![]() ![]() It shows that when the little horn continues the philosophical and spiritual legacy or continuum of the king of the north, it establishes the little horn's coming from the cardinal point of north, without the little horn needing to come from one of the four horns of the goat. It offers answers for André Reis' grammatical, lexical, textual, and theological arguments for Antiochus Epiphanes being the little horn in Daniel 8. The goal of this paper is to bring the following contributions: It establishes a chiastic structure for Daniel 7-12, which thematic peaks are Christ and the Day of Atonement. As a matter of fact, the principles of Protestant biblical hermeneutics point to the direction of historicism, as will be shown when textual, lexical, and theological areas are researched. Historicism, on the other hand, stands on these characteristics. For example, it breaks the unity and apocalyptic-universal and end-time characteristics of the book of Daniel. However, this interpretation has many problems. There is also a view, that claims that the little horn in Daniel 7 is not the same little horn as in Daniel 8, as André Reis argues (André Reis, “A Response to Glifford Goldstein on the Little Horn on Daniel 8,” ResearchGate, April, 2018, accessed August 18, 2019. ![]() The Maccabean thesis, which is built on preteristic interpretation method, believes that the little horn corresponds for a Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who stood against the Jews in the second century BCE. The identity of the little horn power in Daniel 8 (and 7) is largely determined by the method of interpretation of that chapter, the book of Daniel as a whole, apocalyptic prophecies, and the entire Bible.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |