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

[Douggg]

Why did the vision which was sealed hundreds of years before the days of Antiochus need to be sealed again when John heard seven thunders uttering their voices?

I don't think there is a connection.

John was told to seal what the thunders uttered - but not as a matter of understanding what they uttered.

Differently, in Daniel 12, the words that the angel spoke to Daniel about in Daniel 12 were sealed up from understanding until the time of the end. And even then, it says in Daniel 12:10 that only the wise will understand.

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

 

[Davidpt]

LOL. No you cannot ask me questions (though I can answer them) when you have not answered mine.

Why did the vision which was sealed hundreds of years before the days of Antiochus need to be sealed again when John heard seven thunders uttering their voices?

And since John heard what they said and was about to write, how is it that what was sealed in the days of Daniel was briefly unsealed and revealed to John and sealed again and will only be unsealed when the 7th trumpet is about to sound?

First explain what I asked you to before you shoot out demands that I explain things you want me to.

Revelation 10:1 ¶And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:
2 And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth,
3 And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.
4 And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.
5 And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.

Look at what you are comparing here. You are comparing something not even written down with something written down. Clearly, in regards to Daniel 8, 12, these are things Daniel wrote down, not didn't write down. You can't say the same about what the 7 thunders uttered, that John wrote down what they uttered. Your point is moot since you are trying to compare things that are never written down with that of things that are written down. It's pretty sad, someone as intelligent as you are, that you are unable to grasp that something can be written down, then shut up to understanding until the time has arrived for understanding.

You cannot argue that Daniel did not write things down. You cannot argue that what the 7 thunders uttered, something John never wrote down is the same thing in Daniel's case.

 

[Davidpt]

I don't think there is a connection.

John was told to seal what the thunders uttered - but not as a matter of understanding what they uttered.

Differently, in Daniel 12, the words that the angel spoke to Daniel about in Daniel 12 were sealed up from understanding until the time of the end. And even then, it says in Daniel 12:10 that only the wise will understand.

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

What do you know, a voice of reason. Something that is somewhat rare these days.

 

[Zao is life]

You cannot argue that Daniel did not write things down. You cannot argue that what the 7 thunders uttered, something John never wrote down is the same thing in Daniel's case.

You are the one who asserted that what Daniel was told to seal up is the same thing John was told to seal up.

You haven't answered the questions, just side stepped them with a red herring.

 

[Zao is life]

Since your point in regards to the 7 thunders is apparently going over my head, let's try a different route.


Daniel 8:23 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.
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.

That was Antiochus IV.

Compare with 2 Thessalonians2:3-4.

You are conflating the antitype with the type because you seem to believe - and insist in your own mind - that the former person is the same person as the latter person, conflating the antitype with the type and hence combining historical events with events to come (when we are not even told about how the events to come will unfold).

There come a falling away = in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full.

And that occurred in the 2nd century BC but you seem to wipe it off the face of time. You may as well write the U.S Declaration of Independence off the face of time because you have decided to deny history and the facts that surrounded that history.

You seem to be of the false belief that the historical details that occurred when the events of the type were taking place have to reoccur with exactly the same details and events taking place.

Even @Dougg understands that Daniel 11:21-35 is talking about the former time and not about the latter, even though he wrongly kicks the historical events that fulfilled verses 36-45 out of its orbit in time into the end of the days of our days. In so doing both of you conflate the person of the type with the person of the antittype

I give up with you with this brother. You're not going to stop conflating antitypes with types. You don't even seem to understand what an antitype is.

So just to close, the prophesied events of the things to come are not "shedding light" on what happened in the days of former things that have already taken place, and vice-versa.

The only thing that has occurred is that the days of Antiochus IV and things he did are a forerunner - type of what is to come, and indeed most of the things that were prophesied by Daniel were fulfilled by Antiochus IV and the events of his day - but there are aspects of the prophecy which were not fulfilled before he met his end, such as Daniel 12:2.

And this is why Revelation 10 alludes to Daniel 12.

 

[Zao is life]

I don't think there is a connection.

