Horizontal Menu Bar

The Biblical Historical Identity & Ideology of the Anti-Christ (Dan 7:1-8, 15-17, 19-21, 23-25)

Part 1A: The Prophesied Political Agenda of the Anti-Christ Entity (cf. 2 Thess 2:1-7; Rev 13:1-10)
This blog post is responding to the following objecting[1]1 claims:

Dan 7:1-6 First Three Beasts
A Blueprint To Identify The Antichrist by Chris White
Daniel 7:7, 24 - Ten Horns                                                  
Chapter 5: Disturbing Facts We Were Never Told About The 42 Months And The Ten Horns - Part I                          

Dan 7:8, 20, 24 - Little Horn & 3 Horns
Chapter 5: Disturbing Facts We Were Never Told About The 42 Months And The Ten Horns - Part II

Dan 7:25 - “Time, Times & Half a Time” = 1260 days=1260 years
538 AD          
History Versus: The Justinian Decree

1798 AD
Chapter 6 PART I: The Deadly Wound & its Healing (1798-1929): What we were Never Told
Chapter 6 PART II: The Deadly Wound & its Healing (1798-1929): What we were Never Told
Chapter 6 PART III: The Deadly Wound & its Healing (1798-1929): What we were Never Told

Introduction & Overview                            
Daniel 7:1 - In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel saw a dream and visions in his mind as he lay on his bed; then he wrote the dream down and the main sayings of it he stated.
first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon - This was the year 553 B.C. It is ca. 14 years before the fall of Babylon to Medo-Persia in 539 B.C. (=Dan 5)

saw a dream and visions - Since Daniel only had one revelatory experience that night, it would seem odd to preface this as both “dream and visions” and with “visions” being plural. It seems that as this dream had various shifts as to what is being seen (e.g. when Daniel “kept on looking” and something else/new appears Dan 7:6, 7, 9, 11, 13), then it appears that each of those segments was being seen as a mini-vision. Almost as if a repeated/common transitional effect was being experience by Daniel with each of these new depictions. Perhaps the prior scene that Daniel was contemplating would fade away and “as he kept looking (for something) given the momentary “blank” view in his mind, then a new scene would emerge.
            Perhaps this transitioning was to be reflective of a passing of unspecified time in real life, i.e. between the fulfillment of each scene. So, as a working thesis, each mention of these manifestly ‘experienced transition (of significant time)’ will indeed be treated as such. As the indicator that significant time was to elapse between the two transitioning events. So the key time-shifting transitions namely are:

Dan 7:6 - Between the Second Beast (=Medo-Persia) and Third Beast (=Greece)
=209 years from 539 to 330 B.C.

Dan 7:7 - Between the Third Beast (=Greece) and Fourth Beast (=[Pagan] Rome)
=162 years from 330 to 168 B.C.

Dan 7:9 - Between the actions of the Little Horn and the setting up of a Heavenly Court
=1290 years from 508-1798 A.D.   =the 1290 Days of Dan 12:11a

Dan 7:11a, 21 - Between the uttered and then lingering pronouncements of the Little Horn and its slaying (cf. Rev 11:13 - discussed here), and then its utter physical destruction and burning (=Rev 18 - see here).
=1335 years from 508-1798-1843 A.D.  =the 1335 Days of Dan 12:11b

Dan 7:13 - Between the setting up of the Heavenly Court and the reception and establishment of a Kingdom of Christ.
=e.g. 1 year between 1843 A.D. and the fulfillment of the time in Dan 8:14 in the Fall of October 1844 A.D.

            Of course, much more will be said on this to explain these fulfilment events and their time as they come up in the commenting below, but it must be qualifyingly explained here that, with especially the final two transition events (Dan 7:11, 13), what is said to be fulfilled is a potential of what could, and should have fully happened, i.e. around 1844 (i.e. the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ =Rev 11:15-18), but due to the unreadiness of Christians through whom this could and would have been fulfilled, time was prolonged and the fulfillments of these events stretched and reapplied to a, still, future fulfillment.
lay on his bed - As opposed to a revelation while awake and about one’s daily business (e.g. Dan  9:20-21; 10:4, and manifestly the “subsequent one” of Dan 8:1, Daniel receives this revelation while asleep, hence it indeed generally is a “dream” = “vision by night” (Dan 7:2).

wrote the dream down - Interesting detail of the prophetic process. Having myself, as related here, received several prophetic dreams and vision, I can appreciate this deliberate act to actually write it down once it is completed.

and the main sayings of it he stated - the word rendered in the NASB as “summary” here means literally “head”, as in “chief”, “main”. If Daniel merely related the “main” sayings of the dream, then some assume here that Daniel left out other shown parts of the revelation which he did not consider as “mainly” important....But that does not have to be the take here. While indeed, from just reading through the entire dream (=Dan 7:2-14), it can be seen that some parts are later explained in greater detail while others are not (=Dan 7:15-18, 19-27), it can instead be understood that the “main sayings” of it were those parts that the angel restated with more detail and emphasis, which actually happened to focus on what Daniel himself was interested in knowing more about, namely the Fourth, nondescript, Beast (Dan 7:19-20).
            So this is the main/chief statements of the dream which Daniel was subsequently also made aware of, and which he also related with the full account of the dream.

            It is further clarifying to point out here that in this introductory statement of Dan 7:1, this is the ‘(historian) composer and (prophetic material) arranger of the prophet Daniel and his prophetic revelations’ who is speaking. So here, he is merely relating what is straightforward to him from having read what Daniel himself had recorded/written about this visionary experience: namely Daniel had seen this dream...and then certain “main” portions of it were given further explanations.

Four Winds Stirring Up Great Sea                                    
Daniel 7:2 - Daniel said, "I was looking in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of heaven were stirring up the great sea.

Daniel said  - This is, from this point on until the end, the first person recounting of Daniel himself, from the quasi-diary writings which he had made of his prophetic experiences.

and behold - It may even seem obvious to point out, but, just as Daniel’s statements prefaced by: “I kept looking” are manifest of major time-shifting transitions in the sequence and events of his dream, likewise when he exclaims “(and) behold” (=Dan 7:2, 5, 6, 7, 13 = Aramaic: aru Strongs #0718 & Dan 7:8 (2X) = Ara.: alu  #0431) it seems that something has suddenly and strikingly come up in his dream, almost as if he was not expecting it. This represent more than the commencement of a new and different scene, but, as is the working thesis for the interpreting here, an unexpected transition/development as compared to a seamless/sequitur/expected one.
            So for each scene or scene element focus shift/transition which Daniel does not prefix with a “behold” exclamation, the interpreting working thesis here is that it is not a development which is surprising or shocking to him...literally ‘as if he was/could see it coming’. But for the scenes or focuses which have this “behold” exclamation, it is something which manifestly is surprisingly vividly shiftingly presented to him...and he ‘did not see it/that coming’.

Aru vs. Alu - Furthermore, as seen and referenced above, there are two slightly differing ways in which “behold is expressed in the underlying Aramaic language. These are: “aru” vs. “alu”. The Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldee Lexion (p. 48, 77) states that ‘alu [#0431] is a softened form of aru [#0718]’, and that aru means “see ye” and alu means “which see”. Alu is said to probably be a prolonged form of the (Hebrew) preposition el’ Ara. #0412 (Ezr 5:15) = Heb. #0411 (e.g. Gen 19:8; 26:3; Lev 18:27; Deut 19:11) is consistently used to (re-)focusingly emphatically point out something which is/was (physically or subject-matterly) right before the subject. This (Hebrew) preposition el’ also has, -as per the syntax exposition in IBHS pp.193-194, an underlying comitative sense group of: “accompaniment” (‘with’ - e.g. 1 Sam 14:34) and “addition” (‘in addition to’ - e.g. 1 Kgs 10:7); and the sense of “specification” (‘concerning’ - e.g. 2 Sam 24:16). These senses can be seen to be involved in its use in those prophetic sections of Daniel (=Dan 2:31; 4:10, 13; 7:8). And so, the stated meaning of alu as: “which see” can be protractedly understood as: “something which also show/showed”.
            So in Dan 2:31; 4:10, 13, though it may seem that what was then ‘beheld’ in the vision that Nebuchadnezzar was already seeing/“looking” into were sudden appearances, the sense may be describing a much less dramatic appearance, almost as if the element was actually there all the time, or supposed/expected to be there, but was only now focusedly noticed or involved. In fact, the underlying notion of the preposition el is to indication motion towards something, and such as ‘turning to something in thought’, i.e. ‘turning one’s mind to something’. (Gesenius, p.46) This can also be seen in those 2 occurrences of this alu expression in Dan 7:8 where Daniel sees the ‘accompanying’ ‘added’ specifications’ of that Little Horn detail.
            So it is manifest that the “aru” interjection is used by Daniel to express surprise/wonder over an entirely new prophetic detail or scene, while “alu” has a “softer” = lesser “surprise/wonder” force, particularly as what is then discovered is not from the presentation of an shiftingly/dramatically/entirely new scene, but an expansion of the concealed details in the present scene, namely in Dan 7:8: the ‘springing up of the Little Horn amongst the 10 Horns’ and then, the fact that ‘it had eyes like a man’. So aru is manifestly used for major/new dramatic scene shifts in the dream, while alu is used in relation to merely an expansion of the, nonetheless unexpected, -(as in: priorly not seen/noticed), detailing of/in a scene.
            Alu is therefore interjectedly relating to much more seamless, -as in,  much less drastic, shifts than aru. This will be substantiated as the interpretations of the verse where these interjections occurs are made.

the four winds of heaven - The prophetic symbolism of “wind” is naturalistically explained in this post. It can be further, Spiritually stated here that “wind” is a symbol of spirit (John 3:8, cf. Psa 32:2). I.e. thoughts --> a mind set --> an ideology. It is indeed related to/caused by the interaction of land vs. sea temperatures. As later explained, the “sea” is the subset of waters (=people Rev 17:15) which is the political grouping/delineation of people and so land can be seen as the territory where this “sea” political grouping of people can reside, albeit by “flooding” that land. Which itself is an inherent forcefully invading act. In fact “flooding” is typically used to figuratively refer to a warring assault/invasion. (E.g. Dan 9:26 -explained in here; Isa 8:7-8; cf. Nah 1:8). Correspondingly Rev 12:14-16 speaks of the historical development of Protestants being “warringly” pursued in Europe by persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church and finding refuge in the newly discovered vacant land of North America where Religious Freedom was instituted as a Constitutional Rights and thus indeed ‘drank up and dried up’ the flooding religious persecution that was pursuing them.

            So, bringly all of these symbolic details together, the “temperature” difference between land masses and a body of sea waters which causes naturally wind, could be interpretingly understood to be the sudden quasi-natural issue of difference which came to occur with a sea, i.e. a political grouping of people and the/their corresponding land mass. It therefore caused a wind to blow, and if the direction of that wind was from the sea towards the land, it would involve a flooding (thus warring) effect. So, making the application here, you here have a political grouping of people who suddenly, but naturally, want to occupy more or other land masses than they presently do...So this is representative of a local country who wants to expand its territory into other areas of the world. That sea vs. land temperature produces a wind, which itself can be interpreted as a spirit or an ideology, which blows upon/around the Earth.
            ...Now take that wind-producing phenomena, and multiply by 4, which is the numerical symbol of something which is universal, i.e. “worldwide” and you come to have a world warring development from the ideologies of various political grouping of people aspiring to expand their country, thus transform themselves into an Empire...and one which is the chief of those 4 winds, thus a World-ruling Empire.

were stirring up the great sea - The “great sea” singular, refers to a common “political grouping” of which is, collectively, the geo-political world. Thus the grouping of the world’s people into/under one political entity.
            So Daniel was here seeing, with this sudden blowing of the Four Winds of heaven upon the (same) great sea, a sudden striving of kingdoms/countries to seek to have a World/Imperial Hegemony. Prior merely local countries/kingdom were now deeming that their political view and ideology was deserving of a larger footing/footprint, thus influence, upon the Earth and Global Affairs. And so there indeed came to be in world history an aspiration of kingdoms to aggrandize themselves into a/the World’s Empire, thus occupying and/or controlling as much of the inhabited and influentially leading parts of the world and peoples as possible. 

            [See the following great animation of the historical development of World Kingdom and Empires. It provides a great wider context for the understanding of geo-political developments in relation to this prophecy.]

            In the days of Daniel, such Global Hegemonic aspirations indeed were increasingly becoming the case. And with each succeeding Kingdom trying to go way beyond what the preceding Hegemony had achieved and controlled. It can be argued that such strivings for Global Imperial began with the Neo-Babylonian Empire (in ca. 606 B.C.) as they rose up to take over the realm of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. And it can be claimed that the driving impetus to have such World Hegemonic rule was most pragmatically in order to preempt the constant war squirmishes occurring from all of the smaller, regional kingdoms within that World Empire realm. Eventually such a common endeavor for “World Peace”, allowing people to live their lives and nations to advance and flourish, was sustainedly achieved with the Roman Empire and their (Militaristic) Pax Romana.
            This all can be compared today with how, following World War II, the “lasting peace” solution arrived at by world powers/countries was to (virtually) unite the world under effectively one uniform organizational realm, namely the United Nations, And though the Hegemony of the World was then effectively ceded to five World (Nuclear) Powers, i.e. its Security Council’s “P(ermanent) 5 Nations” (=the U.S., Russia, U.K., China, and France), it can be seen that, now, since the disbanding of the Soviet Union, the United States of America has emerged/remained as the World’s only “Superpower” thus the World’s, at least strongly influential, Hegemony.
            So, to recap here, Four Winds of heaven are produced by 4 political groupings of peoples each developing a difference of temperature with their corresponding occupied territory and so the resulting expansionist/hegemonic ideology that they develop begins to blow....and these four winds comes to blow upon the same target: the political groupings and peoples of the world. So 4 major countries/kingdom suddenly aspire to become their World’s Superpower...and so they begin to warringly strive and strife for this position. Similarly, the “Four Winds” of Rev 7:1-3 (cf. Ezek 37:9) (see here and in here) prophetically speak of major world strifing from the ‘releasing of human passions’ producing a clash of differing ideologies.
            And as in all cases of war, the country/side that is ready, better prepared and stronger wins the conflict. And so it was in this case with the First Beast seen by Daniel emerging as the first winner of this Geo-Hegemony competition.

the four winds of heaven - It is pertinently interesting to observe from the geo-politics of the modern era that no ruler/country which seeks to ascend to World Hegemony does so out of (generally) nefarious ideology. From Hitler, to Stalin to Mao Zedong to U.S. Presidents, they all commonly, “honestly” feel and think that they, their country as a great idea and best ways to achieve the globally-aspired human desire of life, peace, happiness and prosperity. And so they mainly set out to spread their ideology throughout the world, if not for the self/national-benefit, then for the glory. The “nefariousness” of these aspiration however naturally comes to be seen when these leaders/countries meet resistance from people/groups/countries who do not share their views/aspiration/ideology and even may think that they themselves have a better ideology for this global dominance.
            In ancient times, it can be also seen that the desire of kingdom rulers to expand their rule was also drawn from the various (false) religious conviction. I.e. on top of secular benefits, they believe that this would also honor/glorify their god(s). Nowadays, with non-theistic ideologies such as Atheism, Secularism, Humanism as seen in/since the French Revolution, as well as Fascism/Stateism also becoming part of this actuating impetus, rulers still seek to have such geo-hegemony/influence for a “higher” ideal beyond/outside of themselves...But can the specification of “the four wind of heaven” actually be indicating here also a “higher” impetus behind the striving for hegemony then. Isa 13:17-19 shows that God Himself was behind the “stirring up” of Medo-Persia against Babylon in order to replace it in the World Hegemony position...and Daniel 2:21 reveals that God oversees the setting up and deposing of world rulers, manifestly in order to “change times and epochs”.
            So manifestly here, God was behind all of this hegemonic striving in Dan 7 in order to advance His own Great Controversy agenda...And so He established world powers and removed them according to how they were assistive in the grandeur objective He had in regards to ordering the world. And as discussed in this post on Daniel 2 at verse 39a in the “Succession to the Hegemony” section, each of the successive first 4 world powers there, especially starting with Medo-Persia, had a socio-political attribute which God could work with to best order and subdue the world at that time. God had used Babylon to punish His unfaithful Judah Kingdom and when it came time to end that judgement, He tried to work to make Babylon willingly cooperative with Him, even if disciplinary measures had to be used (=Dan 2-4). In the end, the ruler of Babylon, Belshazzar became irreparably uncooperative, and so came time for God to move on from Babylon.
            So, are the Four Beast+ of Dan 7 the same kingdoms and entities as the Four Metals+ of Daniel 2, well the deciphering of the symbolism in the next verses will answer that question....

Four Beasts= Four King/Kingdoms                                   
Daniel 7:3 - "And four great beasts were coming up from the sea, differing one from the other.
Daniel 7:17 - 'These great beasts, which are four in number, are four kings who will arise from the earth.           
Daniel 7:23a - "Thus he said: 'The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms....
four great beasts - As immediately cited here, the prophetic dream’s attending/interpreting angel (Dan 7:16) goes on to definingly/interpretingly specify in Dan 7:17 and also Dan 7:23 that: the “beast” are kings/kingdoms, which evidently are interchangeable terms here. As these are ‘earthly realms’ (Dan 7:17) it technically could involve any king’s kingdom which existed in the world...But here these qualifying kingdoms are qualified as being “great”. So, and at the very least, at the time that they “arise from the earth”, it is then that they would be “great”....Which makes natural sense because as they kingdom are going to, as seen from Dan 7:2 above, be World Hegemonic Superpowers, they indeed would have to have become “great”, compared to the other kingdoms of the world.

coming up from the sea - This would seem to conflict with the later interpreting statement in Dan 7:17 that these beasts are ‘arising from the Earth’, as the “sea” and “land” are opposing symbols. See the explicit and marked differencing of: the Sea Beast of Rev 13:1ff versus the Land Beast of Rev 13:10ff where that is understood to be, the First Beast being a kingdom/country/empire arising in a politically-group populated area of the World (=amongst the kingdoms of Europe), and the Second Beast arising from and unpopulated, even politically unorganized/unformed area of the World (=the then new territory of the (Northern) Americas). Well it manifestly is to be both/and for the Beasts in Daniel 7. And as the natural thing is to have sea waters covering land, e.g. “seabeds”, (and as opposed to land being over groundwater which is neither as large nor as strong as the waters of the sea), then we are to expect that once vacant areas of the world will become covered with waters, i.e. become populated, and then organize themselves into political entities =sea waters, and it is pointedly from this latter state of being ‘sea waters covered land’ that these world-hegemony aspiring beasts will be emerging.

differing one from the other - the word “differing” basically means “change/alter”. By also being a participle, this statement is indicating that each beast would be having features that change from one beast to another. So none of those kingdoms would be naturedly or compositionally alike.

First Beast = Lion with Eagle’s Wings
Daniel 7:4 - "The first was like a lion and had the wings of an eagle. I kept looking until its wings were plucked, but it was lifted up from the ground and made to stand on two feet like a man; a human mind also was given to it.

