In Daniel 8, 11, and 12, is A4E meant? Or is a future anti-christ meant?

[Davidpt]

Let's start with ch 11. This is mainly in regards to those who insist there a gap between verse 35 and 36.

(KON) = king of the north
(KOS) = king of the south
(VP) = vile person in verse 21


Obviously, the vile person meant in verse 21 has to be one of these two kings. Either the KON or the KOS.

Daniel 11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person(VP), to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he(VP) shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.
22 And with the arms of a flood shall they be overflown from before him, and shall be broken; yea, also the prince of the covenant.
23 And after the league made with him(VP) he(VP) shall work deceitfully: for he(VP) shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people.
24 He(VP) shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he(VP) shall do that which his(VP) fathers have not done, nor his(VP) fathers' fathers; he(VP) shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he(VP) shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.
25 And he(VP) shall stir up his power and his(VP) courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south(KOS) shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he(KOS) shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him(KOS).

As of verse 25 we undeniably know that the (VP) is not the (KOS)


26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his(KOS) meat shall destroy him(KOS), and his(KOS) army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.
27 And both(KON AND KOS) these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.
28 Then shall he(KON) return into his(KON) land with great riches; and his(KON) heart shall be against the holy covenant; and he(KON) shall do exploits, and return to his(KON) own land.
29 At the time appointed he(KON) shall return, and come toward the south(KOS?); but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.
30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him(KON) : therefore he(KON) shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he(KON) do; he(KON) shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.
31 And arms shall stand on his(KON) part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.
32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.
36 And the king(KON) shall do according to his(KON) will; and he(KON) shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.

Verse 36 has to be meaning the (KON) since the nearest antecedent is verse 31 and that that is meaning the (KON)


37 Neither shall he(KON) regard the God of his(KON) fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he(KON) shall magnify himself(KON) above all.
38 But in his(KON) estate shall he(KON) honour the God of forces: and a god whom his(KON) fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
39 Thus shall he(KON) do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he(KON) shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he(KON) shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him(KON) : and the king of the north shall(KON) come against him(KOS) like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he(KON) shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
41 He(KON) shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his(KON) hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
42 He(KON) shall stretch forth his(KON) hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
43 But he(KON) shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his(KON) steps.
44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him(KON) : therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.
45 And he(KON) shall plant the tabernacles of his(KON) palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he(KON) shall come to his(KON) end, and none shall help him(KON).

 

[Davidpt]

The following are then my conclusions. And that I used ChatGPT as a writing assistant, so to speak. I broke it down into 7 sections. Actually, ChatGPT did that for me. Starting with part 1. Basically, my view is that a literal temple is not meant in Daniel 8, 11, nor 12.

 

[Davidpt]

Can A4E(Antiochus IV Epiphanes) be a type for the future AC? Sure. Except we determine that via Maccabees not the book of Daniel.

Part 1: Introduction and Key Questions

Daniel 11, the Vile Person, and the End-Time King

This thread explores the identity of the "vile person" in Daniel 11:21, evaluates whether he continues through to the end of the chapter, and how this connects to the "king of fierce countenance" in Daniel 8. It questions the common interpretation that this refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes (A4E) and instead suggests that this figure is an end-time Antichrist.

Key Questions:

• Does Daniel 11:21–45 describe a single continuous figure (the same "vile person")?
• What kingdom is being referred to in Daniel 11:21?
• Is the "king of fierce countenance" in Daniel 8:23–25 the same figure as the vile person in Daniel 11?
• Can Antiochus IV fulfill all the traits described in Daniel 8, 11, and 12?
• Does the chapter itself indicate any gap between verse 35 and 36?

 

[Davidpt]

Part 2: Daniel 11 and Pronoun Tracking

Daniel 11:21–45: Who Is the "He"?

Throughout Daniel 11:21–45, the subject is referred to consistently using the pronoun "he". There is no indication in the grammar or structure that a new person is introduced after verse 21. This strongly suggests that the vile person (VP) introduced in verse 21 remains the subject through to verse 45.

Daniel 11:21:
"And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries."

From this verse forward, the "he" continues to act, speak, conquer, and eventually come to his end in verse 45. Importantly, there is no textual indication that a new king suddenly emerges at verse 36.

