One correction to my last post "The sanctuary in verse 11 is the little horn’s own sanctuary while the one miqdash in verse 14 (holy, belongs to God ) at the end of 2300 days shall be restored by Jesus." Should have been "The sanctuary in verse 11 is the little horn’s own sanctuary while the one qodesh in verse 14 (holy, belongs to God ) at the end of 2300 days shall be restored by Jesus." Daniel 8:9 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. Here's the explanation of little horn's movement. To understand this better, please refer to my post "The rise and fall of Anti Christ" regarding AC's movement during tribulation. "toward the south" Little horn shall come Rome ( Daniel 9:26, the prince to come). He is also the king of the north in Daniel 11:25-27. He shall battle with the king of the south who is Saudi per Daniel 11:25-26. This is what "toward the south" means. "toward the east" After he battles with king of the south Saudi, he shall return to Rome. But eventually he shall move to his own land Babel situated in Iraq, sets there as his own base. This is what "toward the east" means.( Daniel 11:28). "toward the pleasant land" This tragedy shall happen in the middle of tribulation. The pleasant land is Jerusalem. He shall break the covenant, and lays siege against Jerusalem. This is the beginning of Jacob's trouble. This is what "toward the pleasant land" means. 2nd Coming, I never see you cite any evidence other than your own opinion. You're entitled to believe whatever you wish, but you aren't entitled to your own facts, as the saying goes. Here are some scholars: Daniel 8:9 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. Yes, I most certainly do see this little horn as Antiochus Epiphanes. (3) Both persecute the saints of God. The cruel and violent persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes are recorded in histories annals for all to observe. In the spring of 168 B.C., the armies of the Syrian king had arrived within four miles of the great city of Alexandria to compel the pharaohs to surrender. But the Egyptians had appealed to Rome for assistance. A Roman fleet was anchored in the bay and their representative Popilius Laenas, soon met with the king. After drawing a circle with his staff around the Syrian king, and forcing him to give an immediate response, the king reluctantly accepted the ultimatum to depart. After being humiliated and forced to leave Egypt, Antiochus’s vengeance was quickly turned upon Jerusalem. He killed over eighty thousand men, women, and children and sold forty thousand into slavery (2 Macc. v. 5-14). The holy place was robbed of its treasures and the temple was dedicated to Jupiter Olympus. The temple was defiled by offering a sow upon the altar and scattering its juice over all the sanctuary and vessels. He substituted the Jewish feasts with the drunken revelry of Bacchanalia, forcing the Jews to worship Bacchus, the god of pleasure and wine. The licentious festival of Saturnalia, the worship of Saturn, was also enforced upon the inhabitants. He forbade the reading of the Holy Scriptures and the tradition of circumcision. Throwing them headlong with their infants off of the highest wall in Jerusalem, Antiochus killed two mothers who had circumcised their children in defiance of the law. He also cut out the tongues of a mother’s seven sons and after that had each of them roasted alive on a flat iron (2 Macc. vii. 3-5). Then the mother herself was murdered. John Walvoord notes that “a detailed description of the violent atrocities and murder of thousands of Jews by Antiochus while marching through Judea is found in 1 Maccabees 1:20-28 and 2 Maccabees 5:11-17.”5 Your comments: 11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down “and the place of his sanctuary was cast down” Hold on. What you do here is assume that Revelation 17:15-16 is what is referred to in Daniel chapter 8, without proof. We only have your assertion it is so. “and the place of his sanctuary was cast down” It does not say Antiochus cast down his own sanctuary. You are adding that concept to the text. He tried to turn the Temple of God into a temple for Jupiter Olympus and it was his sanctuary for a while. But the Temple, having been defiled so greatly, was cleansed. Your comment: Also, from the conversation between the angel and Daniel, we find the little horn can’t be Antiochus. I'll agree, "time of the end" could sound like the ultimate last days, although in context, it can refer to the "last days" of what remained of the Greek empire. 23 “In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a fierce-looking king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy those who are mighty, the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power. 26 “The vision of the evenings and mornings that has been given you is true, but seal up the vision, for it concerns the distant future.” From the time when Daniel lived until Antiochus Epiphanes was hundreds of years.Your Comment: “for at the time of the end shall be the vision” Antiochus is king of Seleucid empire. He reigned by his own power. This contradicts ” not by his own power”. From Revelation 13, the beast gains his power from Satan because Satan gives the power, his seat and authority to the beast. It fits “but not by his own power” description because Satan gives the power to him . The little horn whom angel was referring to is the beast aka Anti Christ. And he could not be Antiochus.