The first - The original language term here Aramaic quadmay #06933 = Hebrew qadmoni #06931 clearly is an ordering term: “first” and not merely a citing/enumerating expression: ‘one of them’. That is seen in its other Aramaic occurrences, all in Dan 7 at Dan 7:8, 24. Its corresponding Hebrew occurrences have the notion of “ancient” (1 Sam 24:13); “former” (Ezek 38:17; Mal 3:4); and “things of the past” (Isa 43:18), thus, also being in an order: ‘preceding/prior’ things. And even in its remaining Hebrew occurrences which locationally refer to the “east” (Job 18:20; Ezek 10:19; 11:1) and “eastern” areas (Ezek 47:18; Joel 2:20; Zech 14:8), the evidently underlying notion is in reference to the East vs. the West, with the East being where the day (i.e. daylight) begins, and the West being where the sun sets, and thus the day/daylight ends. So the East is the originator, and thus the predecessor.
            As seen in the citing of the other 3 beasts in Dan 7:5, 6, 7, there clearly is an order in their appearance on the scene. So it is not that they all appeared at once, namely as these World Hegemonic powers, but rather that the succeed one another. This is significant because, to properly identify them, we are to look for 4 consecutive World Powers which succeeded each other in world hegemony, and not, as Futurist claim, merely 4 (concurrent) major nations.

was like a lion - Straightly understood, the lion is the commonly recognized “king of animals/beasts” so, making the interpretive application, this first beast would be the commonly recognized leading kingdom of the world.
            Jeremiah 50:17 figuratively infers that God had made use of two “lion” world superpowers...and both in order to punish His wayward People. First the Assyrian Empire, and now, and at the time of the giving of this prophecy, the Babylonian Empire. (Cf. Jer 2:13-15; 4:6-7; 50:43-44) In fact, God pointedly considered those “lions” to be the kings of those kingdoms. And Nebuchadnezzar was then also called/known, including by God who actually granted this superpower position to him (cf. Dan 4:20-22, 25b, 32), as: a “king of kings” (Dan 2:37; Ezek 26:7; cf. Isa 47:5).
            So this lion symbol can easily pointedly represent King Nebuchadnezzar himself, as well as the kingdom which he headed.

had the wings of an eagle - The figure of “eagle’s wings” in the Bible is one which is quite interesting as it seems to depict two conflicting notions. On the one hand it is patently used in contexts of God’s (Super-naturally) sustaining, shielding&protective care, pointedly for His People (Exod 19:4; Deut 32:10-12; Isa 40:29-31 = Rev 12:14). On the other hand, it is pointedly used to speak of the military/warring overpowering of another nation, and/but by God’s own doing. (Jer 48:40-44; 49:20-22). Well those two understandings can be harmonized by seeing that God can, and does perform militaristic feats to protect His people when necessary. Plus the notion of (Divine) Super-natural involvement of the Eagle itself is indeed attested from the understanding of what the symbol of an eagle itself does represent, as seen in the understanding of that symbol/creature as part of the Four Living Creatures in Ezek 1 & 10.
            So the meaning of this combined (eagle+its wings) symbolism can be understood to be: God’s Supernatural, tangibly militaristic, assistance, in order to protect/sustain His people from an enemy. And so, putting that combined symbolism upon, as done here in Dan 7:4, a lion...a lion that is symbolic of the World’s SuperPower Kingdom, then Babylon, jointly is pointing to: God supernaturally empowering Babylon to prevail militaristically, and all in order to protect and  sustain His own People....Most interestingly, that is all exactly what God copiously says He would be doing through Babylon, for His People...however because He had to protect and sustain His Own People from themselves.
            Indeed in, by then, ca. 490 years since its founding of not being truly faithful to God and violating His laws, including His sabbatical laws, Israel and more specifically then, the mercifully spared (1 Kgs 11-12) remnant of the Southern Kingdom Judah had come to a point where they had so depleted their own farmlands, that they were on the verge of destroy themselves by not being able to grow crops to feed themselves. God’s necessary solution then was to have them be deported to Babylon and let the land rest (2 Chr 36:10, 17-19, 20-21). Indeed in the prophecies of Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar & his Babylon Kingdom is repeatedly endorsed as God’s endorsed and commission means of punishment on His wayward people (e.g. Jer 21:3-5, 8-10; 22:25; 27:6-8; 46:26-28). Even Nebuchadnezzar recognized God’s uplifting hand in all of this (cf. Jer 39:11-14)
            In Ezekiel 17 God makes use of the symbolism of the eagle and its wings (Ezek 17:3, 7) to, in ca. 588 B.C., ‘parabolically’ (Ezek 17:1) speak of what He had tried to salvagingly do to His People through “the king of Babylon” i.e. Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek 17:11-12ff) who was the first of those two eagles. Relatedly Habakkuk 1:6-7ff speaks of this Divine Judgement Campaign of God on Judah through Babylon in the figurative term of ‘an unstoppable swooping eagle.’
            And finally, as Jer 50:17 indicates that the symbol of a “lion” was figuratively applied by God to both Assyria & Babylon, and their respective kings, and as Ezek 17:3, 7 symbol of an ‘eagle with great wings’ was parabolically applied by God to both Babylon & Egypt (i.e. Ezek 17:7 = Ezek 17:17), it is therefore manifest that these symbols were not meant to be distinctively identifying of one particular kingdom, i.e. by distinctive traits of it, but rather by the functional usage/purpose that God had for it...However, it is most distinctively applicable that in Dan 7:4 those two symbols are combined into/for one “beast”, and it is only Babylon which has been associated with both of these symbols, moreover with “Nebuchadnezzar”/“the king of Babylon” (Jer 50:17/ Ezek 17:12) being specified/mentioned with both figures....So it can be conclusively claimed here that the ‘lion with eagle’s wings’ in Dan 7:4, i.e. when this prophecy starts,  pointedly is: “Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon” (=605-562 B.C.)!

Lion with Eagle wings inscription
Gate of Ishater built by Nebu in 575 (600) BC
Lion = symbol of power
Photo is Ishtar dominating lion
Lion with Eagle wings in processional way leading to gate of Ishtar
tucked wings (versus spread wings graphics)
humbling of Nebu before ishtar?
Contra Chris White's view
Daniel 7 given in 553BC

I kept looking - This indicates a passing of some time, but, as discussed in Dan 7:2 above: as is the working thesis for the interpreting here, the non use/mention of the exclamation “behold” implies that no sudden shifting in scenery occurred here between Daniel seeing that lion with eagle’s wings scene and the next development which is the ‘plucking of its wings, etc’
until its wings were plucked - So since the symbol of these (eagle) wings has been Biblically seen to be representative of God (assistively) both providing protection and sustenance for His People, -in this case against themselves, and also God’s aiding in military conquest, and thus the superiority of an entity, here the lion, thus the King of Kingdoms: Babylon, then this plucking of these eagle wings must indicate an ending of, and downgrade from, this Divine assistance.
            Interestingly, the Divine Assistance of God to Babylon was always stated as being sovereignly limited (Jer 27:6-7), meaning that at some time in the future, when the circumstantial (punitive) usefulness of Babylon was exhausted, God would act to actually punish Babylon for its own sins (Jer 25:12-14ff; 50:17-18), as well as its inhumane overreaches when punitively dealing with God’s People (e.g. Psa 137:8-9). As seen in Jer 27:7, God was indeed planning to even diametrically overturn the Divine assistance that He had granted to Babylon to make it the World’s Superpower, to the point where ‘Babylon would become the servant of its previously conquered foes’. With God having a set timeline of 70 years for the duration of this Babylonian Captivity (Jer 29:10-12), thus scheduled to end in ca. 536 B.C., it was indeed forseeasble that God would act to do this overthrow of Babylon in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘grandson’ (=Jer 27:7).
            Nebuchadnezzar died in ca. 562 B.C. and his son Amel-Marduk/Evil-Merodach (cf. Jer 52:31; 2 Kgs 25:27) succeeded him, but, as summarily delineated here, things really began to go haywire in the regnal succession of the Babylonian Empire. Amel-Marduk was murdered by his successor brother-in-law after only 2 years of reign and 2 short-reigning kings took the throne between 560-556 B.C. until Nabonidus ascended to the throne in 556 B.C. reigning until 539 B.C. however “for long periods he entrusted rule to his son, Prince Belshazzar”, the Babylonian ruler mentioned in Daniel 5 when Babylon fell to Cyrus and the Medo-Persians. So, if it had not been for this conspiratorial upheaval for the throne of the Babylonian Empire, it would indeed have been Nebuchadnezzar blood “grand-son” who would be ruling in ca. 539 when Babylon was overturn, as planned by God. But this event was still in harmony with the planned timing of the ‘third/grandson generation from Nebuchadnezzar’.
            All this to show that God had a set/timed plan to overthrow Babylon, and the plucking of eagle’s wings from this lion was to represent the eventual ending of this Divine ‘militarily favoring’ of Babylon (e.g. Ezek 30:22-25) which was purposely serving to ‘sustain’ the Remnant of God’s Captive People in Babylon. It was representative of the “humbling of Babylon”, i.e. from its superpower position in the world. (=Isa 13:17-19ff). Without this approval and assistance of God, Babylon would neither be in the position that it is in, nor be able to withstand its enemies/competitors for this World’s Hegemony.
but - Given the understanding that the plucking of, moreover eagle’s, wing represents a ‘humbling’ development, and with, even the ensuing end form here of a “man” also being advantaged by having wings (cf. Rev 12:14 and as seen with angelic beings), the detailing below which follow this ‘eagle’s wings plucking’ can’t ‘but’ be seen as being an opposition contrast to what had been the situation before it. So the Hebrew conjunction here is understood as having such a “disjunctive” = “but” notion, hence that translational rendering here instead.

it was lifted up from the ground - This is an animal, this “lion”, which is being lifted from the ground. It could be argued that, by having wings before, that lion could actually also fly ...indeed as powerfully and majestically ‘as an eagle’. Well, as seen earlier, this “flying like an eagle” was all indicative of God’s supernatural assistance. However, despite now having no eagle’s wings, this land beast lion is still being made to be ‘lifted from the ground’. So this is pointing to the loss of one favor still being constructive to another, and manifestly even better, state of favor.

and made to stand on two feet like a man - The “lifting up” favoring process is complete here, and this former animal now has the standing/established posture of God’s Highest/Crowning Earthly Creative doing: that of a human. So the once animal is now actually made to be promoted to seeming and behaving like a man.

a human mind also was given to it - Human physical and functional posturing is not enough. Indeed many animal, e.g. monkeys can have such a human-like form and stance. So here, this promotional transition is made complete by giving this animal/beast the mind of a human, which is distinguished by its awareness, intelligence and conscience. That is how&why humans do have dominion over animals.
            So through this seemingly humbling “plucking” process this animal became even more prestigious than even the king of animals, the lion. It became, in form and mind, like a human. So this “plucking” process was really an advantageous “pruning” (=John 15:2)

            Daniel 4 Allusion - Not surprisingly at all, we seen in Daniel 4 that God’s specially selected: ‘lion with eagle’s wing”, King Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 50:17, 43, 44; Ezek 17:1-6, 11-14ff) experienced such a ‘humbling...but for the better’ plucking/pruning intervention by God. Nebuchadnezzar did come out the better when he was restored, both Spiritually (Dan 4:37) and even in Ruling Greatness (Dan 4:36), recognizing that it had been God who had granted him all of this temporal, World Hegemonic, favor and success (Dan 4:17, 20-22, 27).
            From his prior defiant “Golden Image” rebelling in Daniel 3 to God’s prophetic plan for the World’s Hegemony (Daniel 2), it was manifest that, despite any short-dwelt wonder at the God of Heaven (Dan 2:46-47), Nebuchadnezzar was still “thinking like an animal”, i.e. like a world ruler trying to maintain his current hegemonic position. But now his animal “heart=mind” would be changed to that of a human. For Nebuchadnezzar, that would actually be a reversal back to what it previously was (i.e. Dan 4:16)...But now, having fully had/experienced the lower heart/mind of an animal, he could better appreciate his human intellect and see now to safeguardingly properly use it to ‘recognize, honor, respect, obey and love the Creator God’ (cf. Deut 6:5/Matt 24:37; see here)
            The ensuing rulers in Babylon, particularly Belshazzar, did not (as seen in Dan 5), have/maintain this Godly-renewed “mind” as/of Nebuchadnezzar. However, as discussed earlier, Babylon was always on a set/limited time-basis in God’s hand. Pointedly, they had outstanding national capital sins of their own to have judged by God. So it really was never a matter of whether Babylon could perpetuatingly maintain its World Hegemonic position. But here, God was going to make sure that, at some point in its permitted Dominant reign, it recognized that it was the God of Heaven who had orchestrated, allowed and overseen this Geo-Political development.
            So manifestly that is all what this prophecy detailing was intending to highlight about Babylon, i.e. God’s hand in these affairs, and not actually the downfall of the first fulfilling kingdom: Babylon.

Second Beast = Bear
Daniel 7:5 - "And behold, another beast, a second one, made to be resembling a bear. And it was caused to be raised up on one side, and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth; and thus they said to it, 'Arise, devour much flesh!'

And behold - The interjection aru is used at this point in the dream, which, as discussed in Dan 7:2 is indicative of a sudden, and even unexpected, shift of scenery.
            This beast is to take the World Hegemonic place of Babylon, and indeed the (539 B.C.) Fall of Babylon the Great was unexpected...even while Cyrus and his armies had set up siege around this Empire’s capital city because, Babylon had greatly prepared to easily outlast and survive any siege against them, to the point where, as per certain accounts, the inhabitants of the city would go up on their massive city walls and throw out food to the besieging enemies soldiers. In fact, the very night that Babylon fell, which indeed had been preceded for a while with the approach and siege of Cyrus and the Medo-Persian armies, the King of Babylon was unworriedly inside, throwing a wild, blasphemous drunken party (Dan 5; cf. Jer 51:39, 57).
            So though the Fall of any kingdom, especially when at its height, is inherently an ‘unexpected surprise’, that is indeed how this World Hegemoic shift was dramatically depicted in Daniel’s vision.

another beast, a second one - The deliberateness to specifying an order here cannot be underlooked. This statement could easily have simply/merely said “another beast”. But it rather went on to specify that this (sequentially) was a “second” beast. Again, as seen earlier, there indeed seems to be a deliberateness to indicating that these beasts are appearing on the scene in a sequence. So while Dan 7:3 says that “four beast were coming up out of the sea” implying that they were all coming up at the same time, there manifestly would still be a sequential presentation of each beast, with each coming to “front and center” prominence at some ordered time in the future.                                              

made to be resembling - As in Dan 7:4 when the first beast was presented, it is deliberately not said what animal the beast actually is, but rather what animal the beast is like/resembling . So the beasts had (naturally) taken on for themselves, and or were (supernaturally) being given, the particular characteristics of certain animals. Confirming this observation, the fourth, ‘uniquely different’, beast itself (Dan 7:7, 19) does not resemble any known/existing animal.

a bear - Like the utilized symbol of the “lion” above for the First Beast to reference Babylon, the instances and figurative usage of a “bear” in the Bible is also interesting, and to reference this Second Beast, which will easily be seen to indeed be the Medo-Persian/Aechemides Empire.
             Probably with great reason, the bear is commonly referred to in the Bible when the trait of ‘great fierceness’ is to best/ideally exemplified, but interestingly enough, the mention of the bear is always in the context of ‘a mother bear being robbed of her cubs’ (2 Sam 17:8; Pro 17:12, Hos 13:8)[2]2 In fact the afore used “lion” and the “bear” are commonly referred to in the Bible as the prime examples of (types of, sinfully/naturally) vicious/dangerous animals (Isa 11:7; Lam 3:10; cf. Amos 5:19). Hence they are great examples of ungodly/wicked kings=kingdoms, pointedly those who, like Israel when unfaithful (e.g. Isa 58; Zech 7:8-10ff; cf. Amos 5:19-24;), ‘those who oppress their poor people.’ (Pro 28:15; cf. Ezek 16:48-50)
            Well here is the evident thing with Babylon....As discussed earlier, God had allowed her to ascend to its position of World Hegemony, but when it came for God to allow Babylon to judged His wayward Judah, it, as actually expected by God (Hab 1:6-7; cf. Ezek 26:7-8ff), i.e. as per Babylon’s customary ‘slay without sparing’ policy (Hab 1:17), actually overdid it. It had no compassion on the pre-adult youth, nor the infirm or old, of Judah (2 Chr 36:17; Isa 47:6). When it did not from the youth as captives to Babylon (as Daniel and his 3 friends -Dan 1; 2:49; 3), -manifestly those who (perhaps were strong/skilled enough to have) managed to survive the assault of the city (2 Chr 36:20), Nebuchadnezzar just had them slain. The “justice” that was due to Babylon was that someone would likewise decimate their young (Psa 137:8-9)...And this was indeed the type of fierce task for a ‘mama bear being robbed of her offspring’ (cf. Hos 13:7-8)...
            ...And in the likewise ruthless kingdom of Medo-Persia (Isa 13:17-19ff), God indeed had found the nation capable of doing this Just Avenging on Babylon. (Isa 13:1-15, 16; Jer 51:11, 28-29 )....moreover with a “(growling) bear” being associated with an act of “Justice” (Isa 59:11; - the “dove”=“salvation”)....
            As discussed earlier at Dan 7:4, in King Nebuchadnezzar, God had managed to have a converted ruler of Babylon which respected Him and did no further harm to His Captive People. But with Nebuchadnezzar dying in ca. 562 B.C., which was Year #44 of the decreed 70 Years of Judah’s Babylonian captivity (Jer 25:11, 12), the challenge now would be to continue to have kings of Babylon who maintained this “hands-off” policy towards the Judean Captives for the remaining 26 years. Nothing is known either in the Secular or Biblical History about how the next 3 kings of Babylon treated the Jewish exiles/captives in their realm, but the Biblical recorded actions of Belshazzar strongly suggest that his rule was marked with open, defiant and arrogant disdain for God and His religion (see Dan 5:20-23; cf. Jer 50:29)[3]3, and likely also the people who were faithful to God, even manifestly not wanting to ever let them go (Jer 50:33)...So, indeed like a bear being robbed of her cubs, it was time for God to act against Babylon (Jer 50:24-34ff)...through Medo-Persia (and with further destruction of the legacy of Babylon (e.g., manifestly, the razing of the (probable) [God-defiant] Tower of Babel structure) by Greece =Jer 51:40=Dan 8:3-4, 5, 8, 20, 21).
            God was always expecting that this “lion” Babylon would, ‘in her young/cubs’, i.e. the regnal offspring/successors of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Jer 27:7), come to put up a fight against allowing His Restoration Will for His People to be done and especially God’s enjoining avenging total destruction of Babylon (Jer 51:36-38). And so God was manifestly going to pour out a drowsying spirit of (false) self-assurance on them (cf. Isa 29:9-10) as emblematically played out in that drunken “whistling-by-the-graveyard” banquet of Dan 5. (=Jer 51:39)
            When a band of Israelite youngsters who knew better than to, and personally so, insult and false-disparagingly mock a prophet of God who they clearly knew had just witnessed the most unique of God’s favoring/approving humanward act in translating a faithful human alive, i.e. Elijah, to Heaven (2 Kgs 2:1-14), God sent two mama bears to execute applicable capital judgement (cf. Lev 19:3; Exod 20:12; Deut 21:18-21) on 42 of these, moreover publicly, ‘insolently upstart next generation’ of Israelites. (2 Kgs 2:23-24)... When Belshazzar effectively became a “fool (Psa 14:1; 53:1) in his [moreover drunken] folly”, then dealing with a “bear robbed of her cubs”, i.e. Medo-Persia, was deemed much better by God (Pro 17:12)*....
* ...Of course, and as “concretely” further seen next below, that ‘Pro 17:12-like Medo-Persia riled-up-bear’ would not be itself cognizantly actuated and impelled out of a devotion to avenge the Israelites against Babylon and insure/allow God’s Captive People to go free and return to their own land, but God would succeed in “stirring up’/‘arousing’ (Isa 13:17; Jer 51:11) by appealing to, fomenting and using, its own World Hegemonic self-interests.