Compare with verse 20:
"Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes ... but within few days he shall be destroyed..."

Here, the less significant tax-raiser receives a proper conclusion. Why would the major antagonist of the chapter (the VP) simply vanish with no closure—unless verse 45 is his end?

Conclusion: All pronouns from Daniel 11:21–45 are best understood as referring to the same individual.

 

[Davidpt]

Part 3: Problems with the Antiochus Interpretation

Problems with Identifying the Vile Person as Antiochus IV Epiphanes

Many traditional interpreters identify the vile person in Daniel 11:21 as Antiochus IV Epiphanes. However, this view presents major problems:

1. No Clear End for the VP:
Antiochus is never clearly said to "come to his end." Unlike the tax-raiser in v.20, the vile person receives no death or downfall—unless v.45 is referring to him.

2. Verse 45 Describes a Cataclysmic End:
Daniel 11:45:
"And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him."
This sounds far more apocalyptic than Antiochus' mundane death from disease.

3. Daniel 8 Places the Vision in the Time of the End:
Daniel 8:17 – "for at the time of the end shall be the vision"
Daniel 8:26 – "shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days"

These verses explicitly say that the events of Daniel 8 pertain to the end times, not ancient history.

4. The King in Daniel 8:23–25 Opposes Christ:
"He shall stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."
Antiochus IV died over 160 years before Christ was born. He cannot possibly have stood against Christ in any literal way.

5. Thematic Continuity with Daniel 12:
Daniel 12 continues the narrative, again tied to "the time of the end" (12:4, 12:9). The "king" must therefore be the same eschatological figure.

 

[Davidpt]

Part 4: Kingdom and Character of the End-Time King

What Kingdom Is Taken in Daniel 11:21?

Daniel 11:21 – "And in his estate shall stand up a vile person..."

If verse 21 is describing the Antichrist (not Antiochus), then the "kingdom" he obtains is likely not the Seleucid throne but a future empire or coalition over which he rises deceptively.

This is consistent with:
Daniel 8:24 – "His power shall be mighty, but not by his own power..."
Daniel 8:25 – "by peace shall destroy many"

The Antichrist rises to power deceptively (like the vile person) and comes in peaceably (like Daniel 11:21). The prophetic overlap is unmistakable.

Connecting the Figures

Daniel 8:23–25
Daniel 11:21–45
2 Thessalonians 2:3–8
Revelation 13, 17, 19

All describe:

• A man who rises by cunning and flattery
• Destroys the saints and exalts himself
• Opposes God and magnifies himself above all
• Is ultimately destroyed by divine judgment

Conclusion: The vile person of Daniel 11:21 is the same end-time ruler described elsewhere in Scripture. He is not Antiochus IV, nor a type of him. He is the final Antichrist.

 

[Davidpt]

Part 5: Summary and Prophetic Continuity

The following table compares the key traits of the figure in Daniel 8, 11, and 12 and shows how they match a single end-time individual:

Trait	Daniel 8:23–25	Daniel 11:21–45	Daniel 12
Rises deceptively	By craft and dark sentences	Obtains the kingdom by flatteries	-
Destroys the holy people	Destroys the mighty and holy people	Persecutes those who understand	A time of trouble for God's people
Exalts himself	Magnifies himself in heart	Magnifies himself above every god	-
Opposes the Prince of princes	Yes	Speaks against the God of gods	-
Time frame	At the time of the end	At the time of the end (v.40)	Time of the end (12:4, 12:9)
Final judgment	Broken without hand	Comes to his end, none shall help	Ends at resurrection (12:2)

Conclusion:
The harmony between Daniel 8, 11, and 12 points to one continuous narrative about a final king — the Antichrist — whose rise, reign, and destruction are detailed across these chapters.

There is no textual basis for breaking the narrative at Daniel 11:35 or for reassigning verses 36–45 to a separate individual.

 

[Davidpt]

Bonus Post: Q&A Response to Common Objections

FAQ / Response to Common Objections

Q1: Isn't the "vile person" obviously Antiochus IV Epiphanes, since he came in by flatteries?

A1: Antiochus did use deceit, but Daniel 11:21–45 describes far more than that. This figure exalts himself above every god (v. 36), invades Egypt, overthrows many nations, and is destroyed at a climactic moment — all things that extend well beyond Antiochus' career. Furthermore, no death is recorded for the VP unless v. 45 refers to it.