John was told to seal what the thunders uttered - but not as a matter of understanding what they uttered.

Differently, in Daniel 12, the words that the angel spoke to Daniel about in Daniel 12 were sealed up from understanding until the time of the end. And even then, it says in Daniel 12:10 that only the wise will understand.

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

LOL the way @Davidpt likes what you said shows that he doesn't even understand what you are saying.

In this case, I don't believe either of the two of you understand what you are saying.

 

[Douggg]

Even @Dougg understands that Daniel 11:21-35 is talking about the former time and not about the latter, even though he wrongly kicks the historical events that fulfilled verses 36-45 out of its orbit in time into the end of the days of our days. In so doing both of you conflate the person of the type with the person of the antittype

So stop using the terms "type" and "antitype".

 

[Zao is life]

So stop using the terms "type" and "antitype".

It's Christian terminology Dougg. The Rabbis put it differently: "History is prophecy".

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

So stop using the terms "type" and "antitype".

Stop trying to tell people what to do. Do you not know what "type" and "antitype" mean? Do you not understand that the old covenant animal sacrifices were a type and Christ's "once for all" sacrifice was the antitype? And that the Passover lamb was the type and the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, is the antitype? Types and antitypes are a biblical concept.

 

[Davidpt]

Stop trying to tell people what to do. Do you not know what "type" and "antitype" mean? Do you not understand that the old covenant animal sacrifices were a type and Christ's "once for all" sacrifice was the antitype? And that the Passover lamb was the type and the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, is the antitype? Types and antitypes are a biblical concept.

Speaking for myself I have zero issues with there being a type and antitype in this case. Except Daniel 8, 12 is not the type, it is the antitype. The type, we determine that from Maccabees not the book of Daniel. Numerous clues in both ch 8 and 12 prove I have to be correct.

Clues such as.

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.


No reasonable person that someone is expected to take serious is then going to insist that the time of the end precedes the 1st coming and does not involve the 2nd coming. That is absurd nonsense.

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.

No reasonable person that someone is expected to take serious is then going to insist that the Prince of princes is not meaning Christ.

Daniel 8:27 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.


No reasonable person that someone is expected to take serious is then going to insist that if the vision pertained to what A4E would do some 350 years later in a literal brick and mortar temple, that this fits to a T how Daniel reacted at the time--And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days---and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it

LOL. Yeah, right. If the vision was meaning A4E it makes 100% perfect sense that Daniel was astonished at the vision, but none understood it, including him.

 

[Davidpt]

LOL the way @Davidpt likes what you said shows that he doesn't even understand what you are saying.

In this case, I don't believe either of the two of you understand what you are saying.

Are you serious, that I didn't even understand what @Douggg meant per post # 41? What was there to not understand about it? He was crystal clear in that post. Actually, the post I made right after his, where at the time I hadn't even read post 41 yet, is basically making the same point he was making in post 41. Except I didn't understand his post according to you, which really makes a whole lot of sense the fact the post I made right after his is basically making the same point he was making. And I hadn't even read post 41 at that point when I submitted post 42.

 

[Davidpt]

You are the one who asserted that what Daniel was told to seal up is the same thing John was told to seal up.

You haven't answered the questions, just side stepped them with a red herring.

I'm assuming you base that on me comparing Revelation 10:1-11 with that of Daniel 12:5-9, right? And if so, what you are not factoring in is this. Daniel 12:9 is not involving the 7th trumpet at this point. While what the 7 thunders uttered appear to be involving the 7th trumpet. Meaning once the 7th trumpet sounds it will no longer be a mystery as to what they uttered, what John was told to not write down.

Let me rephrase some of this.

Daniel 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.
8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

a time, times, and an half--when this is in progress, the 7th trumpet is not relevant yet.

all these things shall be finished---when this is fulfilled the 7th trumpet is then relevant since it it is during the 7th trumpet when this is fulfilled.

for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. The time of the end involving the following, for one---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.

This is clearly, undeniably meaning Matthew 24:15-21. And during Matthew 24:15-21 the 7th trumpet is not relevant yet.