And it was caused to be raised up on one side - So this “raising up on one side” is an odd posturing for a bear....I have never seen a bear do so...at least naturally/innately, i.e. perhaps other than from training in/for a circus show. The commonly seen alternative posturing for a bear is it standing up on its hind legs (even quite functionally “like a human”), and pointedly when it is involved in a fight, and famously in order to defend its youngs. So this bear having raised itself up on one side is both indicative of an unnatural stance as well as one that is actually not about defending its young. So it can be seen as being both: a forced stance, as well as posturing for an offensive move.
            Plus being on its side rather than on its rear legs, involves that the bear is in its normal, (purely animalistic) crouched stance to move about/forward. And also, in general, a bear raising itself is for a functional purpose and/or to indicate strength & project power.
            Exegetically, the verb “raised” is in the passive causitive verbal form, namely the Hophal. As grammatically defined syntactically explained in IBHS pp. 447-449ff, this verbal form [and as compared and contrasted with the direct/forceful (passive) patiency-causitive Pual form]:

“represent the subject as being caused to be acted upon or to suffer the effects of having been acted upon (usually by an unnamed agent)”. Whereas in Pual the subject is made into a state represented by the root, in Hophal it is caused, or suffers the effects of having been caused, to be in the event signified by the root.” [...] “the Hophal represents the subject as the undergoer of a causative situation involving an event.” p.447, 448 [#28.1(b)]

            So applying these syntactical elements to the statement in this verse with the operative question being “what event caused the bear to be raised on one side?”; and with the active=Hiphil (versus passive) rendering being: “an event caused the bear to be raised on one side”:

-subject = the bear
-causative event = being raised
-(unexpressed) agent = ???

            So putting all of this together towards its interpretion/application: the bear was in its normative posture, of being on all fours, then an agent caused the event of it becoming raised, but not in the common and natural self/own-defending posture of rearing on his hind legs, but the forced, and contrastingly innately offensive, posture of raising itself on one side, and all for/while merely moving about/forward = (also fig.) to ‘advance’ itself.
            So, in history, we are to see this bear, Medo-Persia: having, out of its own self/national interests, been caused by an unnamed agent to become in an innately offensive posturing when attempting to functionally accomplish a task and/or demonstrably indicate its strength and/or tangibly project its power, all in order to advance. And this is all observed in the rise, and advance to World Hegemony, of Medo-Persia:
            The, then merely, Kingdom of the Medes [=the ancient (pre-Islam) Iranian people] was established in 678 B.C. Between the years 616-605 B.C. it allied itself with Babylon in order to overthrow the hegemonic rule of their common enemy, the Neo-Assyrian Empire. This helped the Medes to, in 612 B.C. capture the Assyrian’s capital city Nineveh, which resulted in the eventual collapse of their Empire by 605 B.C....at which time, Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon took over in that vacated Imperial & Hegemonic footprint & role.
            The Kingdom of the Medes independently existed alongside the north&eastern borders of this Empire of Babylon. Within this realm of the Medes was the kin province of Persis where the “Persian” people lived. Then, sometime between 590-580/76 B.C. Cyrus the Great was born to the daughter of the Medes-ruling king Astyages and Cyrus’s Persian father. At this point, some pertinent and interesting points/claims can be made about the birth, childhood to pre-regnal years of Cyrus are to be believed, especially that of Greek Historian Herodotus (484-465 B.C.) in Histories 1.107-130 (Loeb Edition pp. 139-171) as compared to that of Xenophon (430-354 B.C.). but there are scholarly debates as to whether these accounts are factual histories or partly embellished, or wholly fabricated, mythologies. I would have to do an original and indepth study on this to conclusively determine that for myself, however, (1) from what is said by God about Cyrus in the Bible in Isa 44:24-45:7, and the fact that Cyrus, when showed such Divine pronouncement and prophecies, recognized, -perhaps from, up-to-then no fully appreciated, “fortunous” incidents in his life that: ‘the God of Heaven had led him to his present World Hegemonic position, and for an appointed purpose’ (Ezra 1:1-2ff; cf. Histories 1:126), and (2) because I see such developments, as said to have occurred with Cyrus in his childhood, with ‘anointed shepherds’ (Isa 44:28-45:1) people that God also chose, led and appointed to do great things for Him and His Cause, like Joseph (Gen 37-50) and Moses (Exod 1-4ff), then I can view those accounts about Cyrus from that Biblically-attested Great Controversy/Spiritual Warfare paradigm.[4]4 This involves the humanly natural and supernaturally implicated elements of: God revealing in a dream his (radical) intentions about that chosen person, such as the two dream that Cyrus grandfather Astyages had about the (future) son of his daughter Mandane, which, like Joseph’s jealous brothers and the Deliver-fearful Pharoah, he tried to thwart both. The first dream was before Mandane was married, and Astyages tried to thwart that by giving her to be married to a Persian, which would take her son out of the Median royal line. Then Asytages had the second dream when Mandane was pregnant with Cyrus, and he tried to thwart that by having Mandane come from Persia to stay with him, and once the child was born, ordering his courtier Harpagus to take him away and have him killed....Long account made short, Harpagus became fearful of doing that so he outsourced the job to a shepherd, who also became fearful, and so used the unfortunate circumstance of the stillborn death of his son at that very time to pass him off as a dead Cyrus and raising Cyrus as his own son. The matter remained concealed for 10 years, until...again long story short, -(read it in its entirety from the linking above), Cyrus was discovered and Harpagus grotesquely punished through his own son....That then led Harpagus to hate and later secretively rebel against Astyages by inciting Cyrus, who was, since 559 B.C. the ruling leader of the Persians, to lead the Persians to militarily revolt against the now despot Astyages and the Medes. Cyrus did just that (=553|552ff B.C.; -no doubt non-coincidentally around the very same year when this prophecy was given to Daniel (Dan 7:1)), and because Astyages had indeed now become a despot, he found many allies throughout the Median Kingdom, and by 550|549 B.C. this armed revolt was successful and Cyrus and the Persians had taken the hegemony away from the Medes and established their own with Cyrus’ royal family’shouse of Achaemenes”, hence the more technical name of that Empire, when it became a wider Empire as the Persian/Achaemenid Empire. And by each having a valid/superior Royal Houses from their original realm, that the “Medes and the Persians” were deemed to be the namesakes of this Empire of many (subjugating/provincial, ~127) kingdoms (cf. Dan 6:8, 12; Est 1:1; 8:9).
            So...in not so of a nutshell, that is how the Medo-Persian Empire actually came to be an Empire led/ruled by one of its two main people groups, the Persians, as founded/established by Cyrus.

            So that is the event that made the symbolizing bear of Dan 7:5 be raised on one side. And it indeed was not out of a desire to seek to ‘protect/release God’s children’, then prisoners to a God-arrogant&defying “fool” (cf. Pro 17:12) in Babylon, for Cyrus was not made aware of this until after he ascended to the throne|control of Babylon (Eza 1:1-2), but it was out of pure personal political ambitions wanting to, literally, have the upper hand over the Medes.
            And given how Cyrus went on to, as the (Western) World’s Hegemonic Leader formulate and implement a ruling policy that was radically different from that of Babylon where he highly respected the realm, religion and cultures of the various kingdoms and peoples which he ruled over, and did not try to force them to become assimilated in the ways of his own people, like Babylon had done, -and for this reason Cyrus is considered/commemorated today by the United Nations as the founder of Human Rights in the World, that God not only chose Cyrus to be the World’s Hegemonic leader then, but may also have gifted him with this congenial spirit and wisdom for this rule. This was just what God needed to have Israel be reestablished in peace in their realm, and have freedom to practice their religion (cf. Ezra 7:11-20, 21-24), as well as be ruled by their own local-national laws (cf. Ezra 7:25-26). I guess Medo-Persia basically oversaw to the peace, safety, prosperity and harmony of these various quasi-autonomous kingdoms in its Global realm.

            As seen in this dedicated post, Dan 8:3, 20 relates and explicitly interpret this development of Medo-Persia, so that corroborates this understanding here.

and three ribs - As farfetched as it may surfacely seem, upon pondering this point here, -which is one which will be making complete sense by the end of the remaining statements about the bear kingdom of this verse, this mention of “three ribs” finds an explanation in the Creation of Woman in Gen 2:21-24. There, [for actually necessary scientific reasons], a rib was taken out of Adam in order to create a “suitable helper” to him , the Woman Eve, in his task of ruling over the Earth (Gen 1:27-28). The rib of Adam was chosen in order to have the Woman share in the DNA of the Man, and, (as controversial as it has socially become today, even within the Christian Church itself, -all due to an abuse of this matter): to concretize a “belonging” fact as the woman did come from Man and was: “bone of his bone” and “flesh of his flesh” (Gen 2:23)....Thus the two were to become one flesh through marriage and procreation. (Gen 2:24)[5]5 So we could/should expect to see this notion in the meaning/usage of this symbol here.
were in its mouth - As a beast is a king/kingdom, then its mouth represents where its (formal) pronouncements come from, hence from where its laws & policies, even indeed distinct from these words which it expresses. So the mouth of a beast is representative of the law/policy making function/body of a king/kingdom...In those times, and in Medo-Persia (cf. Dan 6:6-9), and as patent with monarchies, even up until the times when countries, -actually starting with Ancient Rome, opted for a Division/Branching of Ruling Powers (thus separating the Executive, Legislative and/or Judicial powers which had up to then been consolidated in a Monarch), that ‘formal, national, legislative “pronouncement” power’ came from the King.
            Ribs also are bones of the rib cage which is used to protect the vital (functional) organs of the body. So seeing 3 thorn out ribs in the mouth of this bear would indicate that some other beast out there has had this protective structure compromised and is thus vulnerable to having its vital organ be fatally damaged. It literally cannot take another, further, blow from this bear at that compromised area as it then will be fatal to them.

between its teeth - The teeth are used to break down food so that it can be naturally/easily intaken and for bodily consumption. When it comes to animal (-beast) meat, it however is merely the flesh that is eaten and not the bones. Well the imagery here of these rib bones being merely kept between the teeth show that these rib bones will not be further broken down and eaten, and so won’t be bodily consumed in order to eventually also become part of that bear’s anatomy/physiology. It can however be assumed that any flesh that was on these bones was “picked clean” by the bear. So the fleshly part was potentially consumed, but the framework/structural aspect of these rib bones, -which, pertinently, as seen here, contain key DNA stem cells for cloning, (hence indeed why God chose a rib to cloningly create the female human gender), was not being broken down and consumed.
            Ribs also, as also explained in here, uniquely can, unlike other bones, be made to regrow themselves, (hence also why God had chosen it), so the beasts who have been “vitally exposed” by that initial blow by the bear can again become in a situation where an additional/further blow by this bear would not be fatal to them (cf. e.g. Ezr 4:15, 16, 19-22).
            Also with the mouth representing the legislative/policy-making function of a king/kingdom, that mouth’s teeth would represent the capability of that king/kingdom to have its laws and policies implemented. So Medo-Persia’s hegemonic laws/policies, though as liberal and rights respecting as they famously were, would still have the capability to be enforced. This most pertinently recalls the lament of Pope Benedict XVI who wanted to see ‘a United Nations with “real teeth”’ [hence indeed for ‘socio-economic’, “ethical”, potentially even for religious, issues/policies as the UN already has its Security Council for political/military issues/policies.] And so, Cyrus, who some deemed founded the world’s first United Nations entity, did have in his Hegemonic Realm and Empire with teeth, but it was content with merely acting to keep nations who threatened to revolt vulnerably in check.

            Rib - Woman - Religion - If the rib was used to create woman, and if a woman is symbolic of a religious entity/church, and since the rib contains the stem-cell DNA for such a production, then it would seem that this vital removal of ribs by this bear would be it affecting the religious aspect of another beast=country. Indeed unlike Babylon, the crux of Medo-Persia Imperial Policy was that it would be allowing the religious cult/culture of its subject kingdoms to be reestablished, even if/as it was, as actually patently the norm then, intertwined with that nation’s political affairs (see Ezra 1:1-2ff; 7:25-26). That is why, for Babylon, politically dominating other nations had to involve them humbling that nation’s religion. But not so for Medo-Persia who indeed even financially/materially contributed to the religious restoration of their subject nations. So ripping out these ribs here would preclude a nation being able to religiously establish itself, and so overall compromising the whole of these nations then, including politically.                                         
and thus they said to it - The underlying Aramaic is clear with the word translated as “thus”. It, i.e. we-ken [#03651], does involve the notion: “(and) so”, “therefore”, “thus”. So ‘the three ribs in the bear’s mouth, between its teeth’ is what is ‘(naturally) saying to the bear’ what follows in this verse. So it is what had been successfully realized, this ripping out of 3 ribs, that would be giving then ensuing marching orders to the bear.

'Arise, devour much flesh! - The Aramaic/Hebrew word here akal [#0398/#0399] manifestly has the simple notion of “eat” when used in reference to humans, but “devour” when used in reference to, especially wild, animals/beasts. So this bear was being told to “devour”, which actually is regular eating for a bear.
            The Aramaic/Hebrew word translated as “flesh” [#1321/#1320] is indeed that “flesh/meat”. (It is interesting to see the word “rib” and “flesh” used in Gen 2:21, cf. 2:23). But the way in which this word is to be figuratively understood here can be seen from its use in Dan 4:12. There, the peoples/nations which were dependent on the World Hegemonic Power of Babylon are called “flesh”, rendered as “living creatures” in the NASB. (Cf. Dan 2:11). So that word is used to refer to all living people on the Earth.
            So the bear kingdom was being told to “consume” as much of the Earth’s peoples as possible. And as it was God who was overseeing this World ascendency and hegemony (Dan 2:21), then God was here approving of Cyrus and his Persian Empire to spread throughout as much of the Earth as possible.

            Historical Application - Now putting all of these elements in this three ribs statement together to find out its application, we can see that while it indeed was the Medo-Persian policy to rule over other peoples, they had a policy which allowed these subjugated kingdom to still live, and as themselves. {=merely ribs injury}  The Persians would not be trying to make them become culturally or religiously {=DNA and woman-creation rib potential} just like them, nor would they themselves try to become like these provinces. {=these ribs remaining in the mouth, between its teeth}. And as ribs can regrow, Medo-Persia would allow these conquered people to regrow their culture and religion.

            Now, these 3 ribs have been commonly interpreted to be, by Historicist expositors, to be the 3 major nations of Lydia (547 B.C.), Babylon (539 B.C.) and Egypt (525 B.C.) that Medo-Persia conquered which served to establish its Kingdom as now a Major Empire.
            The following detailed map of the territorial expansion of the Medo-Persian Empire [it uses Greek & Persian naming] highlights (with a purple star) these battles as key/major ones for them.

Map of Medo-Persian Empire

            Originally, I was going to instead go with three major battles and conquest of Medo-Persia leading up to its pivotal decision to take over Babylon, namely:

-the battle&conquest of Lydia in 547 B.C. in the West responding to an attack into its territory by the Lydians. This expanded the Medo-Persian Empire into Asia Minor and thus right next to the region of (the eventually next World’s Superpower) Greece. [This actually would spark the 50-year Greco-Persian Wars]. 

-then the protracted fighting in the lands North from between 546-539 BC which got them the Sogdiana region (=present-day area of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan)

-and then its moves to the South of its kingdom with the 539 Battle of Opis which paved the way for them to attack and conquer the capital city of Babylon. And by doing so, it served to propelled the Persian Empire to become the World’s Superpower then, leading to additional conquests, namely (majorly) Egypt from then on.

            This Lydia-Sogdia-Babylon application would be my choice as it sequentially&directionally dovetails exactly with the “westward...northward...southward” push of the “Medo-Persia” ram of Dan 8:4, 20. And these early, and Babylon’s-Fall preliminary, conquests, -(all by Cyrus himself btw), would indeed “be saying” to the bear to ‘go on and conquer the rest of empires/peoples of the world, starting with bringing about the downfall of its rival Hegemonic Empire Babylon....and then Egypt.
            But I can see how Lydia-Babylon-Egypt can be an acceptable application given how these conquest most significantly expanded the Persian Empire.
            So the choice here is really between the sequential/directional exactitude of Lydia-Sogdia-Babylon or the qualitative/substantive weight of Lydia-Babylon-Egypt. Really either choice works, but if it is the latter choice which is deemed applicable, then the seemingly sequential directional expansion of Dan 8:4 can be seen as generally speaking of a Kingdom which is located in the Eastern parts of this “Near-East World” expanding towards each of the other 3 cardinal directions, though eventually, the Eastern borders of the Medo-Persian Empire did reach as far as India, -(and pertinently, also Ethiopia in the South) (Est 1:1; 8:9).
            Relatedly, once Egypt itself was conquered, the Persia Kings, as seen in here, became known as the Pharaohs of Egypt and Cyrus himself had been known as: “King of the Four Corners of the World”.

Third Beast = 4-Headed Leopard with 4 Wings
Daniel 7:6 - "After this I came to be looking, and behold, another one, like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird; the beast also had four heads, and dominion was given to it.

After this I came to be looking - This vision continues as the bear beast manifestly fades or moves away from central view, and so Daniel keeps on looking.

and behold - again, as explained earlier, this is a hard transition, i.e. to an entirely new/unexpected element in the dream.

another one - clearly “another beast”. Despite, contrary to the other 3 beasts (Dan 7:4, 5, 7) no sequencing term being used, namely “a third”. Nonetheless it can be assumed, indeed from the consistent ordering with the other beasts, that this is indeed a sequentially “third” beast, indeed one which suddenly, newly appears on the scene.

like a leopard - “like” - Again, and similar to the other beasts, this beast is not a leopard, but is like (i.e. resembles) a leopard.
            Now what the Bible says about the leopard serves to indicate what is to be expected about this beast, which, as already defined (Dan 7:17, 23) of course is: the next World’s Superpower “king/kingdom”. Keeping in mind, as seen with the lion-like and bear-like beasts before, that these are features which God is Himself either assistively providing to these kingdoms which He is wanting to ascend to the World’s Hegemony and/or accompanying innate characteristics that God has to endure:

(1) Hab 1:8 clearly show that the leopard is considered as a benchmark for the fastest speed of land animals. However, significantly enough, and as later further unpacked, in this passage, Babylon is said to ‘have a military, namely a cavalry/horsemen who are faster than leopards’.