Q2: Doesn’t Daniel 8 clearly refer to Antiochus IV, since he desecrated the temple?

A2: Antiochus did desecrate the temple, but Daniel 8:17 and 8:26 explicitly say the vision is for the "time of the end." Antiochus lived centuries before Christ. He did not oppose the "Prince of princes," nor was he "broken without hand." These are eschatological clues pointing beyond Antiochus.

Q3: What about dual fulfillment — couldn’t Antiochus be a type of the future Antichrist?

A3: While typology is possible, the text of Daniel 8 and 11 gives no indication of a dual fulfillment. Daniel is told to shut up the vision "until the time of the end," not for a near-term fulfillment followed by a future one. A figure with this level of detail should not just be a shadow.

Q4: But historically, verses 21–35 match Antiochus IV. Isn’t that proof?

A4: Some historical parallels exist, but they are often partial or forced. For instance, Antiochus never conquered Egypt in the way Daniel 11:42–43 describes, nor did he ever exalt himself above all gods. Also, there's no record of him dividing land for profit (v. 39) or coming to an end in the glorious land with no one to help him (v. 45).

Q5: Isn’t there a gap in Daniel 11 between verses 35 and 36?

A5: There is no grammatical or narrative break. All the "he" pronouns flow smoothly from verse 21 onward. A new figure is not introduced, unlike earlier verses where phrases like "then shall stand up…" signal transition (e.g., v. 20). Verse 36 simply continues the story.

Final Answer: The most textually consistent reading is that the "vile person" in Daniel 11:21 is the same eschatological king described in Daniel 8:23–25 and continues through to his destruction in 11:45. Antiochus IV may resemble aspects of this figure, but he cannot fulfill the prophecy in its entirety.

 

[Davidpt]

Part 6: The Vile Person and the Antichrist – New Testament Parallels

Part 6: The Vile Person and the Antichrist — New Testament Parallels

The figure introduced in Daniel 11:21 as the vile person, who continues through to his final destruction in verse 45, shares multiple traits with the New Testament’s description of the man of sin (2 Thessalonians 2) and the beast (Revelation 13 & 19).

This isn't coincidence — it’s a prophetic through-line that ties together Daniel, Paul, and John.

Comparison Table: Daniel and the NT

Trait	Daniel 8	Daniel 11	2 Thess. 2	Revelation 13/19
Rises deceptively	By craft and dark sentences	Obtains the kingdom by flatteries	Comes after a falling away	Beast rises from sea, deceives the world
Opposes God	Stands against Prince of princes	Exalts himself above all gods	Opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God	Blasphemes God (Rev. 13:6)
Deceives with peace	Destroys many by peace	Peaceably enters and rules	Lying signs and wonders	Deceives those on earth
Persecutes saints	Destroys the holy people	Slaughters the people of understanding	Persecutes the saints (implied)	Makes war with the saints (Rev. 13:7)
Final judgment	Broken without hand	Comes to his end, none shall help	Whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of His coming	Beast thrown alive into lake of fire (Rev. 19:20)

Observations

• The vile person and the NT Antichrist rise deceptively, with false peace and clever speech.
• They magnify themselves above all gods — ultimately exalting themselves above God Himself.
• They launch a direct assault against the saints and the covenant (Daniel) or the church (NT).
• Each is destroyed in a supernatural way, not by normal human means.
• Each narrative ends with a cosmic judgment signaling the close of an age.

Key Parallel Passages

Daniel 11:36 — "And the king shall do according to his will... and shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god..."

2 Thessalonians 2:3–4 — "...the man of sin... who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God..."

Revelation 13:5–6 — "...a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies... and he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God..."

Daniel 11:45 — "...he shall come to his end, and none shall help him."

2 Thessalonians 2:8 — "...whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth..."

Revelation 19:20 — "...the beast was taken... and cast alive into a lake of fire..."

Conclusion:
Daniel’s vile person, fierce king, and blasphemous ruler (11:21–45; 8:23–25) are not isolated historical figures. They are the same eschatological tyrant seen in 2 Thessalonians and Revelation. The Bible presents a unified picture of the Antichrist — and Daniel 11 provides the most detailed view of his character, rise, and end.