Except you want us to believe that Daniel 9:11 does not involve Matthew 24:15-21, it involves A4E. Which is really bizarre of you to do so when you already disagree that Matthew 24:15-21 does involve a literal brick and mortar temple. Therefore, you find it perfectly reasonable to not interpret Matthew 24:15-21 in the literal sense, while at the same time you find it perfectly unreasonable to treat Daniel 12:11 in the same manner. You are not even being consistent about some of these things.

You seem to be conflating the sealed content of Daniel 12 with the sealed utterances of the seven thunders in Revelation 10. But these are not the same. Daniel was told to seal his words until the time of the end----which, contextually, is triggered by the events surrounding the abomination of desolation (Dan. 12:11; Matt. 24:15–21). At this point, the seventh trumpet has not yet sounded.

By contrast, the seven thunders in Revelation 10 occur just before the sounding of the seventh trumpet----which finishes the “mystery of God” (Rev. 10:7). Therefore, what the thunders utter is connected to the completion of end-time events, not the onset.

If you interpret Daniel 12:11 as literal (referring to a concrete event like the abomination of desolation), but then spiritualize or allegorize Matthew 24:15–21 (which Jesus directly ties to Daniel), that’s an inconsistent hermeneutic. You can’t deny a literal fulfillment in one text and demand it in another parallel one.

The sealed messages are distinct in content, timing, and purpose---and treating them as identical ignores those crucial differences.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Speaking for myself I have zero issues with there being a type and antitype in this case. Except Daniel 8, 12 is not the type, it is the antitype. The type, we determine that from Maccabees not the book of Daniel. Numerous clues in both ch 8 and 12 prove I have to be correct.

I was just commenting on the concept of types and antitypes. Douggg doesn't seem to even be aware of such a thing, but there is. So, he has no business telling someone not to talk about that concept.

Clues such as.

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.


No reasonable person that someone is expected to take serious is then going to insist that the time of the end precedes the 1st coming and does not involve the 2nd coming. That is absurd nonsense.

It seems that people assume that "the time of the end" always refers to a short time before the end of this age, but that is not necessarily the case. It can refer to the time of the end in relation to the end and the fulfillment of a particular vision. It does not have to refer to the end of this age.

Daniel 8:19 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.

For example, this verse is talking in particular about the "last end of the indignation" and says "at the time appointed the end shall be". So, in this case, which relates to Daniel 8:17, "the time of the end" refers to the appointed time of the end of that particular vision/prophecy and not the time of the end of this age.

You are trying to support this idea of a future individual Antichrist by saying that he is referred to in Daniel and you also think that is "the man of sin" and "the beast". But, scripture teaches that there are "many antichrists" in "the last time" that we are still in but began long ago already (1 John 2:18) and not just one Antichrist.

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.

No reasonable person that someone is expected to take serious is then going to insist that the Prince of princes is not meaning Christ.

Daniel 8:27 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.

What would this mean in a future sense? Some boogeyman is going to stand up against Jesus in some way? How do you see that playing out?

No reasonable person that someone is expected to take serious is then going to insist that if the vision pertained to what A4E would do some 350 years later in a literal brick and mortar temple, that this fits to a T how Daniel reacted at the time--And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days---and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it

LOL. Yeah, right. If the vision was meaning A4E it makes 100% perfect sense that Daniel was astonished at the vision, but none understood it, including him.

Not sure what you mean here. How would anyone have known what would happen 350 years in the future? Why would he not be astonished by what A4E did?

 

[Zao is life]

I'm assuming you base that on me comparing Revelation 10:1-11 with that of Daniel 12:5-9, right? And if so, what you are not factoring in is this. Daniel 12:9 is not involving the 7th trumpet at this point. While what the 7 thunders uttered appear to be involving the 7th trumpet. Meaning once the 7th trumpet sounds it will no longer be a mystery as to what they uttered, what John was told to not write down.

I had to shorten your post to remain within the character limit for this post.

YOU are still conflating type and antitype, making one person out of two different persons and one temple our of two different temples and one time-period out of two different time-periods.