(2) Jer 5:6 & Hos 13:7 both involve that the leopard likes to lies in wait. Rather than go after its prey here, it prefers to wait for them to come out to them or walk past their way.

(3) In the famous analogy of Jer 13:23; the (falsehood, licentious/lewd and abominable) sins of Judah (Jer 13:25-27) are being compare by Jeremiah to the (unremoveable) spots of a leopard. By further application, it can be claimed that the non-spotted skin of the leopard represent its good/non-sinful qualities.      

            So the three Biblically-highlighted aspects of this figurative leopard-like beast that we are to expect to see in/with it are: (1) great speed; (2) a non-imposition of itself; and (3) falsehoods, licentiousness/lewdness and abominations.

            As World History indeed shows that Greece came to be the World’s Superpower, it should be here verified if such prominent features were seen in/with it.

            (1) Great Speed - Whereas it took Babylon ca. 14-20 years (ca. 626-612-606 B.C.) to rise from its local kingdom status to overtaking the World’s Hegemony from the Neo-Assyrian Empire who held that rule from ca. 911-626|612|606 B.C.; and whereas it took the Persians ca. 14-28 years (553-539-525 B.C.) from their uprising against the Medes to their conquering of other world powers of Babylon and Egypt; it took then 22-year old Alexander the Great and Greece 3 major battles and just 4 years (334-330 B.C.) to take over Medo-Persia’s World’s Hegemony & conquer (most of) its territory [cf. this animation from 334 B.C.]. So that is “great, leopard-like, speed” indeed....
Note: A very detailed, comprehensive, Bible-Prophecy confirming, and also, modern-historical-accounts-correcting presentation of Alexander’s overtaking of the Medo-Persian Empire is made (starting in) this dedicated post on Daniel 8.

            ...However an interesting objecting argument can be made that: if Greece did this conquest in 4 years and Babylon did it 14-20 years, then how can it be consistently claimed that ‘the military advance of Babylon would be faster than leopards’ (Hab 1:8), thus by prophetic/symbolic application: Greece’s. Manifestly this is where the next statement in this Dan 7:6 prediction:  comes into play: which had on its back four wings of a bird.
            Babylon was represented as a lion with eagle wings. Well, for one thing, a lion is technically actually faster than a leopard, i.e. 50 mph vs. 36 mph respectively. Although the leopard can sustain its top speed for much longer than the lion. Also, the symbolic lion here had ‘eagle wings’ which inherently involves speed; and surely these were normatively only 2 wings in number. Well manifestly that feature can be offset, or even superceded by having ‘four wings of a bird’, instead of just two, on the leopard-like beast.
            So interpreting this here, while Babylon’s conquest “speed” would manifest itself in the short attack/burst of the battles that it would fight once it has assieged an enemy’s city, the longer sustained speed of the leopard would be seen in its overall conquest spread speed.

            It can however even be validly claimed that since there (manifestly) was no (specific/distinct) name in those days for a “cheetah”, which is the fastest land beast at 75 mph (i.e. I searched in ancient/classical Greek writings for “cheetah” and found nothing), and as the cheetah greatly resembles the leopard, -being confused together in history and even being known as the "hunting leopard"; perhaps, a cheetah could have been the animal being instead seen by Daniel, but he didn’t know to, or how to, specifically identifying it as so.[6]6

            And so, “Disclaimer”: The following interpretive proposition is not a hard claim...although I actually would not put it past the Creator, “All Mighty” God sovereignly accomplishing His Prophetic Plannings (Isa 46:9-11):
            Since a “misidentified” cheetah would itself be, at 75mph vs. 50 mph, =ca. 33.3% faster than a lion, and this Dan 7:6 beast’s 4 (bird) wings versus the Dan 7:4 lion’s 2 (eagle) wings would on just that factor be 2X faster; and if that unnamed bird was itself a fast-flying bird, but not an “eagle”, i.e. if it was the Peregrine falcon which has an “average horizontal speed” of 50-68 mph whereas an eagle has an AHS of 28-32 mph, times that 2X factor, =ca. 41.2% faster, then that would all mean that this Greece: ‘leopard (=“cheetah”) with 4 Peregrine falcon wings’ would be =ca. 74.5% faster than the Babylon: ‘lion with (2) eagle wings’....
            ...And applying that result to the hegemony conquest time of Babylon which took 14-20 years (=avg. 17 years) from their initial uprising 626 B.C., the corresponding, but “faster”, conquest time for Greece would be 3.6-5.1 years (=avg. 4.3 years). Applying these times to the timeline&chronological major expeditions/major conquests of Alexander’s Greece’s imperialistic uprising starting with their mission departure in April 334 B.C. we see, as charted here:

Chronologies Comparison of Hegemonic Empires

-ca. “3.6 years” they had, in Dec 331/Jan 330 B.C., their final major push against the capital/centers of authority of the now teetering Achaemenid Empire. {At a corresponding time-line of 612 B.C., Babylon itself had, in a coalition with the Medes, managed to sack the Capital City of the Neo-Assyrian Empire: Nineveh.}

-Then at the average/median time of “4.33 years” Greece was engaging in its final battles of its hegemonic uprising in what is present day Iran, and then (ethnic) Persia proper. {At a corresponding time-line of 609 B.C. Babylon began meeting its own final major obstacle to its hegemony in fighting off a coalition army raised up by Egypt.}

-And finally “5.1 years” later, on May 329 B.C. Alexander was fighting in a quite challenging campaign in Afghanistan, although it did not actually turn out to be, as per the “mythical adage”: ‘the graveyard of his empire’. {At a corresponding time-line of 606 B.C. Babylon engaged in what also would be a quite challenging campaign of its hegemonic ascendency in the attack and conquest of Judah and Jerusalem, however this would prove to be their inevitable graveyard, because as seen earlier, God had always planned to overturn Babylon and its Hegemony, -indeed with the Medo-Persians (Isa 13:17-19) once He was done allowing Babylon to be “the hammer of the whole earth” (Jer 50:23ff; Isa 47).}  

            ....Also, in Theological musing here, was God “assistively” behind the rapid transition of World Hegemony to Greece here.... perhaps...even probably.... in order to keep that collected world of various kingdoms together as a protracted transitioning may have produce several fragmentations....For the sake of the upcoming success and spread of the Gospel, God did need to have this foremost part of the world be readily accessible and negotiable through such International Unity. So it indeed was in the interest of the Heavenly Intelligence to not have things take a/any step backwards through opportunistic rifts and fragmentations of this hegemony from a slow transition.

the beast also had four heads - A “head” in Prophetic Symbology is reflective of the natural function of the head in relation to the rest of the body. It is the body’s “headquarters”. Indeed as in a corporate organization, the head is where the decisions for the rest of the body are thought up, deliberated and made (i.e. in the mind). The “head” is the chief of the entire body. It is therefore representative of the ideology and command of/for a body. This is indeed seen in the Christian Church where Jesus Christ is “the head”, -who decides beliefs and dictates the mandate, and believers are “the body”, -which obeys and carries out this expressed will of/from the head. (=Col 1:18a; Eph 1:22-23; cf. Eph 5:22-24; 1 Cor 11:3; Col 2:19). So the head of a beast (=king/kingdom) is the seat of its authority and power where decisions for how the realm is to be ruled is actually made.
            The problem here: this leopard beast has 4 heads...therefore it has 4 competing seats of authority and power. So we are to expect to see in this Grecian Empire that its seat of power was actually partitioned into four centers/entities.
            Greece arose to World Hegemonic power, under Alexander the Great, in 330 B.C., but either from drunkenness or typhoid, or a joint detrimental contribution of the two, [and/or from deliberate, or accidental, (wine) poisoning], Alexander infamously, suddenly died young, ca. 1 month before his 33rd year, in 323 B.C., while in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II in Babylon. What immediately follows here in regards to the authorized succession of Alexander has been a matter of debate since that time. The popular claim, based on some historical accounts essentially is that: Alexander, while on his deathbed, was asked ‘to whom will the rule of his kingdom be given’ and he replied to the strongest. (See Arrian (7:26.3) & Diodorus (17:117.4 (cf. here); 18.1.4 {Greek text}) = “krastistoi”. Cf. (in latin): Curtius (10:5.5):: “to the best (man)’ = {latin text = “optimus”} & Justin (12:15.8):: “to the most worthy” = {latin text = “dignissimum”}) Others have since thought/claimed that he had meant his General Craterus (Greek: Kraterôi) since that sounded like that Greek word for “strongest” kratistôi. Diodorus (17:117.3b) relates that he had, the previous day, given, in front of witnesses, his signet ring to his bodyguard and leader of the companion cavalry Perdiccas. It could very well be that all of these accounts here contain one element of the complete truth with Alexander sensing that this matter of succession would only be settled by a Civil Warring struggle for the supremacy, and so he alertingly cited that the next day in his (next to last) deathbed statement.
            Then it is (plausibly/reliably) said that, on the day of Alexander’s death, Perdiccas used that signet ring authority given to him by Alexander to convene a council in Babylon to choose a successor. That only devolved into producing competing militaristic factions/‘political parties’. Perdiccas’ faction eventually emerged as victors, and soon after, and all still before Alexander was buried 7 days after his death, another council was convened by him in Babylon to decide how the Grecian Empire should be partitioned into the subdivisions of (27) satrapies (=provinces). [Much more will be detailed about this (prophetically) pivotal Grecian power-transitioning period here at Daniel 8:8].
            Quite pertinent to the prophecy here, Perdiccas, during the first convened council, which was to select Alexander’s successor, is said to have counseled the assembled group of various military officers/generals that:

‘It was vital to their continuance that they have a “head” (Latin: caput). Whether it is one or [otherwise defaultly/naturally] many is in your “power” (Latin: potestas). He thus raised the main issue, the question of “one” or “many.” (=Curtius 10:6.8b, 9b)

            Well it manifestly is the option of “many heads” that these officers/generals went on to effectively prefer as a great strife for that position of leadership, known as the Wars of Succession (Greek: the Diadochi) erupted in the Grecian Empire: in 4 major phases over ca. 44 years from 319-275 B.C. With territorial and power consolidations resulting after each warring phase, the Diadochi eventually settled into 4 major Kingdom Divisions: namely, from 275 B.C. on, the Kingdoms founded by Generals: Antigonus I Monophthalmus (following Cassander); Seleucus I NicatorLysimachus and Ptolemy I Soter.

            Over time one of these kingdoms after the other, would be overtaken (by a non-Grecian Kingdom/Empire. (See in the World’s kingdoms/empires animation [from 06:11-06:40]). I.e.:

Seleucid’s (Persian+) Kingdom starting in ca. 138 B.C. by the Parthian/Persians
Ptolemy’s (Egyptian) Kingdom in 30 B.C. by Rome

            So it can be seen as an overview that: Greece arose to World Hegemonic power in 330 B.C., under Alexander the Great and that the last stand of this Grecian Imperial Dominion was last seen in ca. 30 B.C. (Greece was finally directly annexed to the new Roman Empire in 27 B.C. as the province of Achaea [cf. e.g. Acts 18:12, 27; Rom 15:26; 1 Thess 1:7-8]).
            It can therefore be claimed that Greece had some degree of Imperial Authority&Power for, at most, ca. 300 years. That is significant in regards to the prophetic prediction here because this beast representing the Grecian Empire is defaultly presented as having 4 heads. That is indeed most representative of Greece because the “lone head” hegemonic rule of Alexander only lasted 7 years (330-323 B.C.). So it would indeed be more representative to present this beast according to the comparatively much longer period of time when this beast would be an empire having 4 co-ruling centers of power and authority (=4 heads).
            In fact, it can be argued that, as seen with the prior two beast, that the sequence in which, manifestly, Daniel’s attention was drawn to the various aspects/features of these beast, was corresponding to how fulfilling events would sequentially develop in history. And so when he first noticed that this beast was like a leopard, he first saw ‘its 4 wings on its body’, whihc itself was representative of the super rapid 3-5 year hegemonic conquest of Greece under the leadership of Alexander. And it is only after having seen/noticed this aspect, that Daniel saw that this beast actually had 4 heads, which would be representative of the state of ruling/imperial affairs of Greece after Alexander had disappeared from the scene.
            I am of the personal, surmising view that the Heavenly Intelligence itself had this intention to soon divide the Grecian Hegemony into 4 co-ruling Kingdom, all in order to immediately make it weak and vulnerable to be more easily overtake, at least in parts, through such a “divide to conquer” state of affairs.
            I would also thetically advance here that Alexander was, in his deathbed’s last words, speaking from some sort of visionary/envisioning experience. That is because, when Alexander said that: “his succession would be given to the strongest”, he is said to have also, and lastly [or, per this account (book page 184), next to last], added, -and as if to give the context, that: ‘he saw that great “funeral games” over him were going to happen’. Since the Greek word for “game” agona (see Middle Liddell entry) also has the meaning of ‘gathering for a struggle and war’, then, as popularly understood, these “mass gatherings” “over his tomb” were actually: ‘national assemblies for (civil) warring’.
            So this statement is being seen as a possible strategic, pointed (but depictingly encrypted) revelation given to Alexander by God {as granted to other powerful world rulers: Pharaoh (Gen 41:1-8ff); Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2:1-3ff)} in order to, at the very least, plant the seed for the ensuing “competition” for ruling supremacy (cf . Dan 2:21) in Greece. And this would be limited by God to end up in a stalemating division the kingdom, as prophesied here.

and dominion was given to it - The above made claim that Daniel is being shown and/or noticing various aspects and features of these beasts in a sequential order which matches the sequential development of the fulfilling historical events would seem to be contradicted by this statement that “dominion was given to the leopard beast” , but at the time of Alexander’s death in Babylon, he was still planning wars (i.e. against the Arabs), to further expand his Empire. So the total dominion of the Grecian Empire was not yet completed when Alexander died. It would only be after his death, peakly during the settled rule of its 4 co-ruling Kingdoms Division, -which was from ca. 275 B.C.. It is therefore is indeed accurate to mention this ‘given/achieved dominion’ after that particular arrived at state of ruling affairs of Greece.

The Collective Meaning of these First 3 Animal-Beasts
            God’s figurative statement in Hos 13:7-8 is pertinently quite interesting in the context of the first 3 animals cited in this prophecy. The Historical/Spiritual background of this prophecy is that God is dealing with a rebellious Israel, starting with the 10 Northern Tribes a.k.a. “Ephraim” (Isa 7:17; Hos 5:3; 9:3ff) (=Hos 13:1ff), and so He has no other choice than to raise up and use other/enemy kingdoms of the world, both to assist Him in bringing His wayward People back in line, but also, (=Jer 25:27-38), to help discipline, shape & order the world, all for the purpose of paving the way for His later Messianic Global Gospel Mandate&Mission and Kingdom of God plans (cf. Mark 1:14-15)....A task that indeed God’s own Israel would definitely actually have been the ‘hegemonic “head” at doing’ if they had remained faithful to God. (Deut 28:1, 13). But they were not....even many times doing more evil than heathen nations around them, -(and given the amount of Heavenly Light that they had, any sinning/evildoing amongst them, was defaultly more than the unenlightened sinful deeds of these pagan peoples)...So God, as long warned off (Deut 28:15ff) now “pouncingly” (cf. Lam 3:10-11) acted towards them as He said He would here in Hos 13:7-8:

(1) Because of their National Waywardness God did ‘be like a lion/lioness to them’ and, through his “lions” of Assyria and then Babylon (=Jer 50:17), He physically destroyed their kingdom/nation and took away its sovereignty;

(2) Because wayward Israel were Spiritually corrupting, thus killing off, and even physically sacrificing, through their practicing of the infanticidal-cult of Molech, the offspring/future of Israel, the “daughter of Zion”, God did “encounter them like a bear robbed of her cubs”.
            Then, as seen earlier at Dan 7:5, when Babylon arrogantly/“foolishly” endeavored to do this same Israel-offspring/future impeding, God encountered them like this robbed bear’ through Medo-Persia.

(3) And then came a leopard = Greece.. who, as seen here in Hos 13:7 and in Jer 5:6 , would characteristically only be ‘watching/waiting by the wayside’, and outside of Israel’s cities, for Israel to come out to it. And it would  then also “devour” them....

            ....And that is indeed the characteristic things about the Third World Hegemonic Power here of Greece....It did not imposed its cultural or even democratic/political ways upon the nations which it conquered...It let them freely chose to do so, or not....And yet it was most successful, and enduringly so, in “Hellenizing” the World.... eventually including God’s Jewish People themselves, when they began to adopt various Greek customs, ideology/theology and culture/ways....as infamously seen in the type of “(un)Biblical” literature which flourished in the Intertestamental Period, hence why Judaism today, and Christianity, except for Roman Catholicism, do not consider such “Apocryphal”//“Deuterocanonical” works/books as part of the Biblical Canon. Really the only good that came out of Hellenization was the spread of the world’s most comprehensive and accurate language of Greek...however it was not to supercedingly corrupt the actual message of the Hebrew Scriptures as often seen in the Jews’s Greek “Septuagint” translation/version of the OT.

            Most pertinently to this prophecy, particularly as it does serve as the interpretive symbolism for the prophetic statement in Rev 13:2, this lion+bear+leopard collective element is there used to speak of the composition of the First Beast (from the Sea) of Rev 13 which is the Roman Catholic Church pointedly as its ensuing Holy Roman Empire phase/entity. By the time that Papal Rome seamlessly took over from Pagan Rome gradually starting from the Fall of Rome in 476 A.D. and culminating in 538 A.D. the Roman Catholic Church, -officially “entitically”/organizationally considered as so since the legalization & consolidation of Christianity overseen by Roman Emperor Constantine in ca. +313 A.D., it had, -as the exact reverse order citing of the foundational symbols of Dan 7 in Rev 13:1-2*, already phased through those preceding stages which produced this final ‘Composite Beast’ form. 

* Namely (Rev 13:1-2): 10 horns (=Dan 7:7b, 8)...7 heads (=sum of 4 beasts heads#) ... leopard=body (=Dan 7:6)...bear=feet (=Dan 7:5)...lion=mouth (=Dan 7:4).

# Those 4 beasts of Dan 7 indeed actually have a sum total of 7 heads as the leopard (=Greece) itself has 4 heads (Dan 7:6). This all speaks of the greatest of influence that Greek Hellenization will have on that Rev 13 First Beast....which it indeed, variously, (“4-headedly”) did: i.e.: ideologically philosophically, theologically/culturally and ritualistically.

            And so leading up to, -like these beasts of Dan 7: its “arising from the sea”, the Rev 13:1ff First Beast, the Roman Catholic Church had, (since effective formation starting from 313 A.D.):

-by 538 A.D.: obtained its ten–horned realm by inheriting the failed Roman Empire
-by 476 A.D.: coalesced its 7 Chief Ideologies from its accepted-thinking from 7 heads.