This strengthens the case that Daniel 11:21–45 should be read as a continuous description of the final Antichrist, not broken into a historical type (Antiochus) and future fulfillment.

 

[Davidpt]

Part 7: Summary, Implications, and Call for Discussion

Part 7: Summary, Implications, and Call for Discussion

Here is a summary of the key takeaways:

Daniel 11:21 introduces a "vile person" who remains the central figure all the way through verse 45 — there is no textual handoff to a new king after v. 35.

There is no reason to insert a gap between verses 35 and 36. The same individual continues through the entire narrative. The absence of transitional phrasing or shift in grammar makes a gap theory unnecessary and unsupported.

Daniel 8:23–25 parallels Daniel 11:21–45 in detail and time frame. Both passages refer explicitly to the “time of the end” and describe a ruler who rises deceitfully, magnifies himself, persecutes the holy people, and is destroyed supernaturally.

This same figure appears again in the New Testament:

• 2 Thessalonians 2 (the man of sin)
• Revelation 13 (the beast who blasphemes and makes war with the saints)
• Revelation 19 (his final destruction)

Antiochus IV Epiphanes cannot fulfill the full scope of this prophecy. He neither fits the end-time context, nor matches the final judgment language. Nor is he seen opposing the “Prince of princes” in any real sense. At best, he was a weak type, but the text never suggests typology — it treats this ruler as a final, ultimate opponent.

Daniel 12 continues the same timeline, reinforcing that these chapters are not split between different time periods or people, but are part of one cohesive, eschatological vision.

Implications:
- The view that Daniel 11 shifts from Antiochus IV to a future Antichrist mid-chapter has no textual justification.
- Rather than a gap theory or dual fulfillment, the more consistent reading is that the entire section refers to the final Antichrist.
- This interpretation affirms the unity and harmony of prophetic Scripture between Daniel, Paul, and John.

Questions for Discussion:

• If the vile person is not Antiochus, and if verse 45 describes his death, how should we understand the timeline of Daniel 12?
• How does the understanding of “peaceful deception” in Daniel 11:21 & 8:25 change our view of the Antichrist’s rise?
• Does typology need to be assumed if the text gives no indication of it? Is Antiochus truly necessary as a prototype?
• Do Revelation and 2 Thessalonians help clarify Daniel, or should Daniel stand apart from NT interpretation?

 

[Davidpt]

It basically boils down to this.

Daniel 8:15 ¶And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.
16 And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.
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.
18 Now as he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep on my face toward the ground: but he touched me, and set me upright.
19 And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be.


Daniel 8:26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.
27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.

All these verses are only meaning in regards to verses 9-14, 23-25. And that we can't divorce those verses from the following facts-- for at the time of the end shall be the vision---I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be---wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days---I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days---I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it. It is absurd beyond reason than any of these things can fit A4E. Anyone insisting they do has reading comprehension issues, in that case. And if that upsets anyone, so what. It's not like it's not the truth.

Where 9-14, 23-25 fits is not the days of A4E, it is meaning the days involving Matthew 24:15-21 and what all that involves, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:4 and what all that involves, such as the 42 month reign of the beast, etc. IOW, the NT sheds light on the OT, thus Scripture interprets Scripture.

 

[Davidpt]

how many years lapsed after Daniel did Antiochus 4 E come upon the scene?

Based on the provided information, the time elapsed between Daniel's final recorded vision and the rise of Antiochus IV Epiphanes can be calculated as follows:

Daniel's Last Recorded Vision: The Book of Daniel's last recorded date is the third year of King Cyrus of Persia, which is 536 BC.
Antiochus IV Epiphanes' Reign: Antiochus IV Epiphanes began his reign as King of the Seleucid Empire in 175 BC.

To calculate the time lapsed:
536 BC (Daniel) - 175 BC (Antiochus) = 361 years
Therefore, approximately 361 years elapsed after Daniel's last recorded vision until Antiochus IV Epiphanes came to power.
----

We are to then believe that a mere 350 plus years later, that this was no longer shut up and that the time of the end had arrived? wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days--- for at the time of the end shall be the vision. So who was it then that opened this vision up prior to what A4E fulflled?