I don't know how many times I have to explain the difference between a type and an antitype to you, and I'm going to give up, because you just don't get it (or refuse to). Either it goes above your ability to understand, or you pretend I'm saying something I'm not saying.

1. I've said over and over - and over - that (because of what is written about Antiochus IV and his actions in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11-12; and because of what is written in Matthew 24:15 and in 2 Thessalonians 2;4) the abomination of desolation that Antiochus IV placed in the literal holy place of the literal 2nd temple is a type of the abomination of desolation that will be placed (or appear in or set himself up in) the holy place of the 3rd temple (which is the church).
​

2. I've said over and over - and over - that (because of what is written about Antiochus IV and his actions in Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11-12; and because of what is written in Matthew 24:15 and in 2 Thessalonians 2;4) Antiochus IV Epiphanes is a type of the man of sin.

3. I've said over and over - and over - that I believe that this is why Revelation 10 alludes to the type in Daniel 12, and why Daniel 12:2 & 13 are NOT referring to the time of the type but to the time of the antitype.

NOTE David: ALLUDES TO does not mean "refers to". The judgment of Babylon the Great in Revelation 18:21 alludes to the judgment of ancient Babylon in Jeremiah 51:63-64. Revelation 18:21 is not referring to Jeremiah 51:63-64 but alluding to it. In the same way, Revelation 10:1-7 alludes to Daniel 12:5-7. It is not referring to it.
​

But you conflate what the two passages are saying about two different time-periods into one and the same time-period because you seem to believe that Revelation 10:1-7 is referring to Daniel 12:5-7 (rather than alluding to it). Do you do the same with Revelation 18:21 and Jeremiah 51:63-64? Because if you do that with one, then you must follow through with all such allusions in prophetic scripture, and conflate them all into one and the same thing.

​

DANIEL WAS TOLD IN DANIEL 12:13 THAT HE SHOULD "go thou thy way till the end be:" Yet he died hundreds of years before Antiochus IV was even born. How could he go his way till the end of either time-period? He was told how: "for thou shalt rest, and (shall) stand in thy lot at the end of the days." That goes with what Daniel 12:2 says.

Daniel was being given a prophecy about the coming of the type the man of sin, and Daniel 12:2 &13 both project the time-period of the type into the time-period of the antitype - and Revelation 10:1-7 alludes to Daniel 12:5-7. Today we should be able to understand that the reason for this is because the former is a type of the latter - without conflating them into one and the same.
​

The text of Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11-12 links all three passages to:-

(a) daily sacrifices for sin being removed (which is what occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and

(b) an abomination of desolation being placed in the holy place (which is what occurred in the 2nd temple in the days of Antiochus IV); and

(c) 1,290 days and 1,335 days (the text of Daniel 12:11-12 links the 1,290 and 1.335 days that the verses are talking about, both to daily sacrifices for sin being removed in the temple of God; and an abomination of desolation being placed in the holy place in the temple).

In Daniel 12:11-12 we have,

(1) A historical event, the beginning of which is fixed to commence at the time of the taking away of the daily sacrifice by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and the time when he set up of the image of Zeus in the holy place (which was the abomination of desolation); and

(2) The duration of this period of tribulation for God's faithful elect: 1,290 days. After that, the daily sacrifice was restored, and the abomination of desolation taken away - which is what the Jews still celebrate at Hanukkah each year.

Extra-biblical sources: Josephus dates the abomination of desolation being set up on the 25th day of Kislev (the 9th month of the biblical calendar) 145 SE (the 145th year of the Seleucid Empire). This matches the account in 1 Maccabees 1:54, which also places the abomination on 25 Kislev, 145 SE.​

This took place over 200 years before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D.

Any Bible interpreter who applies the 1,290 days and 1,335 days to the latter days preceding the return of Christ (2,100+ years after the historical abomination of desolation in the holy place), needs to explain:

(a) what constitutes those daily sacrifices in the gospel age which the 1,290 and 1,335 days are associated with; and

(b) what constitutes the temporary removal of the daily sacrifice in the years immediately preceding the return of Jesus - without engaging in guess-work and speculation and theological inventions.

