within the Roman world and among God’s covenant people.

But if verse 2:34 is only the final destruction at the end of time, what causes the developments described in verses 40–45? Why does God devote so much attention to the divided condition of the fourth kingdom if the entire image has already been destroyed?

This question becomes even more important when we reach Daniel 7.

What causes the ten divisions symbolized by the toes to appear later as ten horns or ruling powers?

This is where we will differ - I see the ten toes as the nations that arose out of the ashes of the Imperial Western Roman Empire, it was like Rome rising like a Phoenix only now as the Holy Roman Empire - in fact I think it was the historian Gibbon who said Rome rose from the ashes like a Phoenix - or something like that.

Why does God change the symbol from toes to horns?

Because the Horns represent kingdoms - like the other horns in Daniel - the Babylonians and Persians did not just have one king but a succession of kings - as does these nations that I believe rose in Europe and represented by the horns.

Something just came to mind:

If the clay is Israel - the 10 northern tribes were taken into Assyrian captivity and became gentile nations - Judah was taken by the Babylonians some time later, both the 10 tribes and Judah ended up in the Roman terrorises - 10 barbarian tribes (which I see as the 10 lost tribes of Israel 0 which According to the Bible lost their marital name Israel) destroyed the Western Roman Empire and formed the 10 nations I spoke of previously.

Why does the little horn arise from the fourth kingdom after the ten?

I see that little horn as the Papacy that no longer had the Roman Emperors to keep it in check, and the ten nations submitted to the Papacy as their head.

Why are the ten horns and the little horn already present before the fourth beast is finally destroyed in Daniel 7:11?

Because the final phase of the Kingdom of God that rules over all is still to happen

Perhaps you might offer me your understanding of the clay please....

I always saw it as just the weak part of the Empire because it says about the iron being strong and the clay being weak, but it could be referring to both that and Israel - as a people to be moulded.

Sorry Wayne, I do not understand this comment. It is my interpretation that 2:34 clearly represents His first coming and 2:35 represents His return some 2000 years later. Verses 2:41-45 are given to us to explain the consequences of this "first strike" at His first coming.

But your comment above is alittle confusing to me because it seems to say the same thing - 34 is His first coming and 35 is His second.....

Yes I thought we disagreed on that point when in fact we agree - sorry for the confusion

If you have already posted your interpretations for 41-45 please tell me what post # they are found in and I will go back and read.... thanks.

I have included my thoughts generally on those verses in this post - so it saves me trying to find the previous post

 

[cv5]

@2ndTimeIsTheCharm

Please forgive me... I inadvertently responded to you in post #281 but only the following should have been sent... I was working on another response to Wayne and somehow my response to you got corrupted and included part of his... here is the only part that I meant to send to you...so sorry,



I thought you were speaking of a particular second fulfillment - and I did not remember discussing one... so, are you talking about a specific dual fulfillment?

For example: many folks seem to believe that Antiochus Epiphanies is the first fulfillment of either the little horn or the anti-christ. This is indeed a very incorrect interpretation. Epiphanies is nowhere to be found in ALL of scripture, but many commentators have inserted him in either Daniel 8 or Daniel 11 because they have grossly misinterpreted those two very important chapters. He can be found in our history books ONLY, and even then, he was / is a very minor character found in the post Alexander period. He had absolutely NO important and special characteristics or attributes and only reigned in a small portion of the post Greek empire for 13 years before he was murdered by his own troops.

"Antiochus Epiphanies is the first fulfillment of either the little horn or the anti-christ. This is indeed a very incorrect interpretation. Epiphanies is nowhere to be found in ALL of scripture, but many commentators have inserted him in either Daniel 8 or Daniel 11 "

No. The 2300 erev/boker aka 1150 sidereal days places those passages squarely in the Maccabean revolt period. It's a perfect match.

Likewise the 173,880 days of Daniel 9 so astutely calculated by Sir Robert Anderson. Another dead ringer.

I find it amazing that everyone is full of questions around here but few if any right answers.

Anyhoo......it's a sobering testimony to the awful condition of the latter day Church.

 

[WayneNSO]

I am not a RC nor have I ever been.
The RC doctrine is a sincretistic disaster zone. Frankly, my advice would be to run do not walk to the nearest exit.

I would say the same to anybody attending a hard core Reformed Church.