-between ca. 313-476 A.D. as now the legalized Christian Church then began this aggrandizing and expanding of itself: -Politically [A], Ecclesiastically [B], and Populously [C], by now [in reverse-citing order to Rev 13:2]:

[A] Politically = “lion - mouth”: Speaking with/from direct political-assistance (i.e. the 325 A.D. (Ecumenical) Council of Nicea which was convened, organized {according to the Roman Senate} and presided over by Roman Emperor Constantine, thus now giving the Christian Church its first feel of being, like the Roman Empire was, an “imperial kingdom” i.e. “Christendom”. By being so overseen by the Pagan Roman Emperor, this “lion’s mouth” inherently was a “Babylonian’s” (1 Pet 5:13) mouth...
            Beast Characteristic #1 - This paved the way for, i.e. starting in 538 A.D. and on, the later “Caesaropapism” form/stance of the Roman Catholic Church which is: “the combining the power of secular government with the religious power”.

[B] Ecclesiastically = “bear - feet”: With Constantine’s endorsement of Christianity, the Christian Church increasingly between ca. 313/325-380 A.D. became the only supported and accepted religion in the Roman Empire culminating in the Edict of Thessalonica which made Nicene Christianity the official state church of the Roman Empire.
            “Naturally” during this period for this shift in religious policy in the Empire to have any meaning, all those who did not conform with what was the accepted and upheld religion, whether pagan or Christians with different views/understandings, had to be disciplined. And so then, and from then, various forms of punishment, even persecutions against pagans, and also “non-Nicean Christians” arose.
            This is all according to the bear characteristic as evidently used for in Bible prophecy because here, the (now) “Christian Roman Empire” naturally deeming that its offspring/young, i.e. its citizens in its empire, were being “robbed”/taken away from it through false religion and false Christianity, set out to deal with those who were causing this loss of adherent citizen to them. So this persecutive purging, conforming and disciplining was deemed as the best way to resolve this issue.
            Beast Characteristic #2 - As per the “feet”, this measure was indeed used to “spread” and “establish” this form of Christianity through the realm, and prospective realm, of the now “Christian” Roman Empire. This paved the way for the later Church-State-borne, and so Military-backed, persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church.

[C] Populously = “leopard - body”: Ironically enough, despite its outward stance against paganism, even started, and led by Constantine himself, the Church then subtlely and increasingly began to incorporate what formally had been entities, institutions, beliefs, practices and rituals which had previous belonged to paganism. It just “baptized” these pagan things by making them supposedly conform/represent in meaning to Christian belief and practice. So a great compromise was here made in Church history which eventually became.
            So while the Church claimed, and thought itself to be, anti-pagan, by having made “baptized” pagan practices a “corporate” part of itself, i.e. its body, it indeed had this dominant “Hellenistic” leopard composition, which also includes Greek philosophical thought/rationalization. 
            Beast Characteristic #3 - This paved the way for the various seamlessly incorporated and gradually grown, now ingrained paganistic traditions in the Roman Catholic Church.

            Now add to that the earlier cited: 7-Head “idea” in ca. 476 to fully take over as now also a State from the collapse Western Roman Empire, and the actualization of that temporal realm/rule by 538 B.C. and one indeed sees how Rev 13:1-2 is describing the identifying characteristic “setting up” of that (First) Beast entity. It indeed is an attempt to accomplish through “Christendom” what all of the prior beasts, these 4 of Daniel 7, had not been able to do.

            But first, there is still one more beast in Daniel 7, the (mysterious) Fourth, to identify.      
Fourth Beast = Different & Undescript
Daniel 7:7 - "After this I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, a fourth beast, being fearful and terrifying and extremely strong; and it had large iron teeth. It devoured and crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet; and it was being made different from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.
Daniel 7:19 - "Then I desired to know the exact meaning of the fourth beast, which was being different from all the others, exceedingly dreadful, with its teeth of iron and its claws of bronze, and which devoured, crushed and trampled down the remainder with its feet,
Daniel 7:23 - "Thus he said: 'The fourth beast will be a fourth kingdom on the earth, which will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth and tread it down and crush it.

fourth beast = fourth kingdom - Since after the Imperial rule of Greece came the Imperial rule of Rome, it can be straightly identified that this next World Hegemonic Superpower is none other than that of the Roman Empire.

large iron teeth - As discussed earlier in Dan 7:5 about the Medo-Persian bear, the “teeth” in the mouth represent the capability to enforce what that beast is pronouncing, i.e. its laws and policies. Thus its military might. So “large iron teeth” is representative of both a “large” military force as well as an “iron-strong” one. And with iron being stronger than the natural material of teeth, then the military force of this beast would be stronger than that of the previous beasts who evidently all had teeth of natural material.
            Rome of course was renown for its rule through its military might and a standing “peace keeping” military presence in the kingdoms and territories that it conquered and occupied and ruled over as provinces. For the Roman Empire, its Military was a professional institution and not one to be cobbled up together and expedited only in times of war.

devoured, crushed, trampled - Unlike the Empires of Medo-Persia and Greece which allowed for the Kingdom and Peoples that it conquered and ruled over to maintain their local autonomy, Rome interposed itself in local affairs which had implications to its Imperial interests (e.g. taxation, capital punishment, local politics. Rome even required to be honored/recognized by the allowed/legal local religions. Indeed Rome determined what was a legal/permissible religion depending on if it did not conflict with it Imperial Authority & Policies or offend the religion/gods of Rome.
            So this devouring, crushing and trampling down of the remainder by this beast representing Rome can be seen as its ability to conquer, subdue and maintain its “footing” in/over the various peoples of its Empire.

exceedingly dreadful/fearful - There is no more potent force than “fear”, as it will produce “respect” from both those who are partial to the entity projecting it, and those who are not. So, clearly by its manifest great physical-Military capability, this beast=Rome obtained the respect from its subjects that it needed to (strongly) maintain its Empire.

feet with claws of bronze - Bronze is actually a stronger material than iron, and bronze also is less corrosive than iron. So bronze will actually longer lasting than iron (until the iron alloy of  “stainless steel” came along). Iron however was cheaper to procure and easier to produce than bronze, and so would indeed be a much better base material for adequately equipping and readily outfitting a military. However when it came to establishing a “foothold” and maintaining a “footprint”, as represented by the “feet” here, bronze would be the material of choice as it was indeed stronger and longer lasting.
different from all the other beasts = ‘nondescript beast’ - All of the beasts are already said to be “different from one another” (Dan 7:3). But here, unlike the other three beasts which are immediately said to basically ‘be like an actual/known animal’, namely a lion, bear, leopard, this fourth beast is not identified as any actual/known animal. It is partly of natural composition, not having added natural features such as: lion: “eagle wings”; bear: side-stance; leopard: bird wings and 4 heads, but it goes on to contain non-natural added features of ‘teeth being made of iron’ and ‘feet with claws made of bronze’.

So, in interpretive summary about this fourth beast thus far:
-though being in form a beast/animal, it would be “different” by not be an actually known/recognized one.
-it would be greatly feared
-it would have non-natural added features as its teeth and claws which would contribute to its ability to conquer and its capability to maintain the territories/jurisdictions that it conquered.

being made different” and “whole earth” - A valid objection here, in this application of the Fourth Beast to the Roman Empire, would be: (1) how was the Roman Empire actually “different” than the other preceding 3 World Empires. And (2) how did it ‘devour, crush and trample the whole earth’ (Dan 7:23). Well:

(1) being made different” - The grammar of this statement, when first stated in Dan 7:7 is that it is an (Aramaic) pael passive participle. The Aramaic pael verbal form is the equivalent of the Hebrew Piel stem which is the intensive causitive form, and thus represents, pointedly, as here, in the “passive” voice, the subject having “been made” to become or do something. So it is not a natural development, but a forced one. The participle form has the basic notion of a persisting characteristic and/or continuous state or action.
            So the (Aramaic) pael passive participle form for the verb “to change” here in Dan 7:7 is meaning that this Fourth Beast will: be forcedly be made (by an outside agent/circumstance) to continuedly/persistedly changed = “be different” than all the other beasts. Again, this cannot be in regards to its appearance, because all of the beasts are already said to be different from one another. So this has to be a ‘forced, characteristic and persisting’ difference in regards to its nature as a “beast” and also in how it finds/fulfills its application. First, in regards to its application, i.e. as the Roman Empire.
            The Imperial Hegemony aims of the Roman Empire were not at all different from what Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece had set out to do before it, nor even basically how they had accomplished this, i.e. through military conquest. However the Roman Empire was starkly “different” from these other Empires in the actual territory that it sought to rule over for its Empire. The Geographic Imperial footprint of Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece was essentially the same basic template. The “Middle East” region was the common core, and then expansions towards the East as far as the border of India were endeavored. But as seen in this (earlier embedded) animation of World Kingdoms and Empires [from 06:11ff], Rome itself upon its victory in 168 B.C. over the Macedonian region of the Grecian Empire (=Greece proper), which is said to have “broken the back of Macedonian power”, did not, for at least ca. 100 years (i.e. until ca. 64 B.C., seek to expand its Empire eastward, but rather first expanded Westward, in the regions now known as (Southern) Europe, and which were then comparatively untouched areas pointedly by not being developed into kingdoms, as was the Middle East and the (Farther) East, but mainly “barbarian” people living in/as tribes.[7]7
            However, by the 60's B.C., Rome began trying to expand its Empire towards the Middle East. It found success in the Near East region, notably with its 63 B.C. siege of Jerusalem, then later it conquered Egypt in ca. 30 B.C., however it various recurring efforts and attempts, to invade and take over the large territory being ruled by the Persian Empires (generally the modern day Iran & Iraq nations, which had managed to take back its own realm from Greece’s Seleucid Empire Division): namely the Parthian Empire (warring from 66 B.C. to 217 A.D.) and then its successor the Sassanian Empire (warring from 285 to ca. 628 A.D.), only resulted in ca. 700 years of failure for Rome in these (generally known as:) Roman-Persian Wars. And so, except for a short lived successful part-invasion by Emperor Trajan in 117 A.D. only to see these gained territories being withdrawn from by the next Roman emperor Hadrian, Rome had to settled for having its Empire being limited to the Western Part of the then known/inhabited World, pointedly in the region which completely encircled the Mediterranean Sea.
            So in this sense, this Fourth Beast, the Roman Empire, was, in its application, Geo-Politically “different” than the preceding 3 Empires. And this was indeed a “forced, and persisting, difference” as it could not overcome the barring obstacle of the Persian Empire(s). And significantly, these unconquered Persian Empire areas later would become the “base” for the corresponding militarily-checking of Roman Catholicism by the Islamic Religion, hence manifestly all by Divine Geo-Political strategizing/orchestrating. As seen in the warring-history of Israel, God can sustain/assist a nation’s military to win a war (e.g. Exod 17:10-13; Num 14:39-45; Jos 7:1-12ff; pertinently: Isa 45:1-2). So if, as understood here, God wanting to limit the later (militaristic) spread of Roman Catholicism, He would indeed be aiding these Persian Empire, (later Islamic Caliphate), armies to retain their territories.
            Now its “difference” in regards to its nature, is actually revealed below in the next statement about the reach of this Fourth Beast.

(2) “whole earth” - In regards to ‘conquering the whole Earth’, at the very least, it can be understood that this is a built in ultimate objective of this Fourth Beast...and manifestly why it was specially outfitted with its non-natural features of iron teeth and bronze claws. Now viewing this outline of World Empires with the one provided by the elsewhere presented prophecy of Daniel 2, it is seen that, just like the identification of Rome here, the representation, in the legs, of Rome in Dan 2 also contained “iron”, and it indeed indicated physical=military strength (Dan 2:33a, 40; 7:23). And then that iron element was continued to be seen in the remaining parts of that Dan 2 statues, namely its feet (Dan 2:33b, 41). So it is manifest that the Fourth Beast is to continue to have a presence, though in then a varying form, in the upcoming symbolic elements which are tied and derived from it (i.e. Dan 7:7b-8, 24-26). So this (Pagan) Rome would morph into another form of Rome and would thus continue to manifest its “iron” and also iron-teeth beast properties...until it came to rule over all of the kingdoms of the Earth when God Himself is going to put an end to this power (Dan 7:11, 26). So this is the beginnings of what is identified in Bible Prophecy as the anti-Christ power. (=2 Thess 2:3-8)...indeed ‘the Devil’s own’ (2 Thess 3:9) Geo-political endeavor to try to bring the whole world under his dominion. And as Satan, unlike God (Gen 1:24-25), does not have the power to create, even animal, life, it is quite fitting that this beast which he is behind is not a natural one but virtually, artificially manufactured one, indeed with fake/non-natural teeth and claws.
            So given all of these points about the composition and intentions of this Fourth Beast, and the identification of the real power that is behind it, and given that Satan is identified with a beast in the Bible, namely the “dragon” (Rev 12:9. 20:2), and has the fundamental purpose of “deceiving the whole (inhabited) earth”; and then given that, as studied out in detail within this post, that “dragon” of Revelation is the (God-extinct) fire-breathing “Leviathan” sea-beast of Job 41 and its land-beast-separated counterpart of the “Behemoth” of Job 40:15-24, -both beasts which God had created (cf. Psa 104:26), but later made to become extinct (see Psa 74:14) when they, after the Fall and then the Flood, could, under the control of Satan (as in Gen 3:1ff), become an undauntable terror and physical survival threat to now increasingly smaller and frailer human beings, it would then seem that Satan, being deprived of having the Behemoth or Leviathan to physically used, turned instead to specially outfit a choice kingdom upon the Earth to be able to have the convincing deception and lasting subjugation effect that he has always been seeking, and in Rome, he found the perfect candidate instrument.
            The Leviathan is indeed used as the background substance for the symbol of the dragon/serpent of Revelation (Isa 27:1 = Rev 12:9; 20:2) which is the Satanic opposition to God’s People and its cause. The context of Isa 27:1 is God’s final move to put down the rebellion on Earth against His People and Truth (=Isa 26:20-21ff; cf. GC 634.1ff) which Satan achieved in Apostolic & Church History through “Babylon” (=Rev 12:14-15), namely through Pagan Rome, then Papal Rome. So this nondescript beast is indeed Satan continuing what he had started in Eden through a serpent, now having found another “serpent-like” entity that addedly contained the tangible physical destructive power he also wanted wield against God’s People.
            And for world peoples concerned with National Establishment and Economic Prosperity, the, even if pagan, form of the Roman Empire was the perfect outfit....however when the advanced world suddenly, became majoritarily convinced of, and adherent to, Christianity....Satan’s beast would have to adapt itself in order to continue to have its intended subjugating and deceiving effect upon these (leading) people of the Earth, and eventually also the rest of the World....And this is exactly what is seen in World History, as prophetically long foreplanned-for by God...(See much more detailing and exegetical commenting on this pivotal issue below within Note #15.)

            Rev 13:2 Fully Understood - So with this understanding that this Fourth, nondescript/unknown/non-natural, Beast is Satan’s attempt to outfit a World Kingdom, name Ancient Rome, as the extinct Behemoth/Leviathan beast, which is known in the (NT) Greek as the “dragon”, then it can be seen and understood that when, in Rev 13:2, it is said that ‘the dragon gave its power, throne and great authority to the First/Sea Beast’, It actually is meaning that Satan is providing this tangible temporal power and jurisdiction through this, his specially outfitted (Fourth) Beast, of Dan 7:7, 19, 23, -which is Ancient/Pagan Rome, -which, pertinently, is the Beast which received a deadly head wound when the “Roman Militarism” ideology was momentarily brought to nought, but later “revived”.
            Indeed in Rev 13:2, it is only the Fourth Beast from Dan 7's Beast which is not identified...until it is now understood that the “dragon=Leviathan” is that Fourth Beast. [And by prophetic extension, the Second/Land Beast of Rev. 13:11ff which ‘speaks as a dragon=Leviathan’ is actually the Leviathan’s counterpart form/gender beast called “Behemoth” (Job 40:15-24).]

            Biblically tying all of this about this Fourth Beast together here, Satan knows that God has always had decided Eschatological, Zionistic, plans to acclaimedly rule over all of the (spared/saved) People of the Earth. (=Micah 4:13; See Dan 7:14, 27, Num 14:21; Hab 2:14; Rev 11:15-18; 18:1ff, 21-24; 19:15), which would wholly redeem the peoples of this planet from the deception, control and power of Satan, and so Satan is trying to preempt/prevent, delay and/or undermine this plan with/through this feat-matching iron&bronze-impervious beast(s) (Job 40:18; 41:27). At the very least, he is trying, -through this his morphable “Harlot Babylon” entity (1 Pet 5:13; Rev 17&18) to mindfully/psychologically “steel” (cf. Jer 3:3) the people of the Earth against doing, or even perceiving, the will of God. (=Jer 6:28; Isa 48:4; Micah 4:10-13).

Ten Horns of Fourth Beast             
Daniel 7:7b - and it had ten horns - While an animal having 10 horns is an oddity, in the context of this prophecy, it is of a natural substance compared to non-natural features such as iron teeth and bronze claws. Animals, -(as discussed here about the symbolic lamb/sheep of Rev 5:6), can “naturally” grow multiple numbers of horns beyond the customary 2. So while that is an abnormality, it is still from a natural-occurring base. So these 10 horns on one animal would be a special, but naturally-possible development.
            The following historical animation of the Roman Empire is quite illustrating for this Fourth Beast, focusing here on the years from is hegemonic arising in 168 BC to the Fall of the Western half of the Empire in 476 AD. [=01:59-5:13]

History of Roman Empire Animation

            At 04:08ff it illustrates the fluctuations of the Roman Hegemony & Empire in especially its Western parts. It is seen how the Roman Empire:

Suffered losses in its West in 260 AD
It then regained those parts in 268-275 AD
Made an East-West partition in 285 AD
-went through a number of ‘shades’ of divisions in those two main splits 286-323 AD
Reunited by Constantine in 324 AD
-Capital moved to Constantinople in 330 AD
Reeffectuated East-West Split in 396 AD
Experienced losing territories in West to Barbarian Tribes from 409ff AD
-Momentarily reestablished West in 462 AD
The Western Empire officially Falls in 476 AD
-The Eastern/Byzantine Empire remains until 1453 AD (see more on this (prophetic) date&event in the “five months” comment section in here)

            Now, as the Fourth Beast is the World’s Hegemonic power which followed Greece, namely Rome, and as it is said to only have one head, then just as the focus of the Third/Leopard = Greece beast was on its 4 heads, thus the era of the division of the Grecian Empire into its 4 co-ruling kingdom, then the prophetic focus of this Fourth Beast is not on the times when it was split into two main parts, namely its Western and Eastern Empire, but it had one head....but also 10 horns. The perfect representation of this in history is right here/now in 476 AD, after the Western part of the Empire had fallen, but the Eastern Empire remained. So the one head is still that of the Roman Empire, but now only as a Byzantine Empire, with its capital in Constantinople; and, as seen next, the ten horns that are on the head of this beast are found in the tribal kingdoms & territories of its former Western parts (=modern day Western Europe). And with these 10 horns being on the head of that (lingering) beast, that is representative of how the (Eastern) Roman Empire will still have an ideological influence/impact/control over how things develop in that Western realm of 10 horns.
             As illustrated in that animation [at 05:13-05:29], the Eastern Roman Empire did not have any sway, from 476 AD, in its former Western parts until 533 AD. In these ca. 60 years, the tribes, peoples and kingdoms of (now) Western Europe fought amongst each other to establish themselves as seen in the following animation [at 00:34-00:46]:

History of Western Europe Animation

=Ten Kingdom/Kings of Fourth Beast          
Daniel 7:24a - 'As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise;

            As explicitly stated here, and as also seen from Dan 8:20-22 (and Rev 17:12), it is clear that in Bible prophecy a “horn” represents a “king” and/or a “kingdom”. This is actually a long attested/entrenched association in the Bible (=1 Sam 2:10) manifestly from how a horn full of oil was to be used anoint a king (1 Sam 16:1; 1 Kgs 1:39). Manifestly this all more widely represented how God Himself, through His Spirit, had the sovereign oversight authority and power over the Geo-political “leadership” appointments, and thus affairs, of the Earth (=Dan 2:21; 4:17, 25; 5:21). Manifestly all so that God can sovereignly be able to set up, commandeer (Isa 46:11) and orchestrate His Earth-Redemptive Great Controversy Plan. (e.g. Isa 44:24-45:1).[8]8
            From the Bible, in the history of the nation of Israel, we see how a kingdom develops from:

a person (father/mother e.g. Jacob|Israel);
to a family (children e.g 12+2 (Gen 46:23b);                                                            
to a “house/household” (grandchildren e.g. ca. 55 (cf. Gen 46:5-7ff, 21));
to a clan (=collection of kinship“houses/households”);
to a tribe (group of kinship clans cf. 1 Sam 10:19; Micah 5:2; Zech 9:7; 12:5-6);
to a kingdom (=regnal grouping/association of tribes e.g. Nation of Israel*) -Illustrated below from/by this animation about Israel from [02:24-02:58ff].