Any Bible interpreter who applies the abomination of desolation to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D 70 needs to explain why the abomination of desolation set up in the holy place of the 2nd temple by Antiochus IV, "Epiphanes" in 167 BC (Daniel 8:11; Daniel 11:31; and Daniel 12:11-12),

is not associated with the destruction of either the city of Jerusalem, or of the temple in it, but the abomination/s mentioned in Daniel 9:26-27 are associated with the destruction of both.​

 

[Davidpt]

I give up with you with this brother. You're not going to stop conflating antitypes with types. You don't even seem to understand what an antitype is.

Yeah, right. Based on what I submitted later in post 50 I do not understand types and antitypes.

Plus, for example, Adam is a type and that Christ is the antitype. Another example---

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The woman plus all women in general are the type. The husband plus all husbands in general are the type. The antitype of the woman is the church.The antitype of the husband is Christ. But let's just be deceitful about this and insist I have no clue as to types and antitypes and that I am conflating these. Maybe that way, in your mind, it gives the impression you are winning the argument not me. You act as if Maccabees alone can't prove the type. That the book of Daniel has to prove the type. How can the book of Daniel prove the type when A4E is not even even meant in the book of Daniel?

The one meant in Daniel 8 is clearly not A4E, it is clearly a future end times AC. Therefore, what is in view in Daniel 8 is not the type, it is the antitype that is in view. The vision is shut up until the time of the end. It is totally absurd, thus unthinkable and unreasonable, to any thinking objective person not placing their doctrinal bias' above the truth, that the days of A4E can remotely fit the time of the end.

What exactly is difficult to comprehend about any of the following? Shut up the vision because the vision is not fulfilled until the time of the end arrives first? How is it that you can be so reasonable about a lot of these other things you and I agree with, such as Matthew 24:15-21, but when it comes to this subject, you make no attempt to be reasonable whatsoever?


You throw common sense out the window altogether in order to keep your doctrinal bias' afloat. Sadly, you are no different than many others around here in that regard. You place your doctrinal bias' above the truth. You defend your doctrinal bias' but make no effort to defend the truth. In your mind your doctrinal bias' are the truth, the same way, for example, @Spiritual Israelite, his doctrinal bias' pertaining to Matthew 24:15-21 is the truth. Therefore, he makes no effort to defend the truth to begin with since his interpretation of Matthew 24:15-21 is not even remotely the truth to begin with. Only in his mind is it the truth. As if the mind can never play tricks on anyone, especially him, and you too, in this case.

It's real simple. A type can never be an antitype nor can an antitype ever be a type. In Daniel 8 it is the antitype that is in view not the type. While in Maccabees it is the type that is in view not the antitype. Not one single person would disagree with the latter. So why is it that many disagree with the former?

 

[Wish-it]

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.

Agree te Antiochus, and also Dan 8.17 and 26. But add v 19.
Time of the end Dan 12.4,9 add Dan 12.13.

 

[Zao is life]

Yeah, right. Based on what I submitted later in post 50 I do not understand types and antitypes.

Plus, for example, Adam is a type and that Christ is the antitype. Another example---

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The woman plus all women in general are the type. The husband plus all husbands in general are the type.

Adam is the prototype of all humanity, not a biblical type of every human that ever lived. He is not a type of both an Antiochus IV Epiphanes and a martyred saint like Stephen.

Eve is the prototype of all women, not a biblical type of all women who ever lived.

Adam is a created human, not a type of Christ. Christ is the Son of God, the second man, and the last Adam (1 Corinthians 1:15:45 & 47). Adam is the prototype of all humanity, not the type of all humanity.

The following statements are true:​

The antitype of the woman is the church.
The antitype of the husband is Christ.

The antitype of the role of husband is Christ and the antitype of the role of the bride or wife is the church.

You have just proved that you understand neither prototypes nor types and antitypes, and you conflate the two.