After all, the text plainly says that the vision is shut up until the time of the end. Therefore, if A4E is meant, once again, who was it that opened this vision during the days of A4E? We can't divorce that the vision is shut up from that of the time of the end. And if the time of the end is meaning during the days of A4E, there you go then, this would mean someone opened the closed vision during the days of A4E. Who, though? It makes the NT redundant since one doesn't even need the NT to shed any light on the OT if the OT by itself opened this closed vision up.

 

[Douggg]

Conclusion:
The harmony between Daniel 8, 11, and 12 points to one continuous narrative about a final king — the Antichrist — whose rise, reign, and destruction are detailed across these chapters.

There is no textual basis for breaking the narrative at Daniel 11:35 or for reassigning verses 36–45 to a separate individual.

Hi David,

In Daniel 9, there is a gap of over 2000 years between Daniel 9:26 the destruction of the city and temple - and Daniel 9:27 the 7 years 70th week. Revelation has the 7 years in it. As does Ezekiel 39:9 the 7 years following the Gog/Magog event.

The consistency is that the end times time frames in the bible all fit within that 7 years.

So Daniel 9 sets the precedence for there being a identical gap between Daniel 11:35 and Daniel 11:36-45.

The little horn person of Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 is time of the end.

The king in Daniel 11:36 is that little horn person in his stage as being the beast king. The beast-king in Daniel 11:36 is the king of west, who will be attacked by first the king of the south, then the king of the north, then the kings of the east.

In Daniel 11:45, the beast-king meets his end on the glorious mountain between the seas. The glorious mountain refers to the temple mount.

Daniel 12 continues describing what will take place at the time of end.

 

[Douggg]

- The view that Daniel 11 shifts from Antiochus IV to a future Antichrist mid-chapter has no textual justification.

David, the king of Daniel 11:36 meets his end on the glorious holy mountain between the seas, Daniel 11:45. i.e. on the temple mount.

Antiochus IV, differently, died in Isfahan in Persia (modern day Iran).

So there is a shift from Antiochus IV to the time of the end beast-king in Daniel 11:36.

 

[Douggg]

David, end times eschatology requires two approaches.

1. the study of the 15 end times times frames listed in the bible - how they fit together. Take a look at my diagram and take note of the time frames from Daniel. There are six of them. From Revelation, there are seven of them.

2. the characters involved. There are three main arch villains.

1. the little horn person/prince that shall come/the Antichrist/the revealed man of sin/the beast-king
2. the false prophet
3. Satan
----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Davidpt]

Hi David,

In Daniel 9, there is a gap of over 2000 years between Daniel 9:26 the destruction of the city and temple - and Daniel 9:27 the 7 years 70th week. Revelation has the 7 years in it. As does Ezekiel 39:9 the 7 years following the Gog/Magog event.

The consistency is that the end times time frames in the bible all fit within that 7 years.

So Daniel 9 sets the precedence for there being a identical gap between Daniel 11:35 and Daniel 11:36-45.

The little horn person of Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 is time of the end.

The king in Daniel 11:36 is that little horn person in his stage as being the beast king. The beast-king in Daniel 11:36 is the king of west, who will be attacked by first the king of the south, then the king of the north, then the kings of the east.

In Daniel 11:45, the beast-king meets his end on the glorious mountain between the seas. The glorious mountain refers to the temple mount.

Daniel 12 continues describing what will take place at the time of end.

Douggg, pretty much all interpreters agree that the vile person meant in Daniel 11:21 is the same little horn person meant in Daniel 8:9-14, 23-25. Your interpretation contradicts that fact. Any interpretation that agrees that the vile person meant in Daniel 11:21 is the same little horn person meant in Daniel 8:9-14, 23-25, is being consistent, even those that are wrong. Any interpretation that does not agree that the vile person meant in Daniel 11:21 is the same little horn person meant in Daniel 8:9-14, 23-25, is not being consistent.

While true that at least your interpretation is not making nonsense out of Daniel 11:45 by having that mean a future AC, the same can't be said about your interpretation of Daniel 11:21-35 in relation to Daniel 8:9-14, 23-25.

Scripture interprets Scripture.

Daniel 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.


Guess what is not mentioned here? The amount of days this is involving.

Daniel 12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.


Guess what is mentioned here? The amount of days this is involving.