Antiochus also was given power by Satan. 25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. “by peace shall destroy many” This doesn’t sound right with the brutal character of Antiochus. “by peace shall destroy many” "This doesn’t sound right with the brutal character of Antiochus." https://www.studylight.org/commentary/daniel/8-25.html He shall owe his success in a great measure to a crafty policy, to intrigue, and to cunning. This was true in an eminent sense, of Antiochus. See his history in Prideaux, above referred to, and the books of Maccabees. Compare the notes at Daniel 11:21. The same character is given of him by Polybius, “Relig.” lib. xxi. c. 5, tom. iv. p. 501, ed. Schweighauser; Appian, “de reb. Syr.” xlv. t. 1, p. 604, ed. Schweigh. Compare Daniel 11:21, Daniel 11:24. It would seem to mean that he would endeavor to produce the impression that he was coming in peace; that he pretended friendship, and designed to keep those whom he meant to invade and destroy in a state of false security, so that he might descend upon them unawares. This was his policy rather than to declare war openly, and so give his enemies fair warning of what he intended to do. This description agrees every way with the character of Antiochus, a leading part of whose policy always was to preserve the appearance of friendship, that he might accomplish his purpose while his enemies were off their guard. http://www.prophecyforum.com/antiochus.html Of the Syrian king Antiochus it is said that he will destroy many by peace (Dan. 8:25). Pretending to be on a peaceful mission he would then plunder and steal, giving out liberally the treasures he had acquired to his cronies. “he shall be broken without hand” Antiochus was killed by men, while the little horn shall be destroyed, but not by human power. Little horn shall be destroyed by Jesus’ glorious return. How did Antiochus Ephiphanes die? https://www.studylight.org/commentary/daniel/8-25.html But he shall be broken without hand - That is, without the hand of man, or by no visible cause. He shall be overcome by Divine, invisible power. According to the author of the first book of Maccabees (1 Maccabees 6:8-16), he died of grief and remorse in Babylon. He was on an expedition to Persia, and there laid siege to Elymais, and was defeated, and fled to Babylon, when, learning that his forces in Palestine had been repulsed, penetrated with grief and remorse, he sickened and died. According to the account in the second book of Maccabees (2 Maccabees 9), his death was most distressing and horrible. Compare Prideaux, iii. 272-275. All the statements given of his death, by the authors of the books of Maccabees, by Josephus, by Polybius, by Q. Curtius, and by Arrian (see the quotations in Prideaux), agree in representing it as attended with every circumstance of horror that can be well supposed to accompany a departure from this world, and as having every mark of the just judgment of God. The Divine prediction in Daniel was fully accomplished, that his death would be “without hand,” in the sense that it would not be by human instrumentality; but that it would be by a direct Divine infliction. When Antiochus died, the opposition to the Jews ceased, and their land again had peace and rest. There are several versions of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. 1 Maccabees differs from 2 Maccabees and is therefore unreliable on this point. I'll go with either natural causes or that God Himself took care of the problem. [Your quote]Why do we still have historians argue on the correctness of 2300 days or 1150 days like you preferred? Because they, like yourself, do not take into account the use of a Hebrew idiom to describe the twice daily sacrifices. Therefore, we keep having this issue resurface. You asked for a lengthy response. Here it is, for what it's worth. Quote [2nd Coming, I never see you cite any evidence other than your own opinion. You’re entitled to believe whatever you wish, but you aren’t entitled to your own facts, as the saying goes.] My evidence comes from scripture where I found many discrepancies comparing to your claim. There is another one for you. Daniel 8:13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? The transgression of the little horn shall lead to desolation of Judah. After Maccabean revolt, Judah has enjoyed roughly 80 years of Hasmonean Dynasty ( 142 - 63 BCE). There was no desolation in Judah. How do you justify the word "desolation" ? Quote [ Yes, I most certainly do see this little horn as Antiochus Epiphanes.] Again, you were quoting other people's opinion and attaching their link to support your view. There was a king Antiochus Epiphanes who defiled the temple in 167 BC. But we shouldn't quickly jump into conclusion that he is the little horn in Daniel 8 when there are too many discrepancies detailing the little horn as Antiochus. We should explore every words God said in Daniel 8, and in this case, I have brought up few examples which you still haven't given us a satisfactory answers. Quote [“and the place of his sanctuary was cast down” It does not say Antiochus cast down his own sanctuary. You are adding that concept to the text. He tried to turn the Temple of God into a temple for Jupiter Olympus and it was his sanctuary for a while. But the Temple, having been defiled so greatly, was cleansed.] You are correct that the little horn did not cast down his sanctuary. It will be done by the ten kings. They shall burn down his sanctuary with fire. Scripture defines scripture. There are many scriptures that make up for other shortcoming. Revelation 17:16 is a good one. Question: Who cast down Antiochus' sanctuary? We need to address this issue when scripture did suggest "and the place of his