Why Antiochus Epiphanes IV Is Not The Little Horn - Part I: "in the latter time of their kingdom"

[Phoneman777]

Antiochus Epiphanes IV is incorrectly identified as the Little Horn of Daniel 8 by those who simply don't understand eschatology must align with historic evidence. There are several irrefutable facts of history which disqualify him as the Little Horn of Daniel 8.

One reason for abandoning this false belief is that the prophecy specifically says the Little Horn is to arise "in the latter time of their kingdom" - "their kingdom" referring to the four divisional rulers of the one great Greek Empire: Lysimachus, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Seleucid. At the "latter end" of their rulership, the Little Horn is specifically said to arise.

Question: At what point in the Seleucid line of kings did Antiochus Epiphanes IV begin his reign?

Answer: The facts of history show that he was the eighth king in a line of 20+ kings, which makes the time of his reign anything but "in the latter end" of the line of kingly rulership - it was at the midpoint.

There is simply no getting around irrefutable facts and if we're going to be Holy Spirit led students of Bible prophecy at all, we must follow where Providence - not our bigoted ideas - leads us.

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Antiochus Epiphanes IV is incorrectly identified as the Little Horn of Daniel 8 by those who simply don't understand eschatology must align with historic evidence. There are several irrefutable facts of history which disqualify him as the Little Horn of Daniel 8.

One reason for abandoning this false belief is that the prophecy specifically says the Little Horn is to arise "in the latter time of their kingdom" - "their kingdom" referring to the four divisional rulers of the one great Greek Empire: Lysimachus, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Seleucid. At the "latter end" of their rulership, the Little Horn is specifically said to arise.

Question: At what point in the Seleucid line of kings did Antiochus Epiphanes IV begin his reign?

Answer: The facts of history show that he was the eighth king in a line of 20+ kings, which makes the time of his reign anything but "in the latter end" of the line of kingly rulership.

There is simply no getting around irrefutable facts and if we're going to be Holy Spirit led students of Bible prophecy at all, we must follow where Providence - not our bigoted ideas - leads us.

Is that 20 kings for the southern kingdom? Antiochus IV Epiphanes died only 18 years before Rome conquers Greece.

 

[Douggg]

Antiochus Epiphanes IV is incorrectly identified as the Little Horn of Daniel 8 by those who simply don't understand eschatology must align with historic evidence. There are several irrefutable facts of history which disqualify him as the Little Horn of Daniel 8.

One reason for abandoning this false belief is that the prophecy specifically says the Little Horn is to arise "in the latter time of their kingdom" - "their kingdom" referring to the four divisional rulers of the one great Greek Empire: Lysimachus, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Seleucid. At the "latter end" of their rulership, the Little Horn is specifically said to arise.

Question: At what point in the Seleucid line of kings did Antiochus Epiphanes IV begin his reign?

Answer: The facts of history show that he was the eighth king in a line of 20+ kings, which makes the time of his reign anything but "in the latter end" of the line of kingly rulership.

There is simply no getting around irrefutable facts and if we're going to be Holy Spirit led students of Bible prophecy at all, we must follow where Providence - not our bigoted ideas - leads us.

Agreed, Antiochus IV was not the time of the end little horn person. But then again, neither is the pope/papacy.

The little horn person must be a Jew, who later after the Gog/Magog event comes into the middle east, as the prince who shall come, to act as peace keeper in the region. At which time, the Jews will mistakenly think he is their long awaited King of Israel messiah.

Once anointed the King of Israel, by the false prophet who the Jews will mistaken think is Elijah, the person becomes the Antichrist.

Then after 3 years, thereabouts, the Antichrist commits the transgression of desolation of Daniel 8:13, the 2Thessalonians2:4 action, to reveal himself as the man of sin - and not the messiah after all.

God has the revealed man of sin assassinated, Ezekiel 28:1-10. Then in Isaiah 14:18-20, in disdain for him, God returns the person back to life, at which time he becomes the beast of Revelation 13, who's deadly wound is healed.

little horn > the prince who shall come > the Antichrist >the revealed man of sin > the beast

little horn - a leader over ten EU leaders (pre-Gog/Magog)
the beast - dictator of the EU (his final role)

the prince who shall come - to Israel (post Gog/Magog)
the Antichrist - Israel related

the revealed man of sin - transitions to becoming the beast

 

[Phoneman777]

Is that 20 kings for the southern kingdom? Antiochus IV Epiphanes died only 18 years before Rome conquers Greece.

The Seleucid kingdom ruled for a century and a half before Antiochus and then just over a century after he died, making him just two decades past the midpoint.

No way that's "in the latter time of their kingdom" - it's more precisely the "middle time".

 

[Phoneman777]

Agreed, Antiochus IV was not the time of the end little horn person. But then again, neither is the pope/papacy.