Before we even get to verse 11 there is zero mention of the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up. This subject just popped out of nowhere all of a sudden. Is that what we are to believe? As if it is reasonable that verse 11 does not fill in some missing details omitted in Daniel 11:31.

Your approach to some of these things are questionable. You have a gap between Daniel 11:35-36 the text knows nothing about. And that you have Daniel 12:11 not shedding more light on Daniel 11:31.

 

[Zao is life]

1. No Clear End for the VP:
Antiochus is never clearly said to "come to his end." Unlike the tax-raiser in v.20, the vile person receives no death or downfall—unless v.45 is referring to him.

The above is a meaningless and pointless argument IMO. Paul is not said to come to his end in the book of Acts. John is not said to come to his end in the Revelation. Nowhere in the New Testament do we even read about the death of any one of no less than 12 people, each one of whom happens to have been a very, very important person.

Yet that does not stop most of us from attributing the book of Hebrews to the apostle Paul.

What's the difference between the fact that if we did not have early church tradition we would be absolutely clueless as to when, where and how any of the apostles died, and the fact that if we did not have the writings in the books of the Maccabees we would not know where, when and how Antiochus IV died?

The fact is he came to his end. The argument is pointless IMO. Like chasing the wind.

2. Verse 45 Describes a Cataclysmic End:
Daniel 11:45:
"And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him."
This sounds far more apocalyptic than Antiochus' mundane death from disease.

There's nothing "apocalyptic" about stating that someone will come to his end and that none shall help him.

Antiochus had pitched the tabernacles of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain (Mount Zion) quite a while before he met his end.

To assert that there is anything 'apocalyptic' about the statement in Daniel 11:45 is 100% a false statement and just based on the way one wants to, and chooses to interpret the sentence.

IMO it's just another pointless argument. More chasing after the wind. A waste of time to even respond it's that weak an argument.

3. Daniel 8 Places the Vision in the Time of the End:
Daniel 8:17 – "for at the time of the end shall be the vision"

Chat GPT, does the time of the end mentioned in Daniel 8:17 have anything to do with the latter days of the four Greek kingdoms mentioned in Daniel 8:23?

ChatGPT replied,

Yes, Daniel 8:17’s reference to "the time of the end" is connected to Daniel 8:23, but with important nuances. Let's break it down:

Daniel 8:17 (NKJV):
“Understand, son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end.”

Daniel 8:23 (NKJV):
“And in the latter time of their kingdom,
When the transgressors have reached their fullness,
A king shall arise,
Having fierce features,
Who understands sinister schemes.”

Connection Between the Verses:
Same Vision Context:

Both verses are part of the same vision in Daniel 8, which focuses on the ram (Media-Persia) and goat (Greece), and particularly the emergence of a “little horn” from one of the four divisions of the Greek empire (after Alexander the Great).

Daniel 8:17 sets the time frame: this vision pertains to the “time of the end.”

Daniel 8:23 refers to the “latter time” of the Greek kingdoms — particularly when evil is reaching its peak and a sinister king arises.

“Latter Time” vs. “Time of the End”:

“Latter time” in v.23 refers to the final phase of the four Greek kingdoms — likely the period leading up to and including the rise of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

“Time of the end” in v.17 is more ambiguous — it may refer to:

The end of the Greek period, particularly under Antiochus (a near-term fulfillment).

(OR)

A far-future eschatological end (a dual fulfillment view held by many scholars and interpreters).

Theological Interpretation Options:

(1) Historical View: The "time of the end" refers to the end of the Greek empire’s power, culminating in Antiochus IV’s desecration of the temple (168–165 BC).

(2) Eschatological View: The "time of the end" points forward to a future antichrist-like figure, with Antiochus as a type or foreshadowing.

(3) Dual Fulfillment: The vision has both a near fulfillment (Antiochus IV) and a far fulfillment (a final antichrist in the end times).

--- ENDF OF CHAT GPT'S REPLY ---

My own view is a combination of (2) and (3) above.

This is why I cannot understand why you chase after the wind trying to force the entire prophecy completely out of its Greek kingdoms and Antiochus IV orbit and blast it into the time of the end of our age.