Tribal Nation of Israel

Kingdom Nation of Israel
1 Sam 8:4-5ff

            And when these tribes are grouped/associated as a nation, and a king is selected to head/lead them, then they become a kingdom and thus an entity capable of exerting power in world affairs = a “horn” (cf. Dan 8:3-4ff). E.g. “Clovis I (c. 466 – 27 Nov. 511) was the first king of the Franks to unite all of the Frankish tribes under one ruler, changing the form of leadership from a group of royal chieftains to rule by a single king”

-So from all of this background about the natural progression of: ‘...households to clans to tribes to (nationalistic) kingdom’ = a horn, we can see what to expect in the backdrop leading up to finding/identifying a “horn”.

-That is a First Parameter for the applicable identification of the ten horns. I.e. for a fulfillment of this prophetic element, we are to look for a grouping of a people which has managed to arise to the level of a kingdom, i.e. with a realm and with a king. And actually beyond the level of a “tribal/petty kingdom”, -which can be defined and illustrated by, if each of Israel’s 12 tribes had their own king instead of one “national” king over all its 12 tribes [and also, as compared to the U.S.’s 50 State Governors vs. the Federal President]. So for a king/kingdom to fulfilling qualify here, it would have to be a “national” (i.e. versus merely “tribal”) kingdom.
            Corroborating this key parameter: this prophecy of Daniel 7 was given by God in 553 BC. But by the time of the ending of the First Century AD, after time has advanced and the geo-political and religious world has variously advanced, God restates this prophecy via the Apostle John in Rev 13:1-10, discussed here, which was around/during the 90's AD, but now God repackages, updates and calibrates this prophecy for the rest of its fulfillment. And there, when the 10 horns are restated, perhaps given the state of the world then with a phenomena of mere tribal peoples deciding to also have a king of their own, the ten horns then are said to have “diadems/crowns” on them (Rev 13:1). This is indeed a/the “crown jewel” (cf. Rev 19:12), thus representing topmost kingly authority, and may thus be making the qualifying distinction that any fulfill horn=kingdom will have to be a leading/topmost kingly power’, thus beyond the level of petty/tribal kingdoms, but indeed kingdoms which have ‘nationalistic composition/potential and power’, i.e. kingdoms powerful enough to be capable of affecting the life and existence of another nationalistic kingdom.

-A Second Parameter is for the specific area where these ten horns are to be identified/located/selected from. Since Dan 7:7 here says that ‘it is this fourth beast (=kingdom) which had ten horns on its head’, and Dan 7:24a goes on to say that: “out of this kingdom ten kings will arise”, then we are to look for these ten horns=kings/kingdoms within the direct territory of this Fourth Beast. So ten kings/kingdoms are to be seen arising from the territory that is, and was, (sustainedly) occupied by the remaining, and formerly-full, Roman Empire itself.

-A Third Parameter is based on how the symbolism of a “horn” is used and interpreted in Dan 8. Dan 8:20 explains that ‘the two horns on the head of the ram represent “the kings of Media and Persia”’. So the horns themselves are really, specifically kings, -i.e. the seat of power of the kingdom, and that ram itself can be seen to be more broadly representative of the kingdom where they are established and rule. However, as seen in Dan 8:21, which literally says that: “the shaggy goat = the king of Greece”, that animal=kingdom can be seen to have naturally/seamlessly been an “embodiment” of its first/founding king, namely here: Alexander the Great. But then, as discussed earlier in detail at Dan 7:6, about the four co-ruling kings who followed him in the hegemony of this Grecian Empire in Dan 8:22, these actually went on to found their own version of this Grecian Kingdom, hence their horn comes to encompass the “kingdom” which they would establish. That is all how the animal itself remains while its horn(s) are broken and replaced, even added to or removed.
            So, as indeed stated in Dan 7:24, the horns can naturally be seen as specifically symbolic of kings; while the animal where they are found really is the kingdom that these kings “embodyingly” establish/found.
As a Fourth Parameter, just like both the Medo-Persia animal, the ram, had two horns on its single head, and the Greece animal had four horns on its single head, -all representative of kings either in alliance with each other (=Medo-Persia) or independently ruling concurrently (=Greece), then 10 horns on the single head of this fourth beast of Dan 7:7, then we can applicably expect to see: ten kings arising to rule in alliance, and/or independently of the other(s), but concurrently over some territorial part of the former realm (sustainedly) covered/achieved by the Roman Empire.
            [And, relatedly, Medo-Persia itself did not have more than one (i.e. two) co-ruling kings at once, but it did have “one king at a time”, hence that qualifying representation in Dan 8:3 as one horn being longer than the other. Greece itself indeed had 4 kings at once, but each of those kings/kingdoms were actually independent of the other, and even default competing enemies of each other, each having in mind, and even trying, to forcefully take over the territory of the other. Manifestly in Dan 7:7 all of those ten horns are of the same length/height, and so they are each ruling concurrently and independently...and indeed, all on that very same/single head of that Fourth Beast.]

-A Fifth Parameter is about this “head” itself, more specifically. The head indeed represents the ‘“head”-quarters’ of the being/animal. And, as it indeed encompasses the brain/mind/consciousness/thinking of the entity, it is the region where the “ideology” originates, is based and is deliberated. So the head makes the (ultimate/overruling) decisions which control the entire/rest of the body.
            In regards to the Roman Empire itself, its “head” = ideology is seen to be what people in the First World today now call, indeed more-than-less still follow, as a “Western World” ideology. That is opposed to the “Eastern World” ideology that was/is found with Middle Eastern peoples. Add to that the religion of [New Covenant] Christianity which went on to spread and take a firm hold in those Western Civilizations, and that ideology is compoundedly further contrasted from Eastern thinking and living. So the “head” = ideology of the Roman Empire is indeed its “Western World” views. So it can be seen and claimed that the “horns” that this beast/animal grows on its head would in essence also be, to some aspiring, following or advancing degree, according to this “Western” ideology/thinking. So a horn = king which is leading a kingdom which has a contrasting/contrary ideology to this “Roman”, even also Christian: which can be combiningly loosely coined as “Romish”, -as later bloomedly manifested in the Catholic Church&State Papal Rule. So for a “horn” to be validly one of this Fourth Beast, its basic ideology would also have to be in harmony with the ideology of that beast’s head.
            Then add to that the fact that the “head” of the Roman Empire was indeed the ideology that had been founded in Rome, its initial and long lasting, of ca. 1000-years, capital city. Hence indeed the naming-basis for the entire Empire. (Indeed a city-stateempire; much like “Babylon” [=a symbolic name for Rome 1 Pet 5 :13] = Babylonian Empire (e.g. “the Babylonians”) as stated in Rev 17:18). When the capital city of the Roman Empire was relocated to (then called) Byzantium by Emperor Constantine starting in 324 AD., (evidently, merely pragmatically, in order to be closer to the Eastern frontiers of the Empire in an endeavor to be more feasibly, supportedly and thus sustainingly expand it eastward into the Middle East and towards Asia), the head = “ideology” of the Roman Empire still remained Roman, or as dubbed above: “Romish”, and so its thinking and views would still be what it had held when headquartered in the Western Civilization city of Rome. So the “horns” of this beast would also have to themselves harmonizingly be “Roman/Romish” in their ideology/thinking. So they would have to be “Western Civilization” minded and also in some degree Christian (whether then Arian or Nicean).
            All this to say and show that the “horn” kings/kingdoms of this beast have to in some degree basically share in its head’s Roman/Romish ideology.
            This qualifying transference from the ‘(ideological) head’ to the ‘(ruling) horn’ may have been reflected in the earlier discussed: ‘updating, calibrating and repackaging’ of this prophecy’ in Revelation, as when the Pagan Rome phase of this beast is then mentioned in Rev 12:3, 13 (discussed in here), the “diadems/crowns” are on the “(7) heads” of that beast. But later, as that beast has seamlessly evolved into Papal Rome (Rev 13:1-10), these “crown jewels” are found on the “(10) horns” of these (7) heads of that beast (Rev 13:1). So evidently what is qualifying these horns as worthy of kingship on this beast is if they ‘take on’ those prior kingly ideologies of the Pagan Roman beast.
            And these can be seen as (7) “crowned/leading” ideologies in the areas of (Roman): (1) imperial politics; (2) government structure; (3) civic administration/organization; (4) the military; (5) society (6) culture and/or (7) religion/philosophy.
-Then, as a Sixth Parameter: from the 4 heads of the Grecian Empire in Dan 7:6 and the fact that the locations of these kingdoms’ heads are associated with the “four winds of the Earth” in Dan 8:8 (namely North, South, East and West), it validly can seen and claimed that: with the head of this fourth beast really being its ‘ideological capital city’ of Rome, and as Rome was physically located in what would be the Western Realm of the Empire, then the location of the fulfilling10 horns on this beast head should geographically be limited to the territorial realm of the Western Roman Empire itself. So we are to look pointedly, even solely within the realm of the former/fallen Western Roman Empire to find the 10 kingdoms which fulfill this 10 horns symbolism.
            So this comes to exclude the kingdoms which would in various times and successes strive to establish themselves within the territory once held by the Eastern Roman Empire, such as in: the Grecian territory [see this mapping animation]; the southeastern Europe Balkans region [anim.||anim.]; Present-day Turkey [anim.];  Egypt & Eastern-North Africa [anim.] and the Near-, & Middle-, East [anim.]. These are indeed “Eastern” regions which would generally actually not come to be (especially a leading) part of the “Western World”.
            This “head in/with the west” parameter also “ideologically” excludes kings/kingdoms which may have established themselves in the Western Roman Empire’s regions but were actually either “Eastern”/non-Roman or “non-Christian” in their ideology. So later when Islam was founded in the early 600's and then Islamic Caliphates or Emirates (e.g. the Umayyad Caliphates), Kingdoms (e.g. Morocco) and Empires (e.g. Ottoman/Turkish) began to appear pointedly on the Iberian Peninsula (see this annual animation; cf. this one) and in the Western North Africa regions of the former Western Roman Empire, those kingdoms actually cannot be considered as applicable “horns” from/on the “head” of this Roman Fourth Beast, as they indeed were not of “Romish” ideology, either in their government or in their culture/religion.

A Seventh Parameter can be seen in terms of the timing to find these applicable 10 horns. As it was seen earlier at Dan 7:6, Daniel was then shown the Grecian Empire pointedly when it had “4 heads”, so not at the time when it only had one head, Alexander the Great, but when the Empire was divided into 4 kingdoms striving/competing/warring from its imperial hegemonic supremacy. On the other hand, in Dan 8, Daniel is distinctly show those two distinct phases/eras of the Grecian Empire, when the lone rule of Alexander is spoken of, that “shaggy goat” is said to have one horn (Dan 8:5, 21). But then, when the subsequent stage of the 4 Kingdoms Division is spoken of, that shaggy goat is said to now have ‘4 horns which replaced the first, lone horn’ (Dan 8:8, 22). So, here in Dan 7:8, if this beast is being mentioned at the time when it has 10 horns, then we are indeed to look in its history for the period of time when it indeed had exactly/only 10 established&ruling kingdoms in its realm.
            That actually occurs after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD...and by my, later more detailedly cited year-by-year tabulations of established (nationalistic) kingdoms in the history of the Roman Empire, i.e. from 400-1453 AD, I am seeing that it was in the years of, e.g. 481-518 AD; 535-553 AD; 568-585 AD; 628-630 AD; 659-717//721-769 AD that only 10 kingdoms were seen standing in the former realm of the Western Roman Empire. So it is in such clusters of years that we would pinpoint the historical time period that Daniel was specificly/pointedly being shown.

            So to summarizing list these interpretation parameters for these 10 horns:

{1} A horn is only a group of people organized/structured as a (nationlistic) kingdom.

{2} The 10 horns can only be selected from the realm once conquered and (sustainedly) occupied by the Roman Empire.

{3} The horns themselves are specifically kings and not necessarily the kingdom realm in general. That is how an animal=kingdom can have multiple horns=kings

{4} The horns=kings can be representing concurrent kingdoms.

{5} The qualifying horns all are to have a similar Roman governmental and/or (Christian) Religious “ideology.

{6} The 10 horns are limitedly to be found in the geographical area of the (former) Western Roman Empire.

{7} The applicable 10 horns are to be found when exactly 10 ruling (nationalistic) kingdoms were (standing) established in the former realm of the Western Roman Empire.

            So then, which are these: ‘ten “national” kingdoms which came to exist within the total realm of that was then being, and formerly had been, (sustainedly) covered by the Roman Empire’?

            To find that answer we are to look starting in the times following the fall of the Western Empire of Rome in 476 A.D. as then many different peoples sought to take a part of that now available realm. (See this short video for a good, succinct ‘explanation & migration mapping’ of this barbarian overtaking of Western Rome). And the ending point to find those applicable 10 kings/kingdoms is, here, prophetically to be: before the arising of that “other|little|different horn” power, which, as it will be seen later, is in 538 A.D. And/But as this period of territorial&rulership transition in the former Western Roman Empire of 476-538 A.D. was a quite fluid one, with conquering/establishing/evolving “tribes”, “domains”, “duchies”, (tribal and national) “kingdoms”, coming, consolidating, conquering and/or dissolving, (-cf. in this animation from [00:34-00:47]), then it really is to be close to the ending of this period, namely ca. 538 A.D., that we should look into the kingdoms affairs in this realm of the former Western Roman Empire, to find those then settled: ‘ten (national) kingdoms’ composition which would qualify as this prophesied “ten horns of the Fourth Beast”.[9]9 

            As an illustration here, we can contrastingly see in the following screen captures from [another one of those, [contextualizingly very helpful, (likely) colossal/demanding historical-cartographical-graphical work for a], mapping animation, the changing political mapping from the time of these key dates/eras during this transitional period, -starting with the unified/standing realm of the Western Roman Empire in 475 AD. (See the linking to “other mappings” for the more wider view of the Western Roman Realm, -namely for the North Africa and Spaniard/“Iberian” Peninsula regions (see in this animation [00:59-01:12]). Later the former Roman Province of Britannia will be discussed in detail):
Western Roman Empire in 475 A.D.

{Western Europe in 476 A.D.}

Western Europe in 533 A.D.

Western Europe in 538 A.D.
(cf. this other mapping)

Iberian Peninsula 475-538 A.D.

            First of all, as a general overview, the following sequential tabling of the potential, transitioning and then final listing of kingdoms which make up that applicable total for those ten horns is here given, and will be illustrative and referential for the ensuing explanations of these choices/listing:

Listings of Kingdoms within the (Western) Roman Realm

Kingdoms in Western Roman Empire Realm in 476 A.D.
            After the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D., several, (mainly ca. 20+), Kingdoms, Domains, Independent/Sectarian Regions and Tribal Peoples rose up at various times to carve out a territory and a realm for themselves in that now vacated Empire. The sidebar in this Wikipedia page cites 12+ of these entities as the ‘successor of the Western Roman Empire. They have been cited in the first listing above. Some key notes from that listing:

-The Kingdom of Odoacer (476-493 AD) ruled in Italy, and it, and its king Flavius Odoacer (ca. 433-493 AD), were the ones who had formally deposed the  last Western Roman Emperor. Though he was titled “King of Italy”, Odoacer actually ‘represented himself as the client of the Eastern Roman Empire’s Emperor who ruled in the East’s capital city of Constantinople’. In 493 AD, the Kingdom of Odoacer was overtaken for the control of, and rule in, Italy by the Ostrogothic Kingdom, all by the strategic arrangement&“blessing” of the Eastern Roman Empire’s Emperor Zeno.

- The Eastern Roman Empire [=E-R.E.] (a.k.a the Byzantine Empire) itself is (indeed) rightly cited amongst the kingdoms which succeeded, really survived, the fall of the Western Roman Empire [=W-R.E.].

- The Germanic Tribe of the Alemanni (213-496+ AD) living in a territory called Alamannia/Alemannia, though having such land holdings in the former realm of the W-R.E., did not ascend beyond the level of being a tribal kingdom, and from 496 A.D. were alternatively, variously, incorporated and/or ruled over by the Franks and Ostrogoths.