But Adam would've (for example) had the same nature and done the same sort of things as king David, a man after God's own heart, as well as had the same nature and done the same things as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the shrewdest and most deceitful and evil king ever to have ever lived, as well as had the same nature and done the same things as Solomon, the wisest and most treacherous king Israel ever to have lived,

in order for Adam to have been the type of all humanity.

Adam is the prototype of all humanity, not the type of all humanity - he sinned, and died, and death came to all humanity because all sinned.

You don't even realize how you contradict yourself acknowledging that A4E is a type of the man of sin, but denying that the only passages in scripture allowing you to come to such a conclusion, are the very passages in Daniel that you say are NOT talking about him.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the ruler that was prophesied by Daniel. Historically he fulfilled all that Daniel prophesied about him, and he is a type of the man of sin or beast to come,

and historically everything that was written in Daniel about what would be going on in the world during the time of that ruler, is what happened during the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and those events became a type of what is to come at the end of our age in the days preceding the return of Christ - which is why it's included in the prophecy given to Daniel about Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 12:2 and Daniel 12:13, and why Revelation 10:1-7 alludes to Daniel 12:5-7.

But you don't seem to understand the difference between a prophecy like Revelation 10:1-7 alluding (back) to something that's not talking about the same thing, and a prophecy referring to another prophecy tha IS talking about the same thing, because you conflate Revelation 10:1-7 with Daniel 8, 11 and 12.

If you understood the difference between the anti-type and its type you would understand that the anti-type is Revelation 10:1-7 and the type is Daniel 12:5-7.

It's your own arguments that show that you don't fully understand types and antitypes and are blinded to the book of Daniel and who he was talking about when he mentioned an abomination of desolation in the holy place

- because despite the fact that those passages in Daniel 8, 11 and 12:11-12 are the only passages in biblical scripture that can cause you or anyone else to deduce that Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his abomination of desolation in the holy place (and his other activities - causing the apostasy of most of the saints at the time) are a type of the man of sin and what he is going to do, you deny that Daniel was prophesying about him in Daniel 8 AND 11 AND 12, yet acknowledge that he is a type of the man of sin.

As a result, and in regards to the end of this age and Daniel / A4E, you conflate prophecies talking about the latter days of this age with their types, and the prophecies relating to those types.
​

 

[Douggg]

Adam is the prototype of all humanity, not a biblical type of every human that ever lived. He is not a type of both an Antiochus IV Epiphanes and a martyred saint like Stephen.

Eve is the prototype of all women, not a biblical type of all women who ever lived.

Adam is a created human, not a type of Christ. Christ is the Son of God, the second man, and the last Adam (1 Corinthians 1:15:45 & 47). Adam is the prototype of all humanity, not the type of all humanity.

The following statements are true:



The antitype of the role of husband is Christ and the antitype of the role of the bride or wife is the church.

You have just proved that you understand neither prototypes nor types and antitypes, and you conflate the two.

But Adam would've (for example) had the same nature and done the same sort of things as king David, a man after God's own heart, as well as had the same nature and done the same things as Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the shrewdest and most deceitful and evil king ever to have ever lived, as well as had the same nature and done the same things as Solomon, the wisest and most treacherous king Israel ever to have lived,

in order for Adam to have been the type of all humanity.

Adam is the prototype of all humanity, not the type of all humanity - he sinned, and died, and death came to all humanity because all sinned.

You don't even realize how you contradict yourself acknowledging that A4E is a type of the man of sin, but denying that the only passages in scripture allowing you to come to such a conclusion, are the very passages in Daniel that you say are NOT talking about him.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes is the ruler that was prophesied by Daniel. Historically he fulfilled all that Daniel prophesied about him, and he is a type of the man of sin or beast to come,

and historically everything that was written in Daniel about what would be going on in the world during the time of that ruler, is what happened during the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and those events became a type of what is to come at the end of our age in the days preceding the return of Christ - which is why it's included in the prophecy given to Daniel about Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel 12:2 and Daniel 12:13, and why Revelation 10:1-7 alludes to Daniel 12:5-7.

But you don't seem to understand the difference between a prophecy like Revelation 10:1-7 alluding (back) to something that's not talking about the same thing, and a prophecy referring to another prophecy tha IS talking about the same thing, because you conflate Revelation 10:1-7 with Daniel 8, 11 and 12.