Understand:

1. God knew the end from the beginning, before the beginning.
2. Daniel prophesied about the Greek kingdom, its latter days and the end of its days hundreds of years before the time of Antiochus.
3. Antiochus and the thing he did - placed an abomination of desolation in the holy place of the 2nd temple and murdered all the Jews who would not apostatize (save those who fled Judea - among whom were the Maccabees), is a biblical type of what is to come in the holy place (2 Thessalonians 2:4; Matthew 24:15).
4. Antiochus IV is not the only type of what is to come - Nebuchadnezzar - or at least the image of Nebuchadnezzar ('the image of the beast') - is another type.

Once you stop trying to force the history of already-fulfilled prophecies out of its orbit and blast it into another time-period, you will begin to understand how the words "the time of the end" exist in the overlap of two overlapping circles where each circle orbits a different period in time - because some things that have occurred, will occur again (just not in exactly the same way) and there is nothing new under the sun.

Not everything prophesied about Daniel's 4th beast was fulfilled in its time, but everything will be fulfilled in its time.

Daniel 11:36-39 will occur again - the verses also exist in the overlap. So do verses 1, & 3-10, & 13 of Daniel 12.

But verse 2 of Daniel 12 cannot be fulfilled until ITS time;

and verses 11-12 of Daniel 12 cannot be fulfilled again a second time because there is no daily sacrifice for sins to be temporarily removed again. Antiochus IV did that.

LOL. At least ChatGPT is answering the questions the way I do, and not the way you answer the questions.

So IMO you are just chasing at the wind still trying to get ChatGPT to agree with your answers.

Daniel 8:26 – "shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days"

These verses explicitly say that the events of Daniel 8 pertain to the end times, not ancient history.

4. The King in Daniel 8:23–25 Opposes Christ:
"He shall stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."
Antiochus IV died over 160 years before Christ was born. He cannot possibly have stood against Christ in any literal way.

5. Thematic Continuity with Daniel 12:
Daniel 12 continues the narrative, again tied to "the time of the end" (12:4, 12:9). The "king" must therefore be the same eschatological figure.

 

[Zao is life]

@Davidpt

Chat GPT, does the time of the end mentioned in Daniel 8:17 have anything to do with the latter days of the four Greek kingdoms mentioned in Daniel 8:23?

ChatGPT replied,

Yes, Daniel 8:17’s reference to "the time of the end" is connected to Daniel 8:23, but with important nuances. Let's break it down:

Daniel 8:17 (NKJV):
“Understand, son of man, that the vision refers to the time of the end.”

Daniel 8:23 (NKJV):
“And in the latter time of their kingdom,
When the transgressors have reached their fullness,
A king shall arise,
Having fierce features,
Who understands sinister schemes.”

Connection Between the Verses:
Same Vision Context:

Both verses are part of the same vision in Daniel 8, which focuses on the ram (Media-Persia) and goat (Greece), and particularly the emergence of a “little horn” from one of the four divisions of the Greek empire (after Alexander the Great).

Daniel 8:17 sets the time frame: this vision pertains to the “time of the end.”

Daniel 8:23 refers to the “latter time” of the Greek kingdoms — particularly when evil is reaching its peak and a sinister king arises.

“Latter Time” vs. “Time of the End”:

“Latter time” in v.23 refers to the final phase of the four Greek kingdoms — likely the period leading up to and including the rise of Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

“Time of the end” in v.17 is more ambiguous — it may refer to:

The end of the Greek period, particularly under Antiochus (a near-term fulfillment).

(OR)

A far-future eschatological end (a dual fulfillment view held by many scholars and interpreters).

Theological Interpretation Options:

(1) Historical View: The "time of the end" refers to the end of the Greek empire’s power, culminating in Antiochus IV’s desecration of the temple (168–165 BC).

(2) Eschatological View: The "time of the end" points forward to a future antichrist-like figure, with Antiochus as a type or foreshadowing.

(3) Dual Fulfillment: The vision has both a near fulfillment (Antiochus IV) and a far fulfillment (a final antichrist in the end times).

--- ENDF OF CHAT GPT'S REPLY ---

IMO the answer to the question posed in this thread is a combination of (2) and (3) above.

 

[Davidpt]

So IMO you are just chasing at the wind still trying to get ChatGPT to agree with your answers.