Well at least we agree on the Catholic Church - and a Reformed Church would close its doors on me - I am not reformed either

 

[cv5]

"Antiochus Epiphanies is the first fulfillment of either the little horn or the anti-christ. This is indeed a very incorrect interpretation. Epiphanies is nowhere to be found in ALL of scripture, but many commentators have inserted him in either Daniel 8 or Daniel 11 "

No. The 2300 erev/boker aka 1150 sidereal days places those passages squarely in the Maccabean revolt period. It's a perfect match.

Likewise the 173,880 days of Daniel 9 so astutely calculated by Sir Robert Anderson. Another dead ringer.

I find it amazing that everyone is full of questions around here but few if any right answers.

Anyhoo......it's a sobering testimony to the awful condition of the latter day Church.

To map these dates onto the Julian calendar, historians align the ancient Seleucid Era (SE) records and Jewish calendar markers (such as the 25th of Kislev) with proleptic Julian calendar equivalents.

The Desecration (The Start of the 1,150 Days):
The suspension of the daily sacrifices (tamid) and the setup of the altar to Zeus in the Jerusalem Temple occurred around December 167 BCE (specifically cited in 1 Maccabees as the 25th of Kislev, 145 SE, which falls near December 13–167 BCE on the Julian calendar).

The Restoration and Cleansing:
Counting forward 1,150 literal days (or roughly three years, bridging the 2,300 evening-morning cycles) brings the timeline to the purification and rededication of the Temple by Judas Maccabeus. This historical rededication occurred on the 25th of Kislev, 148 SE, which corresponds to December 14, 164 BCE on the Julian calendar.

 

[cv5]

Well at least we agree on the Catholic Church - and a Reformed Church would close its doors on me - I am not reformed either

Unfortunately you are a historicist. Bad news for you.

I have offered MANY posts regarding the "12 Step Hebrew betrothal wedding protocol".

Fail to read and understand them at your peril. That alone demolishes historicism nonsense.

 

[JustThinking]

I think they think that because he desecrated the temple. Who do you think is the little horn or the anti-christ?

OH! Are you asking if I believe that Antiochus Epiphanes is the first "anti-christ" and the little horn is the second one?

1) No, as I mentioned earlier, there is no place in the scriptures at ALL for Antiochus Epiphanes. He belongs in our history books only. He has been inserted in so many commentator's interpretations that so many have come to accept it. He indeed did defile the temple and also murder some 10,000 Jews (he hated the Jews) but largely, he was a nobody in history. He only ruled a portion of the post Alexander kingdom for 13 years before he was murdered by his own troops. He did not meet ANY of the characteristics, descriptions of the little horn given to us in Daniel 7 or 8 or 11. He came some 200 years before the time of the Messiah and he did not come out of the 4th kingdom.

2) there is absolutely no individual character as the "anti-christ" figure. There are only 4 verses in the New Testament that mention the term "anti-christ" and they are all in John's writings - and actually no mention of this term in Revelation. This term is used ONLY to reflect the "spirit of anti-christ," meaning ANYONE that preaches a different gospel than Jesus. Thus, anyone could fit this description whether they lived in the first, second or tenth century AD or even in today's time --- anyone who does not believe and follow the testimony of Jesus. For example, and not to pick on any particular group, by there are some Christian denonminations today that call themselves Christian but they do not believe that Jesus is God... that is a very different gospel.

3) As you are aware, the original purpose of this thread was to discuss the identity of the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8. However, it became clear to me that the initial responses led me to believe they may not have had an understanding of the prophecies found in chapter 2 which are the fou
ndation for all the interpretations from chapter 7 - 12. No sense at all in discussing different interpretations of chapter 7 or 8 or 11 unless they are grounded and founded in the chapter 2 prophecies - this is where God has given us the borders and boundaries and complete overall view of all the events that will take place within His plan of salvation (Daniel).

Consequently, there is absolutly no possibility that a new and different interpretation of prophecies in chapters 7 -12 could be accepted (or even seriously considered) unless they are found to be grounded in the chapter 2 prophecies. And because many of today's accepted interpretations of chapter 7 are not based on chapter 2, they would immediatey be discarded. If the foundational prophecies are not understand and used to build off of then any interpretation can be accepted... and that is what is out there today.

 

[JustThinking]

The ten horns...

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.
13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.
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.
15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.
17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Thank you for your thoughts. May I ask you if the 10 horns in Revelation are the same 10 horns in Daniel 7? And are these same 10 horns in Daniel 7 the same as the 10 toes in chapter 2?

Also, are you saying that these 10 horns in Revelation will come to fight against the beast at the time of the end?