-The “Domain of Moor” (429-578 AD) - When, and as, the Roman Empire began to reduce its investments of various resources into controlling the territories of its two western most northern African provinces of namely Mauretania Tingitana (=northern Morocco) and Mauretania Caesariensis (=western and central Algeria)  [see mapping], due to demands to reinforce their threatened European borders against invading Barbarian tribes, they began to be overrun in those Northern Africa regions by various semi-nomadic peoples (such as the Berbers) and tribal kingdoms (such as the Mauro-Roman Kingdom). The Romans however focused on maintaining control of the former capital cities of these Roman Provinces (namely Tingis and Caesarea). So the remaining territory of these province was really left up to grabs and were indeed take over by these local tribal people. The Mauro-Roman Kingdom was so termed, because it ruled over two sets of people, the Moor people as well as the former residents of the Roman Empire’s Provinces in the area. And so its king considered and called himself the “King of the Roman and Moorish peoples”.
            However these kingdoms preferred to generally maintain an allied relationship with the Roman Empire, -such as in the 534-535 AD war against their common enemy of the Vandalic Kingdom. It is said that: “The rulers of the Mauro-Roman Kingdom, and other Berber kingdoms, continued to regard themselves as subjects of the Eastern Roman Emperor in Constantinople, even when they were at war with him or engaged in raids of Imperial territory, most Berber rulers using titles such as dux or rex.”
            So, in summary, even though these kingdoms sprung up in much of the former Roman Provincial territories they really never arose, (unlike other tribal/barbarian kingdoms, -such as the Visigoths and Vandals), beyond mere local power kingdoms who moreover were, and defaultly/willfully so, subservient to the ruling Roman Empire. So this former Roman Provincial territorial holding by the Moors in rightly categorized at best as a “Domain” given how it actually functioned in and versus the wider ruling Roman Empire.
            As it was also the case for the Domain of Soissons (457-486 AD) which was a “rump state” of the Western Roman Empire in northern parts of the former Roman Gaul province, as it remained, almost as still a province, subservient and allied to the still standing Roman Empire in the East, and was also termed/called “Kingdom of the Romans”,  these “domains” thus virtually functioned as a tribe, thus a tribal kingdom, in/of a wider National/Imperial realm.

Kingdoms in Western Roman Empire Realm in 533 A.D.

Fall of the Kingdom of the Vandals (435-534 AD)
            By 533 AD various shifts in kingdoms, territorial holdings and powers, had occurred since the 476 AD structuring, but in 533 AD itself, the Eastern Roman Empire ambitiously had decided to set out to reconquer, reclaim and restore the/its lost territorial holdings of the former Western Roman Empire. So around June 21, 533 AD it launched, under the most talented military leadership of General Flavius Belisarius, the first campaign of its grand project by seeking to defeat the Vandals in the Vandalic War, and oust them from the W-R.E.’s former provincial territory that this Vandal Kingdom had conquered and occupied in North Africa starting back in 435 A.D. And, unexpectedly, after only ca. 9 months of warring, Belisarius and the E-R.E. came out in March 534 A.D. as decided victors in this campaign.

            Meanwhile, in ca. 532-534, the Franks saw and seized the opportunity of a crisis of succession in the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths, who were the allies of the Burgundians, to go ahead and attack the Burgundians as they likely would not then be getting military assistance from the Ostrogoths. And so they managed in 534 AD to defeat and overtake the Kingdom of the Burgundians.

Start of the Fall of the Kingdom of the Ostrogoths (493-553 AD)
            After conquering the Vandals, Belisarius & the Eastern Roman Empire set their aim towards reconquering Italy from the Ostrogothic Kingdom of Italy. Following the preparations for this operation, which were carried out in absolute secrecy, they started their campaign, -launched from the reconquered Carthage in North Africa, in ca. the end of June of 535 A.D. with/on the island of Sicily, and then, (but, delayingly, after having had to return Carthage to put down a mutiny), in Italy proper starting in the Spring of 536 A.D.
            By 538 AD they had manage to take control of the city of Rome and repulse the Ostrogths further north towards their capital city of Ravenna dealing them a momentary, (but later more complete), defeat by 540 AD.
Old Saxony (ca. 531-804 A.D.)
            This “Old Saxony” realm was a confederation of Germanic tribes within the territory of what had been the former “Germania Inferior”, (as well as parts of the earlier defunct (i.e. ca. 9 A.D.): “Germania Magna”), province(s) of the Roman Empire, but it did not arise to the level of a qualifying kingdom here.

Final Listing of Kingdoms in Western Roman Empire Realm in 538 A.D.
            So here is a, succinct as possible, explanation for the 10 Kingdoms which are seen to fulfill the prophetic stipulation about the ten horns of the Fourth Beast:

1. The Kingdom of the Franks (481-843 AD) (a.k.a. Francia, The Frankish Empire)
As stated earlier: “Clovis I (c. 466 – 27 Nov. 511) was the first king of the Franks to unite all of the Frankish tribes under one ruler, changing the form of leadership from a group of royal chieftains to rule by a single king”. However, as seen in the supplied quotes in this Note[10],10, the Franks had the monarchial practice of subdividing their Kingdom as an inheritance amongst the surviving sons of the monarch. So upon Clovis’ death in 511, the Kingdom of the Franks was subdivided amongst his 4 sons, -(and despite 3 of them actually being only teenagers at the time), namely:

-Theuderic I (who was 24), formed the Sub-kingdom of Rheims;
-Chlodomer (who was 16), formed the Sub-kingdom of  Orleans;
-Childebert I (who was 15), formed the Sub-kingdom of Paris;
-Clotaire I/Chlotar I (who was 14), formed the Sub-kingdom of Soissons.

            Eventually the Kingdom was reunited under a single king: Chlotar I, but only for a while, from 558-561 AD. The kingdom was subdivided again upon his death in 561.

            So from all of this, we can see and say that the Franks were really only one Kingdom, functioning, when subdivided as an united empire, the Frankish Empire, sort of like a federal country today with governors of its states. So the Kingdom of the Franks is considered to be represented only by a single prophetic horn.
            And this is substantively different from the 4 horns of Dan 8:22 which represented the 4 Kingdoms which had arisen in the Division of the Grecian Empire, as those for kings/kingdoms were defaultly competing and enemy entities and were not intent on coordinating their rule as these Frank subkingdoms were.

            The qualifications of these next three kingdoms as validly fulfilling the requirement to be one of the ten horns are self-evident

=At that time this Kingdom of the Suebi/Suevi was located in the area of present-day Portugal.
3. Kingdom of the Visigoths (418-720 AD)
            This was the “West” migrating and settling branch from the nomadic tribes of Germanic peoples collectively known as the Goths. The “Ostrogoths” were the ‘Eastern’ branch.
            And as it will be prophetically important later, for the next verse (Dan 7:8), they did not go extinct until 711/2 AD when overtaken by a force of invading African Moors expanding the Islamic Caliphate, and had, and actually freely so, converted from Arian to Nicean (=“Catholic”) Christianity around 589 AD.
4. Kingdom of the Ostrogoths (493-553 AD)
            As seen in the following [ca. April 535 AD] ‘bribed-neutrality/alliance letter’ sent to the kings of the Franks by the Eastern Roman Empire, the Byzantine’s Empire was intent on putting down the Ostrogoth Kingdom, including for religious reasons:

“And he also sent a letter to the leaders of the Franks as follows:

"The Goths, having seized by violence Italy, which was ours, have not only refused absolutely to give it back, but have committed further acts of injustice against us which are unendurable and pass beyond all bounds. For this reason we have been compelled to take the field against them, and it is proper that you should join with us in waging this war, which is rendered yours as well as ours not only by the orthodox faith, which rejects the opinion of the Arians, but also by the enmity we both feel toward the Goths."

            Such was the emperor's letter; and making a gift of money to them, he agreed to give more as soon as they should take an active part. And they with all zeal promised to fight in alliance with him.” [various emphases supplied]
            And the Eastern Roman Empire did not give up until they had completely defeated the Ostrogoth Kingdom, which occurred in 553 AD. So what they had warringly began to do in 536 AD against the Ostrogoth was ‘the beginning of a (resolute) end’ for them.
5. Eastern Roman Empire (285-1453 AD)
-Since the Eastern Roman Empire occupied territories in its former Western realm that it would conquer, it also qualifies as one of the ten horns of that Western Realm.

Kingdoms in the former Roman Province of Britannia
            The next and last 5 Kingdoms which qualify as being part of the 10 horns of the Fourth Beast all come from the territory former Roman Province of Britannia. Although, since the Romans lost it in ca. 410 A.D., it had subdivided itself into several tribal kingdoms, by 538 A.D., 5 kingdoms within it had arisen to a potential/embryonic “nationalistic” level through either a ‘confederation of surrounding tribes’ and/or from having had client kingdom status during their times as a part of the (Western) Roman Empire. As qualifying kingdoms here, these realms were patently beyond the level of a mere local/tribal/small/petty power, (such as the Kingdom of East Anglia) and/or realms which were defaultly/frequently/lastingly subservient to another, greater/stronger kingdom power (such as the Kingdom of Essex). 

            So firstly, here is a mapping of extent of the sustained reach and establishment of (Western/) Roman Empire in the area of Britain through 409 A.D.

Extent of (Western/) Roman Province in Britain by 409 A.D.
            And next is a mapping of the various Tribal people groups in Britain and their jurisdiction after that Roman Province had fallen in 410 A.D.

Succeeding Tribal People Groups in Britain from 410 A.D.
            And so finally the mapping of the emergent qualifying kingdoms in Britain from the exact extent of that former Roman Province; which namely are: the Kingdoms of Dyfed; Bernicia; Gwynedd; Wessex and Mercia.

Emergent Kingdoms in Britain by 538 A.D.
            See the pertinent progression of these Kingdom arisings from this animation [at 00:32-01:31]. Some brief qualification notes about these 5 kingdoms:

6. Kingdom of Dyfed (410/5-920 AD)
            Though in its entire lifespan it was comparatively small, this was quite a strong and resilient Kingdom which lasted for ca. 500 years until 920 A.D.

7. Kingdom of Bernicia (420-634 AD)
            For a while the Romans had control of the entire (now called): “Central Belt’ region of “Scotland”, and even extended their prior northern border beyond its Hadrian Wall (begun in 122 AD) to now an additionally new, further north Antonine Wall (b. 142 AD) But when they eventually withdrew from that area, they left the tribal kingdom of Votadini along the eastern Coastlands of this region as a client kingdom. This kingdom eventually established itself in 420 AD as this Kingdom of Bernicia.

8. Kingdom of Gwynedd (425-1216 AD)               
            Located in the Wales region, this was the last of these by then, i.e. by 538 AD, established Kingdoms in sub-Roman Britain to withstand and resist, until 1216 A.D., the unification of this region as a single Kingdom.

9. Kingdom of Wessex (519-925 AD)
            As seen in that animation [at 01:27-03:05] it is the Kingdom of Wessex [="kingdom of the West Saxons"] which gradually, eventually rose to unite/conquer much of the region of sub-Roman Britain forming the Kingdom of England starting in 927 AD.

10. Kingdom of Mercia+ (527-918 AD)
            This kingdom was the main rival of the Kingdom of Wessex for supremacy in England until it loss its independence, and was overtaken by Wessex starting in 918 AD (except for a brief restored autonomy in 955–959, and then 1016 AD).

Spiritual Reason for these Ten Kingdoms as the Ten Horns
            So here are the ten kingdom existing around 538 AD from within the realm of the Fourth Beast, the Western Roman Empire, which indeed Biblically qualify to fulfill the prophesied 10 horns on the head of that beast. Even more than just being physically established and substantively qualifying, i.e. as potential (Western) world impacting powers, I am Spiritually seeing that the qualifying presence of these 10 kingdoms are not at all per chance or random, but that God was rather all along acting according to His Dan 2:21 ‘world ordering agenda’. In Western Europe itself, God was establishing or dispossessing various influential world powers as He was setting the stage for the future development of the world....all in regards to Him accomplishing His Great Controversy prophetic plans. So if He was seeing the arising and character of a nation to be qualifying for these plans, including for the adverse prophetic ones, then He would permit that tribal-national power to arise and become established as a kingdom.
            As an example, the tribe-kingdom of the Franks would go on to be variously key in the fulfillement of pivotal Bible prophecy, as most emblematically seen in The French Revolution (=Rev 11:1-14 (historical)). They also were, (as discussed later), helpful to setting up the Roman Catholic Church as a power in 508 B.C., =the prophetic First Beast Power, but later, in the 18th Century, they were also helpful in helping the new breakaway colony nation of America withstand the Imperial Power of England, which all served to assist in the setting up of the prophetic Second Beast Power (Rev 13:11-18).
            Likewise, in the British Isles, God was working to see set up a power which could, and indeed would, become sort of the Kingdom and Imperial foil and counterpart to the Roman Catholic Church Power which effectively operated on such Political levels. And that was to be done through England...and from it/there, a Protestant bastion was to be established in the lands  which would be later discovered in North America. (The impact and influence, still in this day, of the Bible authorized (from 1604) by English King James VI and I, namely the King James Version, is really quite emblematic of the significance of this achieved ‘founding/launching Protestant Bastion” with England.)
            So in all of this God’s own “CIA”, namely the much “higher” and nobler: HIA =“Heavenly Intelligence Angel-ency” were busy at work to order the world so that God can properly and exactly accomplish His redemptive and prophetic plans. In fact, with these British Kingdoms themselves, God was perhaps allowing to see how these kingdoms would develop in terms of national character before throwing in his sustaining hand behind the one He saw would best serve for this founding Protestant-friendly Kingdom, then Imperial Power. As seen with e.g. Canaan (Gen 9:24-25; see PP 117.1-118.3), Abraham (Gen 26:3-5); Ishmael (Gen 16:10-12) and Jacob vs. Esau (Gen 25:22-23) God can foretell the future “character” of a nation based on the natural and/or cultivated character traits of its “founding father”. So He could likewise see amongst these arising tribes and kingdoms, which ones would be best conducive to His own future/prophetic purposes.
            So all along here with these 10 horns, God’s version of “Game of Thrones/Kingdoms” was being effectuated as He was structuring and setting up the World, first to have the Historical Wave (=up to 1798-1844) of Fulfillment of Prophecies to take place, and then set up the Eschatological Wave (=post 1844).
            So these 10 horns here are much more Spiritually and Prophetically substantive/meaningful/impactful than the traditional, and actually vacuous, (really merely: humanistic) happenstance choice/claim by Historicists/SDAs (as cited in Note #9)

WBSC’s Identification of the 10 Horns of Dan 7:7, 24

            So this was the only time, (i.e. in the 530's AD, or 538 AD to be exact), when, in Western+ European history that there were 10 kingdoms established in the direct territory of what had been the Roman Empire, thus also include its Eastern/Byzantine Empire’s territory??: Well no...My own (less-than-more cursory) spreadsheet tabulation [PDF] for (“Romish/Christian”) kingdoms, (-see next paragraph for why), that existed when the Western Roman Empire sustainedly started disintegrating in 400 A.D. and when the Eastern Rome Empire (’s capital Constantinople) fell in 1453 AD show that there were at least ca. 471 other years when there were at least 10 established/qualified (nationalistic) kingdoms & empires/“crowns” within this realm, with an overall average of 9.8 kingdoms (per year) during that time...(which of course interestingly rounds out to an average of 10 kingdoms over these applicable years), but given the many other elements involve in the proper interpretation here, looking in the 500's for the fulfilment here, i.e. to allow for the later specified 1260 years of rule before the “time of the end”, is the most fitting option.

            Evidently the overall, grand prophetic plan&purpose of God (=Isa 46:9-11) with these 10 horns=kings=kingdoms established in the Western realm of the Roman Empire (cf. Dan 2:21) was to keep this Imperial Realm: “completely (=“symbol of 10”) divided”, by ca./on (an annual) average 10 main competing powers within that region...all so that these territories in these realms would not again become joined one to the other so as to form another politically (and/or religiously) unified World Hegemonic Empire (=“beast”) after the one of Pagan/Secular Rome. And as discussed in this post about/at Dan 2:43, such an ‘internalized unification’ would be attempted to be done through the union of (a) Church & State and then (b) through the more intrinsic “unequally yoked” union of ‘the sacred with the common’ by 2+1 ensuing World Hegemony attempting Beast powers in:

-a Fifth Beast (Rev 13:1-10) =the Roman Catholic Church/Holy Roman Empire;
-an eventually Sixth Beast (Rev 13:11-18) =the United States of America;
-a (finally-fully Satan-achieved) a complete Socio-Religio-Politico-Economical deceiving (Babylonian) Seventh Beast (Rev 17:8-13, 15-18) =the (Protestant) Capitalism-swayed United Nations....
...all in order to oppose (=Rev 17:14), as later seen at Dan 7:14, 27, All-Mighty God’s then, interveningly, own prophetically-long-planned, triumphingly and/or counter-strik-ingly (=Rev 16:16) ushered: Four-(countering)-Faced (=correspondingly: Man-Ox-Lion-Eagle), 7-Horned||7-Spirits Little Lamb Jubilee Millennial, ‘World-Shaking’ Temporal, (Spiritual)-Hegemonic (Dan 2:34-35, 44-45) Kingdom Power. (Rev 19:11-16ff).

Little Horn - Political
Daniel 7:8a - "While I (naturally) came to myself be contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and caused three of the first/former horns to uproot themselves before it/by reason of its presence; and behold! eyes like the eyes of a (mortal) man in this horn, and a mouth {forcedly} uttering great/arrogant claims.
Daniel 7:20a - and the meaning of the ten horns that were on its head and the other horn which came up, and before which three [...] fell, namely: that horn, and its eyes, and a mouth {forcedly} uttering great/arrogant claims, and its vision was greater in relation to its fellows.
Daniel 7:24b - 'As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will cause three kings to be humbled/abased.

Dan 7:8a - While I (naturally) came to myself be contemplating the horns - Having just seen this intriguing phenomena of the horns, with the vision manifestly having lingered a bit here to give Daniel this time to “contemplate” them, i.e. as opposed to the unfolding of the prior four beasts revelations in Dan 7:3-7, Daniel indeed was concerning himself  [=the reflexive-reciprocal hithpaal verb] with gaining ‘insight/intelligence/understanding/wisdom’ [=Strongs #07919a = Heb. #07920] into the significance of these ten horns. But as he was dong this toughful pondering, the vision moved on to what would become the pivotal point of this vision: the little horn.                                                                             

Dan 7:8a - behold, another horn
Dan 7:20a - and the other horn
Dan 7:24b - and another [king]
behold - This is the alu form for “behold”. As discussed in detail earlier at Dan 7:2, this form, as compared to aru is used to indicate a less striking apparition, in the sense that it did not: “come out of nowhere” is in the prior radical shifts in scenes with the four beasts. This apparition of this other/another horn, which is “another [king]” evidently just seamlessly developed into that present scene of those 10 horns. So it is almost as if that other/11th horn was ‘rootly/stumply’ always there in that scene before it became observable by arising, albeit to its own “fully grown” height.

another [king] - Since “horn/horns” is in the feminine form but “kings” is in the masculine form, and “another” is in the feminine form, then that “another thing” is referring pointedly to “another king” rather than merely “another horn”. Indeed by comparison, when “another” is used in reference to the feminine “horn/horns” in Dan 7:20, 24, it is then rendered in a matching feminine form. So it is indeed another “kingly power” which is to be seen appearing on this political scene of these ten standing kingdoms.