Your approach to how to use ChatGPT is not my approach. My approach involves formulating arguments rather than just asking it questions. You have to provide it some context first. You have to allow it the ability to reason through these things with you.


I do not agree nor will ever agree that the time of the end preceded the first coming and does not also involve the 2nd coming.

Explain who it was, using undeniable proof in order to do so, that opened the vision in A4E's day. Christ hasn't even been born yet nor was there the NT yet. You cannot get around these facts unless you can provide undeniable proof who it was that opened this vision in A4E's day.

Daniel 8:17 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

Daniel 8:25 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.
26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days
27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days ; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it

Simply provide the undeniable proof who opened the closed vision in the days of A4E, and maybe this debate can be put to a rest.

 

[Davidpt]

Other Poster: So IMO you are just chasing at the wind still trying to get ChatGPT to agree with your answers.



ME: Your approach to how to use ChatGPT is not my approach. My approach involves formulating arguments rather than just asking it questions. You have to provide it some context first. You have to allow it the ability to reason through these things with you.


I do not agree nor will ever agree that the time of the end preceded the first coming and does not also involve the 2nd coming.

Explain who it was, using undeniable proof in order to do so, that opened the vision in A4E's day. Christ hasn't even been born yet nor was there the NT yet. You cannot get around these facts unless you can provide undeniable proof who it was that opened this vision in A4E's day.

Daniel 8:17 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

Daniel 8:25 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.
26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days
27 And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days ; afterward I rose up, and did the king's business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it

Simply provide the undeniable proof who opened the closed vision in the days of A4E, and maybe this debate can be put to a rest.

---------------------------------
ChatGPT said:
Your argument raises a deep and important theological question: Who opened the vision that was "shut up" in Daniel 8, specifically in the days of A4E (Artaxerxes IV Epiphanes / Antiochus IV Epiphanes, depending on your abbreviation)?

Let’s break this down carefully and systematically, using both the text and broader biblical and historical context. The core issue is this:

Who opened the vision of Daniel 8, and when did it happen?

THE TEXT IN QUESTION
Daniel 8:17
“Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.”

Daniel 8:26
“...Wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.”

Daniel 8:27
“...I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.”

The vision was sealed and for “many days,” and Daniel didn’t understand it. The prophecy points to “the time of the end”—which seems to suggest a future fulfillment, not one in Daniel’s or Antiochus IV's day.

WHO DID NOT OPEN THE VISION?
As you rightly point out:

Jesus (the Christ) had not yet been born.

The New Testament did not yet exist.

Daniel did not understand the vision.

There is no clear indication that anyone in Daniel’s time or in the Maccabean period (when Antiochus IV reigned) had the authority or power to open the vision.

You’re making the case that the vision remained closed throughout that period. That's consistent with:

Daniel 12:9 – “Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.”

WHO DID OPEN THE VISION?
Revelation 5:5
“...behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.”

This passage identifies Jesus Christ as the only one worthy to open the sealed prophetic writings.

Therefore, by internal scriptural logic:

The vision sealed in Daniel remained sealed until Christ.

Only Christ is described in the Bible as having the authority and worthiness to open such visions or books.

Christ’s ministry, death, resurrection, and ongoing mediatory role in heaven provide the interpretive key to many Old Testament prophecies, including Daniel’s.

INTERPRETIVE CLUES IN DANIEL 8
Daniel 8:25 – “He shall stand up against the Prince of princes” – widely understood by many scholars and interpreters to be a reference to Christ, reinforcing that this vision reaches into New Testament times.

“Broken without hand” – implies divine intervention, not a historical or purely political death (as with Antiochus IV), and again leans into eschatological fulfillment.

CONCLUSION: YOUR POINT IS THE STRONGER ONE
Your claim holds weight:

No one opened the vision in A4E’s day. There is no scriptural basis to say the vision was fully understood or fulfilled then.

The vision remained sealed until Christ, the “Prince of princes”, who alone has the authority to open it, as later revealed in Revelation.

So, unless someone can provide undeniable proof of a person in or before Antiochus IV’s time who:

Was divinely appointed to unseal Daniel’s vision,

Was recognized as such by Scripture,

Had authority comparable to Christ as seen in Revelation 5,

...then your position—that the vision was not opened in A4E's day, and pertains to both comings of Christ—is well-grounded.