sanctuary was cast down". Quote [ I’ll agree, “time of the end” could sound like the ultimate last days, although in context, it can refer to the “last days” of what remained of the Greek empire.] You pointed " the time of the end" to the end of Greek empire. After Antiochus IV died in 164 BC, his empire still continued for another hundred years, until the Roman general Pompey defeated the Seleucid Antiochus XIII and incorporated Syria as a province of the Roman empire in first century. Your argument of " the time of the end" points to the end of Greek empire is rather weak. And most bible scholars agree the time of the end points to the latter days before Jesus returns. Quote [Antiochus also was given power by Satan.] Your comment is too general as it can apply to Hitler, Stalin,... But I found from Revelation 13 to support little horn shall gain his power from Satan, as little horn through scripture is another name for Anti Christ. Can you find from scripture to support Antiochus gained his power from Satan? Quote [ by peace shall destroy many. Your explanation: This was his policy rather than to declare war openly, and so give his enemies fair warning of what he intended to do. This description agrees every way with the character of Antiochus, a leading part of whose policy always was to preserve the appearance of friendship, that he might accomplish his purpose while his enemies were off their guard. Barnes' note on bible: And by peace shall destroy many - Margin, "prosperity." The Hebrew word (שׁלוה shalevâh) means, properly, tranquility, security, ease, carelessness. Here the phrase seems to mean "in the midst of security" (Gesenius, Lexicon); that is, while they were at ease, and regarded themselves as in a state of safety, he would come suddenly and unexpectedly upon them, and destroy them. He would make sudden war on them, invading their territories, so that they would have no opportunity to make preparation to meet him. You pictured Antiochus with a peaceful character. But other scholars like Barnes pictured Antiochus with a cunning, brutal character. Historians called Antiochus "madman". This defines his brutal character and he did not destroy many by peace. Many bible scholars including Jack Van Impe constantly quoting this verse to describe the cunning work of the Anti Christ. He shall come and destroys many by peace. I am no different from them. Quote [ There are several versions of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. 1 Maccabees differs from 2 Maccabees and is therefore unreliable on this point. I’ll go with either natural causes or that God Himself took care of the problem. ] The death of Antiochus is still a myth. Many historians quoted book of Maccabees which is not a recognized source in bible. They hated Antiochus so much that they might distort his death to their gain. Quote [ Because they, like yourself, do not take into account the use of a Hebrew idiom to describe the twice daily sacrifices. Therefore, we keep having this issue resurface.] It is not just us, it is God who uses evening and morning in Genesis 1 to denote one day. It is only you and some others to interpret 2300 evening and morning as 1150 days. God has never used this method of defining days through out the bible, by chopping a number like 2300 into a half. Like I said, when the Jews rededicate the daily sacrifice, they shall oblige to ancient worship by having a sacrifice in the morning, and another one in evening. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Your evidence comes from your opinion of what scripture means. "Desolation" in this case means the Temple of God was made unsuitable for worship until it was cleansed of the horror of idol worship. The same will be true for the final Antichrist's Abomination of Desolation. I did not describe Antiochus as "peaceful." He was a liar and a deceiver who came in under a guise of being peaceable. That is a big difference. Do you not understand my point about Maccabees? I am saying that because there are multiple versions of how Antiochus died, that makes the book unreliable regarding how he perished. In other respects, it may be useful historically. At least one account says he died without human intervention. You mentioned Jack Van Impe. Funny how he also ascribes this chapter to Antiochus Epiphanes:
Again, the Bible predicted these events to the very day. Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the temple, persecuted the Jews, and wreaked havoc on all who believed from September 6, 171 to December 25, 165 B.C., exactly twenty-three hundred days as the Bible says. But, as we will see, these twenty-three hundred days have an even greater significance as we continue to unseal the mysteries of the time of the end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiochus_IV_Epiphanes The date of Antiochus's persecution of the Jews in Jerusalem is variously given as 168 or 167 BC. In their commentary on the Book of Daniel, Newsom and Breed argue for 167, although they state that good arguments can be made for either chronology.