What do you think it means the 10 horns are 10 kings and receive no kingdom as of yet?

What do you think it means the 10 will receive power as kings for one hour WITH the beast?

Then, it says, they have one mind and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

But, in verse 16, it tells us the 10 horns will hate the whore...

Now, I see you have gone from our discussion of chapter 2 in Daniel straight into Revelation before getting to chapter 7.... and I hope we all might want to get throught chapter 2 first - it would make the rest of Daniel so easy. In any event, do you see some confusion in the verses you listed? Does it seem that the 10 horns may first be on the side of the beast but then in verse 16 they come to hate him?"

How do you interpret these verses ?

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

OH! Are you asking if I believe that Antiochus Epiphanes is the first "anti-christ" and the little horn is the second one?

1) No, as I mentioned earlier, there is no place in the scriptures at ALL for Antiochus Epiphanes. He belongs in our history books only. He has been inserted in so many commentator's interpretations that so many have come to accept it. He indeed did defile the temple and also murder some 10,000 Jews (he hated the Jews) but largely, he was a nobody in history. He only ruled a portion of the post Alexander kingdom for 13 years before he was murdered by his own troops. He did not meet ANY of the characteristics, descriptions of the little horn given to us in Daniel 7 or 8 or 11. He came some 200 years before the time of the Messiah and he did not come out of the 4th kingdom.

2) there is absolutely no individual character as the "anti-christ" figure. There are only 4 verses in the New Testament that mention the term "anti-christ" and they are all in John's writings - and actually no mention of this term in Revelation. This term is used ONLY to reflect the "spirit of anti-christ," meaning ANYONE that preaches a different gospel than Jesus. Thus, anyone could fit this description whether they lived in the first, second or tenth century AD or even in today's time --- anyone who does not believe and follow the testimony of Jesus. For example, and not to pick on any particular group, by there are some Christian denonminations today that call themselves Christian but they do not believe that Jesus is God... that is a very different gospel.

3) As you are aware, the original purpose of this thread was to discuss the identity of the little horn of Daniel 7 and 8. However, it became clear to me that the initial responses led me to believe they may not have had an understanding of the prophecies found in chapter 2 which are the fou
ndation for all the interpretations from chapter 7 - 12. No sense at all in discussing different interpretations of chapter 7 or 8 or 11 unless they are grounded and founded in the chapter 2 prophecies - this is where God has given us the borders and boundaries and complete overall view of all the events that will take place within His plan of salvation (Daniel).

Consequently, there is absolutly no possibility that a new and different interpretation of prophecies in chapters 7 -12 could be accepted (or even seriously considered) unless they are found to be grounded in the chapter 2 prophecies. And because many of today's accepted interpretations of chapter 7 are not based on chapter 2, they would immediatey be discarded. If the foundational prophecies are not understand and used to build off of then any interpretation can be accepted... and that is what is out there today.

So do you now who or what the little horn is?

 

[JustThinking]

@WayneNSO, @2ndTimeIsTheCharm, @Delvianna, @HeIsHere, @tablet123, @Vucesa, @TMS, @Adstar, @Omegatime, @Researcher, @dkontner, @GaryA,@DavidLamb, @Inquisitor, @Melach

Here are all the neat folks that have so far participated in this thread. So much to read and consider and I certainly thank everyone for the time and consideration. I think it is safe to say, and please correct me if I am mistaken, that there may only be two important issues open - where there is some serious doubt about the interpretations I have offered (and there is certainly nothing wrong with that as my interpretations do not have to be accepted or received and it does not mean your individual interpretations are inferior to yours. i am simple attempting to offer my interpretations that significantly differ than any of "today's supposedly accepted interpretations - futurist or preterist) and discuss them with you. And of course, anyone reading my responses will easily come to the conclusion i do indeed believe them - but really, no different than your own beliefs.

So, i would respectfully ask that each of you, SHOULD YOU WISH, offer your interpretation of the two issues:

1) who and what are the clay elements in the iron feet and briefly why?

2) how do you interpret verse 2:34 - the Stone striking the feet? And why?

This is all voluntary of course but there are definitely some who might be willing to offer their own interpretations for these two important topics.
I respectfully request that you would respect this process and offer your independent interpretations rather than agree or keep silent because you want to move on to chapter 7.... please!

 

[dkontner]

Thank you for your thoughts. May I ask you if the 10 horns in Revelation are the same 10 horns in Daniel 7? And are these same 10 horns in Daniel 7 the same as the 10 toes in chapter 2?