At the latter time of the Greek divisions, PAGAN Rome arose and attacking horizontally toward the South, East, and Pleasant Land (Palestine) but then went on as PAPAL ROME to attack vertically at the heavenly sanctuary of God and cast the truth to the ground.

So, yes, the Little Horn is Roman, both in its pagan and papal stages.

The little horn person must be a Jew, who later after the Gog/Magog event comes into the middle east, as the prince who shall come, to act as peace keeper in the region. At which time, the Jews will mistakenly think he is their long awaited King of Israel messiah.

The "Man of Sin" antichrist is called the "Son of Perdition"...know the only other person called that? Judas.

Was Judas an outsider or did he get his start in the church but later apostacize?
Will the "Son of Perdition" aka "Man of Sin" antichrist arise among the Jews or the church?

You got it!

Once anointed the King of Israel, by the false prophet who the Jews will mistaken think is Elijah, the person becomes the Antichrist.

Then after 3 years, thereabouts, the Antichrist commits the transgression of desolation of Daniel 8:13, the 2Thessalonians2:4 action, to reveal himself as the man of sin - and not the messiah after all.

God has the revealed man of sin assassinated, Ezekiel 28:1-10. Then in Isaiah 14:18-20, in disdain for him, God returns the person back to life, at which time he becomes the beast of Revelation 13, who's deadly wound is healed.

little horn > the prince who shall come > the Antichrist >the revealed man of sin > the beast

little horn - a leader over ten EU leaders (pre-Gog/Magog)
the beast - dictator of the EU (his final role)

the prince who shall come - to Israel (post Gog/Magog)
the Antichrist - Israel related

the revealed man of sin - transitions to becoming the beast

Cool story, bro, but again, the Son of Perdition arise within the church, not among the Jews. He arises among the "Ten Horns" barbarian nations which give their authority over to the pope - not some Jewish loser.

 

[Douggg]

The "Man of Sin" antichrist is called the "Son of Perdition"...know the only other person called that? Judas.

Judas was a Jew, right ?

So also will be the revealed man of sin.

Was Judas an outsider or did he get his start in the church but later apostacize?
Will the "Son of Perdition" aka "Man of Sin" antichrist arise among the Jews or the church?

Judas never made it to the church stage. He hung himself not long after betraying Jesus.

Judas arose among the Jews.

 

[Douggg]

Cool story, bro, but again, the Son of Perdition arise within the church, not among the Jews. He arises among the "Ten Horns" barbarian nations which give their authority over to the pope - not some Jewish loser.

Information is progressively revealed more and more about the person in the same order as the books of the bible. What we have to do is put that information together.

little horn - Daniel 7, Daniel 8
prince who shall come - Daniel 9
the Antichrist - 1John2:18
the revealed man of sin - 2Thessalonians2
the beast - Revelation 13

2Thessalonians2:4, the Pope never went into the temple of God, to declare himself to have achieved God-hood. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

 

[Peterlag]

Is that 20 kings for the southern kingdom? Antiochus IV Epiphanes died only 18 years before Rome conquers Greece.

Just curious... did the staff remove me from that other post or was it you who requested it?

 

[RedFan]

Antiochus Epiphanes IV is incorrectly identified as the Little Horn of Daniel 8 by those who simply don't understand eschatology must align with historic evidence.

Everyone understands that eschatology should align with historical evidence. Not everyone makes the correlation in the same way.

 

[Phoneman777]

Judas was a Jew, right ?

So also will be the revealed man of sin.



Judas never made it to the church stage. He hung himself not long after betraying Jesus.

Judas arose among the Jews.

If Luke can refer to "the church that was in the wilderness" then I can refer to "the church that Judas arose up in but went out from" because of apostasy. So, too, the antichrist will do the same.

Your idea that the antichrist will be Jewish finds no support in Scripture.

 

[Phoneman777]

Information is progressively revealed more and more about the person in the same order as the books of the bible. What we have to do is put that information together.

little horn - Daniel 7, Daniel 8
prince who shall come - Daniel 9
the Antichrist - 1John2:18
the revealed man of sin - 2Thessalonians2
the beast - Revelation 13

Who told you the "prince that shall come" is antichrist? There are only two candidates for the coming "prince" in Daniel 9: "Messiah the prince" or "prince Titus" who came destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. Nowhere is there any mention of "antichrist" - it's purely Jesuit Futurist conjecture.

2Thessalonians2:4, the Pope never went into the temple of God, to declare himself to have achieved God-hood. The temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

The pope even now sits in the "temple of God" - the church - showing himself that he's God.

God would no sooner refer to a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem - in which the sacrifices performed would be a middle finger in His face - as the "temple of God" than you would refer to your mom's house as "the best little whorehouse near your house"...right or wrong?