If you understood the difference between the anti-type and its type you would understand that the anti-type is Revelation 10:1-7 and the type is Daniel 12:5-7.

It's your own arguments that show that you don't fully understand types and antitypes and are blinded to the book of Daniel and who he was talking about when he mentioned an abomination of desolation in the holy place

- because despite the fact that those passages in Daniel 8, 11 and 12:11-12 are the only passages in biblical scripture that can cause you or anyone else to deduce that Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his abomination of desolation in the holy place (and his other activities - causing the apostasy of most of the saints at the time) are a type of the man of sin and what he is going to do, you deny that Daniel was prophesying about him in Daniel 8 AND 11 AND 12, yet acknowledge that he is a type of the man of sin.

As a result, and in regards to the end of this age and Daniel / A4E, you conflate prophecies talking about the latter days of this age with their types, and the prophecies relating to those types.​

....your post is so confusing.

Why not simply say that the Daniel 11:31 historic abomination of desolation by Antiochus IV and his troops prefigured what the end times abomination of desolation in Daniel 12:11-12 will be. i.e. a statue image placed in a holy place.

 

[Davidpt]

Adam is the prototype of all humanity, not a biblical type of every human that ever lived. He is not a type of both an Antiochus IV Epiphanes and a martyred saint like Stephen.

Eve is the prototype of all women, not a biblical type of all women who ever lived.

Adam is a created human, not a type of Christ. Christ is the Son of God, the second man, and the last Adam (1 Corinthians 1:15:45 & 47). Adam is the prototype of all humanity, not the type of all humanity.


​

The following has already been my understanding for decades. But since you don't seem to want to take my word for anything, I asked ChatGPT this and here are the results. Pretty much all Christians understand it in the manner, I guess except for you. You want to be different for some reason. You want to be the only one right, I guess, therefore, making everyone else wrong.


And guess what? Even before there ever was any such thing as AI I already understood these things in this manner ages ago.
--------------------------------
Adam and Christ are these examples of types and antitypes?

Yes, **Adam and Christ** are classic examples of **type and antitype** in biblical theology.

### What does that mean?

* A **type** is a person, event, or institution in the Old Testament that foreshadows a greater reality in the New Testament.
* The **antitype** is the fulfillment or counterpart in the New Testament.

### Adam as the Type:

Adam is seen as a representative of humanity whose actions had consequences for all people (e.g., sin and death).

### Christ as the Antitype:

Christ is presented as a "new Adam" or second Adam, whose obedience and sacrificial death bring life and righteousness to all who are in Him.

### Key Scripture:

**Romans 5:14 (ESV)**:

> "Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, *who was a type of the one who was to come*."

Also see **1 Corinthians 15:45–49**, where Paul contrasts the "first man, Adam" with the "last Adam," referring to Christ.

---

So, yes — **Adam (type) and Christ (antitype)** is one of the clearest and most theologically significant examples of this typological relationship in the Bible.​

 

[Davidpt]

....your post is so confusing.

Why not simply say that the Daniel 11:31 historic abomination of desolation by Antiochus IV and his troops prefigured what the end times abomination of desolation in Daniel 12:11-12 will be. i.e. a statue image placed in a holy place.

That would be the right thing to do in this case, but only if verse 31 is actually meaning A4E. But how would that help him with Daniel 8 since he takes the little horn person to also be meaning A4E? If nothing else, he's consistent about things in this case, unlike you who are not being consistent if you have one account meaning A4E and the other account meaning a future AC. From what I can gather, pretty much the majority of interpreters agree that the VP in ch 11 and the little horn person in ch 8, these are the same person not 2 two different persons like you would have us to believe.

Therefore, in my case, in order for me to also be consistent like the majority of interpreters are being in regards to the VP vs the little horn person in Daniel 8, I have to conclude the following. That since I take the little horn person to be meaning a future AC rather than A4E, I then have to take the VP to also be meaning a future AC rather than A4E. Otherwise I'm not being consistent.