[15] Most people would not claim the sacrifices were suspended for over six years. That goes against what is known regarding Jewish history. In all fairness to you, I appreciate that you did at least mention someone (JVI), although in a tiny minority, who think there are 2300 "days" in view. I believe that's incorrect, but it's a start. How about this one? https://www.gotquestions.org/prophecy-2300-days-Daniel.html The time period covered, 2,300 days, figures to about 6 1/3 years. We believe this prophecy was fulfilled before the birth of Christ, during the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV (Epiphanes). Antiochus desecrated the temple in Jerusalem and severely persecuted the Jews from about September 171 BC to December 165 BC. When Antiochus died, the Jews purified and rededicated the temple, just as Daniel had predicted. These events are commemorated in the celebration of Hanukkah. Hmmm. They also go with the 2300 days, along with Jack Van Impe, yet they recognize it refers to Antiochus Ephiphanes. As I stated in a previous post, even if you insist on 2300 days being in view, that still does not match the time frame for Daniel's other reference to 1260 days or to twice that, being 2520. No matter how you slice it, it doesn't fit. By the way, the number of "Evenings and Mornings" varies in ancient texts from 2200, to 2300, to 2400. The original version was likely 2200, and due to a copying error, the other versions appeared. I'm not going to engage in this sort of discussion after this comment. You have your view, which is incorrect, but I have posted for the benefit of others what most respectable historians have to say regarding the historical evidence. You continue to post what you want to believe. Have a nice day. May be I didn't explain 2300 evenings and mornings too clear. Here we go. Daniel 8:13 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. In the Hebrew context, it reads "unto two thousand three hundred evenings mornings". When the Jews reinstitute the daily sacrifice, they shall oblige to the ancient ceremony, that is, they give two sacrifice in a day, one in the evening, while the other one in the morning. This is why when Daniel asked Gabriel "How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice", Gabriel answered "two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings", by breaking down the daily sacrifice into one sacrifice in the evening and the other one in the morning, for a total of 2300 evenings and mornings sacrifice. Evening comes first because a day begins on sundown in Jewish calendar. One correction from my last post. Daniel heard one saint asking the other saint " How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice", the saint answered "unto two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings", by breaking down the daily sacrifice into one sacrifice in the evening and the other sacrifice in the morning, for a total of 2300 evenings and mornings sacrifice. Daniel must have seen two daily sacrifice in his vision, which prompted the saint answering his vision by splitting the daily sacrifice into two parts, one in the evening while the other one in the morning. Hey did you see this? From BigLeaguePolitics.com .... the pope and António Guterres, Secretary General of the U.N. just had a meeting ... :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn :popcorn Francis revealed the dogma that he intends to replace belief in Christ as savior with last week. He is advocating for Catholics to unite behind a one world government, and surrender their freedom and sovereignty to international interests. - Fair Use- If my timeline is correct, Israelis shall reinstitute the daily sacrifice on the evening of Purim 2021 Feb 26. Next morning they perform another sacrifice. This is the vision Daniel saw. This evening and morning sacrifice shall continue up to Dec 3 Kislev 20 2023 when AC breaks the covenant and places the abomination on the altar. Dec 3 2023 is the beginning of 1290 days abomination. This is also the fulfillment of "and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot" in Daniel 8:13. This transgression shall lead to desolation of Israel. Jesus returns on May 16 2027, takes 30 days to end this transgression and abomination. June 15 2027 is the last day of 1290 days. AC and the false prophet shall be thrown into the lake of fire. Sanctuary is cleansed, and holy is restored by Jesus. This also ends the 1290 days of abomination. By June 15 2027, the vision Daniel saw concerning the daily sacrifice, it's reinstitution, and it's tragic fate shall be concluded. From Feb 26 Purim 2021 to June 15 2027, there's a total of 2300 days. Sure smells like a false prophet if you ask me! Now why after thousands of years should the Catholic Vicar of Christ suddenly push for this?! The Catholic church is already desperate for increasing membership. The commercials I have seen uses the tag line, "Come home" targeting all former Catholics! Short of that, this seems to be an effort to increase membership by other means. And let's not forget the political and spiritual implications involved here. I am curious as to how long time Catholics and clergy will respond with this obvious attempt to gut Christ from Christianity?! Or is this a Luciferian doctrine only now surfacing after having been pursued for generations in secret?! Ergo highlighting the religion of men as opposed to relationship with Christ. I would expect the un-regenerated masses to fall in line, but what of the Catholic theologians and saints of old? TR
https://www.studylight.org/commentary/daniel/8-9.html
David, you think this little horn is Antiochus Epiphanes. Scripture points to a different person.
This little horn not only magnifies himself to be like God, he also cast down his own sanctuary. Did Antiochus cast down his own temple between 168 and 164 BC? Concerning casting down of his own temple, we find this event in Revelation 17:15-16.
17 So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.
The vision is for the end time. It doesn’t sound right with the events took place between 168 and 164 BC.
23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.
24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practise, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.
“His power shall be nighty, but not by his own power”
Yes, it actually does.
https://www.jvim.com/weekly-newsletter-june-19-2017/ 