Would you do that? Would you refer to your mom's house as a whorehouse? Why not? So, why do you Jesuit Futurists insist that God would call a building where the sacrifices offered therein would be a giant, collective, national rejection of Jesus - a "here's what we think of Your Messiah, God!!!" - the "temple of God"?

Because Jesuit Futurists don't think - they merely repeat the narrative. If they took a few minutes to really examine what they believe, they'd discover what they think is an air tight interpretation is nothing of the kind, friend.

 

[Phoneman777]

Everyone understands that eschatology should align with historical evidence. Not everyone makes the correlation in the same way.

If everyone understands that, then why do they ignore history?

The early church, according to the ECFs, was teaching Paul's Restrainer was Pagan Rome, but today "everyone" is running around insisting it is the "holy spirit" or "the holy spirit filled church" or some other "agent of holiness".

In the same way, history shows Antiochus Epiphanes IV arose 8th in a line of 20+ kings, just a couple decades the other side of the midpoint time of their reign - yet "everyone" ignores this and insists he's the "Little Horn" which prophecy says arises "in the latter time of their reign".

 

[RedFan]

If everyone understands that, then why do they ignore history?

Everyone DOESN'T ignore history. (You don't. I don't. There's two.) They just don't all agree on how to correlate history and Biblical predictions.

 

[Phoneman777]

Everyone DOESN'T ignore history. (You don't. I don't. There's two.) They just don't all agree on how to correlate history and Biblical predictions.

All Jesuit Futurists do

 

[3 Resurrections]

One reason for abandoning this false belief is that the prophecy specifically says the Little Horn is to arise "in the latter time of their kingdom" - "their kingdom" referring to the four divisional rulers of the one great Greek Empire: Lysimachus, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Seleucid. At the "latter end" of their rulership, the Little Horn is specifically said to arise.

You are missing the point scripture is making. At "the latter time of THEIR kingdom" when ALL FOUR rulers had been in power, the little horn then arose in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes IV. This was "not in his own power" (Daniel 8:24). Antiochus Epiphanes IV took advantage of the power vacuum left by the death of his brother Seleucus IV Philopator, whose son and heir was a very young hostage at Rome at the time. Antiochus E. more or less usurped the crown and the kingdom. "Craft" is an apt description of how Antiochus E. arose to power and kept it.

By then, the Greek kingdom's joint rulership of the four most prominent rulers had ended. Assassinations and constant infighting among the rulers of those four divisions of the Greek empire resulted in that kingdom power eventually coalescing into only two rulers - the "king of the south" (the Ptolemaic rulers) and the "king of the north" (the Seleucid rulers).

This little horn, the king in Daniel 8, would end by being "broken without hand" (Daniel 8:25), which happened when Antiochus E's chariot overturned, and he sustained broken bones which progressed into a foul disease of which Antiochus E. died - not in battle or by any human agency, but by God's direct intervention in ending his life.

Conclusion: the "little horn" is most definitely Antiochus Epiphanes IV.

 

[Phoneman777]

You are missing the point scripture is making. At "the latter time of THEIR kingdom" when ALL FOUR rulers had been in power, the little horn then arose in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes IV. This was "not in his own power" (Daniel 8:24). Antiochus Epiphanes IV took advantage of the power vacuum left by the death of his brother Seleucus IV Philopator, whose son and heir was a very young hostage at Rome at the time. Antiochus E. more or less usurped the crown and the kingdom. "Craft" is an apt description of how Antiochus E. arose to power and kept it.

By then, the Greek kingdom's joint rulership of the four most prominent rulers had ended. Assassinations and constant infighting among the rulers of those four divisions of the Greek empire resulted in that kingdom power eventually coalescing into only two rulers - the "king of the south" (the Ptolemaic rulers) and the "king of the north" (the Seleucid rulers).

This little horn, the king in Daniel 8, would end by being "broken without hand" (Daniel 8:25), which happened when Antiochus E's chariot overturned, and he sustained broken bones which progressed into a foul disease of which Antiochus E. died - not in battle or by any human agency, but by God's direct intervention in ending his life.

Conclusion: the "little horn" is most definitely Antiochus Epiphanes IV.

Good gravy, it's as if I'm writing in an alien language to you people.

Antiochus didn't arise "in the latter time" of the line of the 20+ Seleucid kings - he arose as number 8 at the MID POINT!!!!!

He cannot be the Little Horn, for prophecy says it rises at the end of the line of these Greek kings when they're going down. The Little Horn represents Pagan Rome while it is attacking horizontally and then finally PAPAL Rome when it starts attaching God's throne.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Antiochus didn't arise "in the latter time" of the line of the 20+ Seleucid kings - he arose as number 8 at the MID POINT!!!!!

You are misquoting scripture here. The little horn was said to arise in the "latter time" of the FOUR KINGS who had "stood up" and taken power in Alexander's divided Greek nation. The pronoun in the phrase "THEIR kingdom" refers back to THE FOUR INDIVIDUALS - NOT TWENTY.

