Choosing a faith

It’s not so much problems in the text. The problem is that the meaning goes against things that many Christians believe.Most of the relevant history isn’t widely known by the general public. But chapters 8 and 11 are rather clearly focussing on Alexander’s successors. That Alexander conquered the Persian Empire only for his own Empire to be divided among his generals IS common knowledge, and that’s all you need. Once you have that starting point you can find the rest.

quote:

---

Does that kingdom still exist today and will it exist at any day there ever become today?

---

It never has existed and never will.

quote:

---

Daniel did have a way of mixing up his time and the end time prophecies up

---

No, Christians have a way of twisting and misrepresenting the Bible to force-fit it to their beliefs.

quote:

---

Paulk, the Holy Roman Empire did not always have the
same border, however, the RCC was always the glue that
held it together.

---

I don’t think that’s true. And it certainly isn’t relevant.

quote:

---

Antiochus was not a king at the same time that all ten of
the other kings were in power. AE fails this.
​

---

Which is not in Daniel 7, nor is it true of your own choices. Napoleon was not a contemporary of the Visigoths. Your objection fails, since even you don’t believe it.

quote:

---

And AE did not subdue three king. If we grant AE leeway,
He might have disposed of two, but not three. AE fails
this test.

---

Since I have already listed the three that only shows your failure to read my post. Why demand answers if you aren’t even going to pay attention to them?

quote:

---

Notice that the little horn is still in power when Christ
returns. AE's influence over any laws and people of God
are no longer in existence. And it uhad been this way for
more than two millennia.

---

I notice nothing of the sort as I have already told you. Your interpretation is incorrect.You have offered not a single valid objection to the identification of the “little horn” with Antiochus Epiphanes. Nor have you offered a better alternative - or even a viable one. The RCC is not a king, by your own words. That disqualifies it there and then (Daniel 7:24)

quote:

---

Paulk, the four kingdoms in Daniel 2 are the same four
Kingdoms in Daniel 7.

---

Again you repeat an argument already refuted. The fourth Beast is the first to be destroyed, not the last (Daniel 7:12)

quote:

---

Paulk, I did read your post. This is why I stated:
​
"And AE did not subdue three king. If we grant AE l
eeway, He might have disposed of two, but not three.
AE fails this test."

---

If you had read the post I would have expected acknowledgement that I listed three and an explanation of which one did not qualify as “subdued”.Note that “subdue” does not mean “kill” - and thus your objection is self-contradictory.In any event Antiochus did supplant three which is adequately represented by metaphorically “ripping up the roots”Another obviously invalid objection..

quote:

---

***You used the terms murdered, killed, and disposed
in post 3506.

---

I used the term “dispossessed” not “disposed”. And the point was that Antiochus took the throne from all three.

quote:

---

The little horn (RCC) plucked the Vandals, Heruli, and
Ostrogoths up by the roots.

---

So again you need to show how they qualify as “horns”. The RCC is a Church, the other three are peoples. None is a King. Without that all you have is a “just because” answer - which you say is “not a reasonable reply” Message 3486.

quote:

---

Paulk, consider the man of sin 2 Thes. 2:3-10, the little
horn Dan. 7:8; the 2 horn lamb Rev. 13:11-18; and, the
false prophet Rev. 19:20.
​
These are all the same personage.

---

According to you, the “little horn” of Daniel 7 is not a personage, so you contradict yourself again.Indeed, you cannot make a case that overrides the text of Daniel like that. So long as you lack a viable interpretation of Daniel - and you obviously know that you don’t - you have nothing.You don’t even consider possibilities like the authors of 2 Thessalonians and Revelation taking material from Daniel for their own purposes.

quote:

---

As long as Satan can convince people that the little horn
in Daniel 7 is AE, he can keep them in the dark about the
mark of the beast.

---

Nonsense. Knowing the truth about Daniel does not change 2 Thessalonians or Revelation. Maybe what you really mean is:

quote:

---

***No, I never said that. The little horn can apply to both
the church and its leader.

---

That would be confusingly vague. The more so since there have been many leaders. And it seems rather odd that the “man of sin” should not be a man.

quote:

---

***No, I don't. The authors of the Bible wrote as the Holy
Spirit led them to write.
​
If you don't believe this, how can you even trust anything
that Daniel writes?

---

I trust only that the text I see is a largely accurate representation of what the author wrote. And from what I’ve seen you won’t even go that far.

quote:

---

Paulk, you are now down to nitpicking. What you should
be doing is praying to God to open your understandin

---

If you want a real example of nitpicking you can look at your own objections to the identification of the “little horn” as Antiochus. Identifying fatal flaws in your argument is not nitpicking.The fact is that you have not shown that the three figures must be interpreted as the same personage. Without that you have no argument. That there are similarities is quite insufficient to override the case that Antiochus is the “little horn”. The more so since you have no defensible interpretation of Daniel.

quote:

---

***I am simply going by the clues that Daniel gives us.
​

---

Not really. You’re trying to force the clues (when your “clues” anre even there) into the interpretation you already have. Especially as I have looked far deeper into the clues than you have.

quote:

---

For example, the little horn comes up among all ten
horns.