Also, are you saying that these 10 horns in Revelation will come to fight against the beast at the time of the end?

What do you think it means the 10 horns are 10 kings and receive no kingdom as of yet?

What do you think it means the 10 will receive power as kings for one hour WITH the beast?

Then, it says, they have one mind and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

But, in verse 16, it tells us the 10 horns will hate the whore...

Now, I see you have gone from our discussion of chapter 2 in Daniel straight into Revelation before getting to chapter 7.... and I hope we all might want to get throught chapter 2 first - it would make the rest of Daniel so easy. In any event, do you see some confusion in the verses you listed? Does it seem that the 10 horns may first be on the side of the beast but then in verse 16 they come to hate him?"

How do you interpret these verses ?

The ones in Daniel are a picture of the ones in Revelation. I could care less who the ones in Daniel are/were. They are/will be rulers of this world in the end. They eventually destroy mystery Babylon (they killed the prophets and crucified the Lord Jesus) and then Jesus comes and destroys the world. The little horn might be the Pope, might not. Daniel and Revelation go hand in hand.

 

[Delvianna]

@WayneNSO, @2ndTimeIsTheCharm, @Delvianna, @HeIsHere, @tablet123, @Vucesa, @TMS, @Adstar, @Omegatime, @Researcher, @dkontner, @GaryA,@DavidLamb, @Inquisitor, @Melach

Here are all the neat folks that have so far participated in this thread. So much to read and consider and I certainly thank everyone for the time and consideration. I think it is safe to say, and please correct me if I am mistaken, that there may only be two important issues open - where there is some serious doubt about the interpretations I have offered (and there is certainly nothing wrong with that as my interpretations do not have to be accepted or received and it does not mean your individual interpretations are inferior to yours. i am simple attempting to offer my interpretations that significantly differ than any of "today's supposedly accepted interpretations - futurist or preterist) and discuss them with you. And of course, anyone reading my responses will easily come to the conclusion i do indeed believe them - but really, no different than your own beliefs.

So, i would respectfully ask that each of you, SHOULD YOU WISH, offer your interpretation of the two issues:

1) who and what are the clay elements in the iron feet and briefly why?

2) how do you interpret verse 2:34 - the Stone striking the feet? And why?

This is all voluntary of course but there are definitely some who might be willing to offer their own interpretations for these two important topics.
I respectfully request that you would respect this process and offer your independent interpretations rather than agree or keep silent because you want to move on to chapter 7.... please!

1) A visual to show how brittle part of the kingdom is. No other meaning, that's it. Daniel says what it is, and that's what it is, so theres no more that needs to be said about it. There's no "secret" hidden meaning other than what Daniel said it was. And since I don't agree the legs/toes are Rome, I don't think you can know what kingdom this is, as its future based that are the 10 kings of Revelation.

2) Jesus + Saints. Verse 44 depicts it as a kingdom, so its essentially the one Jesus makes during the Millennial reign.

 

[WayneNSO]

@WayneNSO, @2ndTimeIsTheCharm, @Delvianna, @HeIsHere, @tablet123, @Vucesa, @TMS, @Adstar, @Omegatime, @Researcher, @dkontner, @GaryA,@DavidLamb, @Inquisitor, @Melach

Here are all the neat folks that have so far participated in this thread. So much to read and consider and I certainly thank everyone for the time and consideration. I think it is safe to say, and please correct me if I am mistaken, that there may only be two important issues open - where there is some serious doubt about the interpretations I have offered (and there is certainly nothing wrong with that as my interpretations do not have to be accepted or received and it does not mean your individual interpretations are inferior to yours. i am simple attempting to offer my interpretations that significantly differ than any of "today's supposedly accepted interpretations - futurist or preterist) and discuss them with you. And of course, anyone reading my responses will easily come to the conclusion i do indeed believe them - but really, no different than your own beliefs.

So, i would respectfully ask that each of you, SHOULD YOU WISH, offer your interpretation of the two issues:

1) who and what are the clay elements in the iron feet and briefly why?

2) how do you interpret verse 2:34 - the Stone striking the feet? And why?

This is all voluntary of course but there are definitely some who might be willing to offer their own interpretations for these two important topics.
I respectfully request that you would respect this process and offer your independent interpretations rather than agree or keep silent because you want to move on to chapter 7.... please!

I answered in post 288

 

[JustThinking]

So do you now who or what the little horn is?

Yes, but we have not moved past chapter 2. What are your thoughts regarding the two open issues mentioned in post #296? Thanks.