The origin of the little horn was to come "out of one of them" - or out of one of those four horns in Daniel 8:9. Antiochus Epiphanes most definitely came out of the one Seleucid "horn", but not out of the other three horns.

Antiochus Epiphanes IV fits ALL the prophetic language of what this "little horn" would do.

 

[Phoneman777]

You are misquoting scripture here. The little horn was said to arise in the "latter time" of the FOUR KINGS who had "stood up" and taken power in Alexander's divided Greek nation. The pronoun in the phrase "THEIR kingdom" refers back to THE FOUR INDIVIDUALS - NOT TWENTY.

That's extremely weak, friend. From the time those four generals took over until Rome conquered, the empires of Seleucid, Ptolemy, Cassander, and Lysimachus continued to be referred to as such - so limiting "their kingdom" to merely the time the four generals reigned is absurd.

The origin of the little horn was to come "out of one of them" - or out of one of those four horns in Daniel 8:9. Antiochus Epiphanes most definitely came out of the one Seleucid "horn", but not out of the other three horns.

Gonna explain 2 reasons why "them" can't ever refer to "horns" like you're 6 years old so you don't miss it:

1) The nearest noun antecedent to the pronoun "them" is winds, not horns.
2) Noun/pronoun gender agreement disqualifies "horns":

"them" is a feminine pronoun
"horns" is a masculine noun
"winds" is a masculine but sometimes feminine noun

The Little Horn comes out of one of the four "winds" - the West in Rome - aka the Roman catholic papacy.

Antiochus Epiphanes IV fits ALL the prophetic language of what this "little horn" would do.

Care to elaborate?

 

[3 Resurrections]

) The nearest noun antecedent to the pronoun "them" is winds, not horns.
2) Noun/pronoun gender agreement disqualifies "horns":

"them" is a feminine pronoun
"horns" is a masculine noun
"winds" is a masculine but sometimes feminine noun

The Little Horn comes out of one of the four "winds"

You are only making my point for me. The direction of the "four winds of heaven" in Daniel 8:8 corresponded to the time that the four horns in that verse were in power because Alexander's vast Greek kingdom eventually became divided into four kingdoms located generally in the four points of the compass - north, south, east, and west. Alexander's Greek kingdom was not divided into 20 sections. Neither are the "four winds of heaven" divided into 20 winds of heaven, if you are trying to match "the latter end of THEIR kingdom" with the single line of some 20 Seleucid kings.

There are plenty of details found in Daniel 8 that match Antiochus Epiphanes IV's history...

Antiochus Epiphanes' death as a result of broken bones from a fall from his chariot, leading to a foul disease and not by assassination or battle injury matches the death of the little horn "broken without hand" in Daniel 8:25.

The sanctuary being "cleansed" in Daniel 8:14 after the 2,300 morning and evening sacrifices (1,150 actual days when the little horn was treading underfoot both the host and the sanctuary) exactly matches the time period that Antiochus Epiphanes' army was "destroying the mighty and the holy people" in Jerusalem (Daniel 8:24). Josephus records this period's length of this time before the sanctuary was "cleansed" after the Maccabean victories.

Antiochus Epiphanes also interfered with selecting the high priest that would serve in Jerusalem, in fulfillment of "magnifying himself even to the prince of the host" (Daniel 8:11) when he would "stand up against the Prince of princes" - the high priest of Israel (Daniel 8:25).

The little horn "by peace (or prosperity) destroyed many" (Daniel 8:25) because Antiochus Epiphanes corrupted the Jews with his Hellenization program that lured young Jewish men into a Greek type of gymnasium where they competed naked like other Greek youths. He also corrupted the temple worship system in Jerusalem by instituting a Greek / Jewish cult in Jerusalem that included worship of Zeus also.

The little horn's power would be "mighty, but not with his own power" (Daniel 8:24) because Antiochus Epiphanes usurped the role of king that his dead brother's very young son Demetrius I should have inherited at the time.

There are further details of Antiochus Epiphanes' actions against the Jews and his 2 battle campaigns against Egypt found in Daniel 11:21-33. Antiochus Epiphanes was not only the "little horn" of Daniel 8, but he was also the "vile person" in Daniel 11:21 who obtained the kingdom "peaceably" and "with flatteries".

 

[Phoneman777]

You are only making my point for me.

I've done no such thing.

You're suggesting the statement "...four horns stood up in its place toward the four winds of heaven" limits the four directions of the compass to the borders of the four horns, which is subjective nonsense. The directions of the compass stretch well beyond the Greek territories to all the way across the world, which includes where the Little Horn rises: ROME.

Did you miss the part where I showed you that the feminine pronoun "THEM" can only refer to the sometimes feminine noun "WINDS" and never to the always masculine noun "HORNS"?