---

Which means that the “little horn” follows the ten. Why doesn’t that count as a clue?

quote:

---

The little horn subdued the first three horns.

---

No. Daniel 7 only says that three of the ten were uprooted. There is nothing to say that those three were the first.

quote:

---

It has not being adequately proven that AE subdued any
kings. And, it is certain that it was not the first three.

---

For the first all you can do is nitpick. The second is not a requirement since it is not in Daniel 7.

quote:

---

The little horn changed God's times and Laws. This alone
should determine who the little horn is.

---

It fits Antiochus - as I’ve shown - so if it does determine who it is, than it is Antiochus.

quote:

---

The four empires in Daniel 2 are the same in Daniel 7.

---

So you are going against the clues in Daniel. Even after being repeatedly reminded. The fourth Beast is the first to be destroyed. Daniel 7:12

quote:

---

Paulk, we have been through this enough. I bow out.

---

That’s because you never had anything.Of course you’re free to follow your idolatrous cult but at least know you know that they twist and misrepresent the Bible.

quote:

---

But, now you are left with no idea about the beast and its
image in Revelation 13.
​
Furthermore, you have no clue as to what this mysterious mark is.

---

And you don’t either. You won’t get to the truth by believing the falsehoods you’re fed. But of course you will go on doing just that.

quote:

---

Paulk, I am 100 percent certain that the little horn in
Chapter 7 is the RCC.

---

Yes, I understand that your certainty comes from your idolatry. It certainly doesn’t come from understanding -you ran away from defending your interpretation because you couldn’t. You’ve misrepresented Daniel 7 a number of times. You can’t even show that it was the RCC that “ended” the Visigoths, the Vandals and the Heruli - let alone that any of them qualify as “horns” in the first place.

quote:

---

And I believe that you now have your doubts. Of course,
you will never admit this. You have too much pride to
do that. But, I honestly believe that you have your doubts.

---

You are wrong of course. After the drubbing you’ve received you should have doubts. At the very least. But of course you will cling to the words of your idols, even when they go against the Bible.

quote:

---

I am bowing out simply because you have nothing else
to offer concerning this topic. If you have anything new
to offer, I will listen to it.

---

No,you are bowing out because you have nothing to offer. In your pride you won’t admit it, but you know it. That’s why you run away from answering my questions. If you could refute my arguments and support your own you would do it. And you don’t.

Revelation 13: If the mark is not a literal mark how could it be the name or the number of the name of the Beast?

quote:

---

Paulk, you stated:
​
"No,you are bowing out because you have nothing to
offer."
​
***Okay, if you want us to continue acting like seven year
old boys, then so be it.

---

You set the tone. If you don’t like responses in kind - with the difference that my responses are truthful - you always have the option of acting like an adult.If you had anything you wouldn’t be trying to nitpick my interpretation. You would explain how your interpretation worked. But you don’t. You actively run away from doing so. And so long as you keep doing that you only prove me right.

quote:

---

AE wouldn't make a pimple on the RCC's butt when it
comes to changing God's times and Laws.

---

And all you do here is try to nitpick my answer. By bringing up a point I have already answered.The important issue is that I have a viable interpretation, while you don’t. And you obviously know that you don’t. So stop being childish and accept the truth.

quote:

---

***You accused me of running from this discussion. I
merely saw that we were at a dead end. Because of
your insistence, it is back on.
​

---

So you aren’t going to act like an adult.The only reason for the dead end is that you have no viable interpretation nor any adequate objection to mine.

quote:

---

The little horn changes God's times and Laws. There
is nothing that this little horn does that is more
blasphemous than that.
​

---

And Antiochus did it as I have shown.Apparently you just wish to stick at the dead end. You certainly aren’t going to ever offer a viable alternative.Anyway, why don’t you tell me why Napoleon is the Second Coming of Christ? That should be fascinating.

quote:

---

What's the matter? Do you not have a list?
​
Myself, I am not at a dead end, you are.

---

i don’t need a list. Your point has already been adequately answered. But you won’t move on. Why not offer your explanation of the ten horns and justify it - as I have done for mine? Why run from the question of what criteria identify the ten horns?

quote:

---

Anyway, why don’t you tell me why Napoleon is the
Second Coming of Christ? That should be fascinating."
​
***So you think that Napoleon is the second coming of
Christ. Huh?

---

I don’t think that but you seem to. You say that the Second Coming of Christ will destroy the Holy Roman Empire. Well Napoleon did that.