Dan 7:8a - a little one - Rather than coming to be a “diminished/decreased/reduced/limited” horn in size (as per the Heb./Ara. terms maat [#04591/#04592], -i.e. fall short of a normative size expectation), this other horn is inherently supposed to be little, as in ‘merely a (small) part of a larger whole’ (=zeer [#02191/#02192] e.g. a “while” of time from the wider/longer time in Job 36:2; and parts of a whole in Isa 28:10, 13*. Zeer is also said to be akin, by permutation, to the Hebrew tsaar [#06819] which means: “to be or grow insignificant (Job 14:21), grow small, to be insignificant (Jer 30:19). Cf. ‘the insignificant sheep compared to more significant their Shepherd’ in Zech 13:7.
            So this “little horn” in Dan 7:8 is supposed to be inherently small and insignificant when compared to the other horns, which are (full-fledged) kings/kingdoms, and yet, as indicated in Dan 7:24, it itself will also be a king/kingdom. So it will be an inherent lesser and comparatively insignificant king/kingdom compared to those other ones.
            Therefore in regards to its “kingship” and its “kingdom”, this would be in regards to its ‘ruling qualification as a king’ and ‘its territorial size/citizen population’ as a kingdom’. So it defaultly/inherently would not “measure up” to normative horns = kings/kingdoms in such key characteristics regards.
            So, as an example, whereas Ezek 29:15 uses maat to speak of a kingdom [i.e. Egypt] being limited and diminished from being and functioning at its normal capacity/capability, this other horn in Dan 7:8 will inherently not suppose to be of anything more than its ‘part full’ size. So despite being a horn, thus a king/kingdom, its power would inherently merely be a ‘part of the whole’ i.e. the whole of what a horn should actually fully be, which is a full-fledge kingly power with a full-sized, fully-populated kingdom.

* (See also the explanation of the actual, pointed “spiritual maturity vs. immaturity” meaning of that passage here).
Dan 7:8a - came up among them
Dan 7:20a - which came up
Dan 7:24b - and another [king] will arise after them

came up - The understanding here is straightforward as indeed “come up”

arise - This Heb./Ara. word qum [#6965/#6966] means: ‘take a stand; become established; be set up/erected’. So “after” the “arising” = the establishment of the 10 horns, this “little horn” will itself become established, and by correspondence, as a world power as themselves.

among & after - Dan 7:8a says “among them (i.e. the horns)” and/but Dan 7:24b says “after them”. So this has to be done both after but among them...: So “after” the first ten kings have arisen and become established but at the time ‘while’ these are still standing, i.e. in power. So that little horn power will itself become establish while those ten horns are still in power.    
            Pivotal Note: So, at this point, the objective approach when presenting this passage/topic is, as seen in e.g. this presentation, -which you can, by all means, view first if you want to have/see that “objective approach”, to first go through all of the identification point of this Little Horn power, and then state who/what it was in World History, well, as the actual objective of this blog post is, (as patent with the other posts of this “Theological Views” blog), to provide the Biblically and Historically deeper, more meaningful and more accurate proofs and explanations for the typical Historicist/SDA interpretation of Dan 7&8, at this point, the already known and valid identification of this Little Horn while immediately be stated/revealed, particularly as this allows for a more engaged and detailed discussion of the symbolism with their fulfillment.
            So....that Little Horn Power is: the Historical, and World, Power in the Roman Catholic Church’s Papacy, both in its Religious/Ecclesiastical, as well as its Secular/Political, Power and/or Influence. As later seen it arose to such Ecclesiastical and ensuingly Political power through the controlling influence it had in its Church/Religious Authority, and pointedly over the populace masses (=Rev 17:15), starting in 538 A.D.
            Keeping that valid, indeed already validated, fact in mind, it will be later, further seen “more exactly” how this power fulfilled this prophesied event.

Dan 7:24b - and another [king] will arise after them and he will be different from the previous ones

“inherently/defaultly” little & “different” horn/king - First of all, in terms of the ‘inherent “little” king/kingdom’ specification earlier above, indeed compared to other “horns”, the Papacy actually never arose to being a full-fledged kingly power, nor have a territorially vast kingdom per se. What the Papacy did is manipulate and influence kings/political leaders to have its religious will done. As such it did sit and function as the (consorting) “Queen” (Rev 18:7) described by the sensuously-operating Harlot Woman of Rev 17&18. (See e.g. Rev 17:1-3, 15, 18; 18:3, 9).
            Even today the Catholic Church’s and Papacy’s Vatican City is, with an area of 44 hectares (110 acres), and a population of about 1,000, the smallest (independent) state in the world by both area and population. And, however, its sovereignty is said to actually/formally be held by the Holy See which is the ruling (religious) seat of its Roman Catholic Church. Even in the days of the (formal) Holy Roman Empire, the Papacy exercised its power in the crowning and/or deposing of kings and political rulers within its realm of influence. And it is only when the Popes/Catholic Church had begun to not have such influence over Emperors that it sought to have its own temporal territory in the Papal States (754-1870 AD). So, though having such great political influence and quasi-power, that Catholic Church has indeed never arisen to full-fledge king or kingdom power and authority. That is also why it is, (in the historical application of that prophecy), described in Revelation as “a woman (=Church) riding (=controlling/directing/benefitting off of) a beast (a world power/empire)” (=Rev 17:3, 7).
            So that is how this “little horn” power defaultly/inherently does not reach the full stature of normative horns...and yet it indeed is considered as also being a “horn”. It is, and maintained itself, as a religious power, but when Church & State became intertwined (see comments on Dan 2:41ff in this post) as they were in those days of the Roman Empire, since the Church Council Overseeing acts of Emperor Constantine, and when a Church has managed to have binding influence and sway over the vast majority of the peoples of kingdoms and empires, [today it is 1.285 billion people or ca. 20% of the World’s Population], then it indeed has all of the, moreover plausible deniability, power that it really needs.
            So this little horn is “different” in that it has/bases, and wields, its power from a religious basis rather than a political one as these other horns.

Dan 7:8a - and caused three of the first/former horns to uproot themselves. -

            There are (6) key ambivalent factors in this, and the next, sections which are most pivotal to the proper understanding of this prophecy:

of the first/former horns - (1) With the Aramaic/Hebrew term: qadmay/qadmoni [#6933/#6931]. It indeed can mean either “first” or “former” (Ezek 38:17; Mal 3:4), also “previous” (Dan 7:24), “ancient” (1 Sam 24:13), “past” (Isa 43:18) and since ‘start of the day’ occurs with the sun rising in the “east” it is often used as such (Job 18:20; Ezek 10:19; 11:1; 47:18; Joel 2:20; Zech 14:8). So this can be pointing to the ‘first horns’ or the ‘former horns’, so: ‘horns that arose, existed before this little horn’, but it is of great significance that this is not specifically saying: “3 of the ten horns”.
            So it actually can be any horn, i.e. beyond just the 10, which had arisen before this little horn did which qualify as one of those 3 horns, but, as seen below, it will have to be a horn being “uprooted” in relation to the arising to power of this little horn.

caused...to uproot themselves - (2) The verbal term “uprooted” is in the Aramaic Ithpeel verbal form. This corresponds to the Hebrew Hithpael form which as seen here [pp. 424-432] is a reflexive-reciprocal form. It involves the subject acting upon itself, or in relation to itself or in benefit to itself. So the basic meaning here actually is that: ‘these horns uprooted themselves’ or, at the very least, contributing acted to ‘cause to uproot themselves’. So these horns were not “passively” uprooted, but contributed to their uprooting, i.e. it was with self-provided cause. Such a cause could be their own warring stance/opposition to Rome in general and/or to this Little Horn, or even their own distinct warring affair, i.e. against other powers/kingdoms, which would, to their detriment, suddenly erupt and come to a head at/during these times.

Dan 7:24b2 - and will cause three kings to be humbled/abased

and will cause  - (3) This is reflective of the Aramaic Haphel (=Hebrew Hiphil) verbal form here, which is which involves the subject indirectly doing an action to its object, i.e. through an agency. An (Ara.) Pael (=Heb.: Piel) verbal stem would have the Little Horn power itself directly doing this “uprooting” action to those objects of 3 horns=kingdoms.
            So the little horn would be acting on these 3 kings via a distinct agent. So, not itself directly so.

three kings to be humbled/abased - (4) This angel-explanatory statement in this verse specifies what is involved in this “uprooting”. From the meaning of that Aramaic/Hebrew term “shephel/shaphel” [#08214/#08213], it will be 3 kings being “humbled/abased”. This therefore does not have to mean immediate and complete extinction, though it can certainly, eventually lead to that, but at the very least taking down that power a notch...i.e. from its prior position/power/height. (E.g. kings of Babylon -Dan 4:37; 5:19, 22).

Dan 7:8a - before it/by reason of its presence
Dan 7:20a - and before which three [...] fell
Dan 7:24b1 - and will cause three kings to be humbled/abased

(5) The Aramaic/Hebrew term in Dan 7:8, 20 translated as “before” is qodam/qedem [#06925/#06924a] it can either have a temporal sense as “before (the time of)” (Dan 7:7/Isa 37:26; 46:10; Jer 30:20; Pro 8:22) or a spatial sense of “before (the presence of)” (e.g. Dan 2:24, 25; 3:13; 4:6, 8). So it can either mean: ‘before the arising of the little horn power’ or ‘from before the presence of the little horn’.          
            So the “reason” why ‘those 3 horns would be humbled/abased/uprooted’ would either be: ‘the upcoming arising of that little horn’ or ‘because it is then present’. In either case/understanding, the “presence”, whether upcoming or already arrived, is the issue=reason. So this ambivalent expression can really be understood to encompass both ideas. So the one, two or all three of the 3 horns can be humbled/abased/uproot before this little horn arises to power and/or afterwards, due to its presence. Manifestly the Heavenly Intelligence also “ambivalently” left this option for events open for the valid/applicable fulfillment.

Dan 7:20a - and before which three [...] fell
And another key fact, here in relation to factor (6) above is that here in Dan 7:20 the words “of them” of the NASB is not in the original text. It is supplied, hence why it is in italics there in the NASB. So this statement is really just saying that ‘3 (prior horns) fell’...but not necessarily 3 “of/from the ten”. Again that is manifestly another deliberately ambivalent expressing to allow for either or both type of fulfillment, i.e. with one, two or all of the felled horns being from these 10 and/or from three other than these 10.
            So this can be fulfilled e.g. by 13 prior horns seeing 3 horns being removed, thus leaving 10, or with 10 horns seeing 3 being removed, thus leaving 7...or even e.g. 12 horns being reduced to 9, so two prior horns and only one from amongst the 10. (This latter scenario is what is claimed here to have occurred, as indeed “ambivalently” allowed by these (6) ambivalent factors here.
            So to summarize what these (6) ambivalent factors are pointing to for the applicable fulfillment of these 3 horns:

(1) qadmay/qadmoni - They could be any “former/prior” horn and not necessarily ‘one of the ten’, -which is not limiting specified as so. So any kingdom in the past, but one which is affected by the rise and/or presence of this little horn power.

(2) Ithpeel/Hithpael - The “uprooting” of these 3 horns will “reflexively/reciprocally” involve some type and degree of their own contribution to this fate.

(3) Hiphil - The little horn will be acting against these 3 kings, not itself directly but via a distinct agent.

(4) shephel/shaphel - The “uprooting” of these 3 kings involves them being, at least to start with, humbled/abased brought low, and not necessarily immediately becoming “uprooted”/extinct.
(5) qodam/qedem - The 3 kingdoms will be brought low either because of the after-the-fact presence of the little horn and/or, because of the upcoming/in progress arising of it to power.

(6) [...] - Again, complementing/reemphasizing (1): any 3 prior horns are to fall and not necessarily ‘3 of them = the ten’.

            To, first briefly/cursorily address and debunk a couple of popular, but deficient/incorrect, (Historicist/SDA) claims for these 3 horns:

-The Herules/Heruli (as claimed e.g. here): The Heruli Kingdom was lost sometime between 494-508 AD, so long before the Little Horn arose or came into any tangible temporal power. After that they lived as a tribal people and aligned/subjugated themselves with various kingdoms such as the Ostrogoths, and some even went on to align themselves with Emperor Justinian even fighting in the Roman Army.

-The Visigoths (as claimed e.g. here): The Visigothic Kingdom not only remained, on the Iberean Peninsula until 717 AD, when then Muslim forces overtook them, but in or around 589 AD, they, under their King Reccared I (willfully) converted from Arianism to Nicean Christianity.

            The Fulfilling 3 Uprooted Horns - Now from those 6 Biblical/Prophetic factors cited above, the applicable 3 horns = 3 kingdoms is being seen, in order of affectation, as the kingdom of: the Vandals (533 AD), the Burgundians (534 -cf. here) and the Ostrogoths (538+):

Uprooted Horn #1-The Vandalic Kingdom - Perhaps it was out of strategic locational military reasons, i.e. for establish a naval base in the region, or perhaps it was due to their heightened animosity towards the Roman Empire, or perhaps it was because of their militant Arianism, but whatever the case, when Emperor Justinian set out to accomplish his grandiose project of reconquering and reviving the Western Roman Empire, the Vandals were the first target of the Eastern Roman Empire. So, as discussed earlier, launching in 533 A.D. and ending by March 534 A.D. this Vandal Kingdom was put down by the Romans.

Uprooted Horn #2-The Kingdom of the Burgundians - As stated earlier, the Franks took advantage of a crisis of succession with the allies of the Burgundians: the Ostrogoths, to deal them a decisive defeat to its monarchial power and kingdom in 532 A.D. Then in 534 A.D. they went on to annex the former Burgundian’s kingdom’s territory as part of the Frankish kingdom. Like the Vandals, and also the Ostrogoths, the Burgundians were mainly Arian in the Christian beliefs, and, as seen from the earlier posted “bribing” communication between Justinian and the Frankish Kingdoms monarchs when making preparations to remove the Ostrogoths from Italy, the Roman Empire consider these Arian Kingdoms as natural enemies of Nicean/Catholic Christian Kingdoms Peoples such as theirs.
            So the distinct issues between the Franks and the Burgundians is what caused these latter ones to be removed from their kingdom power at these times, however, this complete fall/subjugation of the Burgundians by the Franks by 534 AD, may actually have been “indirectly” caused by/related to this rise of the Little Horn power as begun by the military campaigning of the Romans in this Western Europe regions starting in 533 AD. I.e. the fact that the Franks only subsequently decided in 534 AD to annex the now open territory of the Burgundians may have been to claim/occupy it as their own before these clearly locally-ambitious&arising Romans would.
            As cited/seen/documented later, the Franks were, and despite having accepted to be bribed by the Romans into neutrality in this Italy reconquesting campaign, quite evidently were not too thrilled about the Roman Empire coming back into the region and gaining territories, as they, in ca. April 538 AD, (=one month after the Ostrogoths siege of Rome failed/ended), covertly sent a 10,000-troop delegation of their (recently subjugated) Burgundians subjects to go join up with the Ostrogoths and oppose the Romans in (present-day) Milan, in this, then post-Rome capture, continuing warring.

Humbled-Uprooted Horn #3-The Ostrogothic Kingdom - As the occupiers of Italy and controllers of the city of Rome, and even having great sway and influence in the religious decisions of the Roman Catholic Church, the Ostrogoths were clearly the prime piece and grand prize for this Political and Religious reconquesting endeavor of the Eastern Roman Empire. So the Ostrogoths most necessarily had to be removed...but that was actually difficult and protracted. As discussed earlier, the Romans militarily engaged the Ostrogoths starting in 536 AD. And by 538 AD, after defeating a year long siege, the Romans had liberated the city of Rome from the control of the Ostrogoths, pushing them back to their northward capital city of Ravenna. Following this “humbling/abasement/lowering of the Ostrogoth at/from Rome, the Romans later went on to overtake Ravenna from them in 540 A.D., and then they completely defeated the Ostrogoths in 553 AD.

            Reason for Choice of 3 Horns/Kingdoms - The running theme/thesis in/for the selection of these 3 kingdoms as those which fulfill this 3 horns prophetic element is that all three of them, pointedly tangibly, i.e. militarily, stood in the way of a successful and sustained retaking of Rome itself, by the Eastern Romans. As stated earlier, defeating the Vandals allowed the Eastern Romans to have a footing, as in a naval base, in the region. Then if the Burgundians had not been completely subjugated by the Franks, they could have easily joined up with their (also theological) allies, the Ostrogoths to oppose the Romans.
            As mentioned earlier from Procopius History of Wars Book 6 Section XII par. 36-41ff  (Loeb p.395-397 [PDF: p.407-409]) (summarized here) the Franks later in the war, allowed, at the request for help by the Ostrogoth King Vitiges, a contingent of, deceptively: 10,000 Burgundians troops to go and assist the Ostrogoth in trying to take the Northern Italy city of Mediolanum (=present-day Milan) which then had been secured by (only) 1000 Roman troops, by then various dispersed in the regions near the city. And they did succeed, ca. 11 months later in taking over the city from the Romans. (As the Franks later, in 539 AD, invaded, but only for a while, Northern Italy battling both the Ostrogoths and the Eastern Roman Empire, they clearly had their own interest in mind in all of this which manifestly was: not wanting to cede all of Italy to the Romans.)
            From all of this, it can be assumed that if the Burgundians had not then been under the authority, and thus control, of the Franks, who in turn had accepted to be bribed by the Romans into neutrality in this war, then the Burgundians surely would have joined forces with the Ostrogoths, and that, from the start of the war, to oppose the Romans, pointedly in either holding on to, or retaking the prime/prized target of the Romans in this war: the city of Rome. On top of mere sheer additional troop forces, the Burgundian military contingent and/or their kings, could also have, figuratively speaking: “sobered up” the significantly quite (time) wasteful, careless and negligent King of the Ostrogoths Vitiges, who, during the war and siege on Rome was actually pre-occupied with e.g. fully celebrating his recent wedding. (See here p.88 [PDF p.104]) At least, the Burgundians King could have taken over the oversight of the war while the Ostrogoth King allowed himself to be distracted.
            And of course, thirdly, you have the Ostrogoths, who, by occupying Italy and controlling Rome, were directly, prominently and squarely in the way of the Eastern Romans’ objectives here.
            So based on that tangible theme indeed of all of these 3 kingdoms pointedly standing in the way of the successful reconquering of Rome and Italy by the Eastern Romans, then it is seen how these indeed had to be: “humbled [=the 532/4 subjugated Burgundians]//uprooted [=the 534 defeated Vandals]//abased (the 538 (initially pushed-back, and Italy+Rome-deprived, and later, in 553-routed, Ostrogoths]”....and it so happened, as patently claimed by SDA proponents, all of these 3 kingdoms sided with the Arian view of Christianity.[11]11etc...

            This scenario leaves actually still 10 horns=kingdoms in 538 AD, when the Little Horn power was in power, which is down from 12 kingdoms[12]12 established/standing in the realm of the Western Roman Empire in 533 AD when the Little Horn power was declared in the Justinian Decree. And then by 553 AD the number of horns=kingdoms standing in the W-RE was down to 9. Again, as shown above, the various “ambivalent” specifications in the prophetic statements here does not say that the number of horns=kingdoms in the W-RE had to be taken down to 7 horns=kingdoms. As seen above, a valid case is made that it should be 10 horns, to, moreover symbolically, strategically maintain a status of “complete division” in this (future) Western Europe region, and, as also stated earlier, the average number of kingdoms (per year) in this realm over the years, namely during the time that the Roman Empire existed (in some form), thus from 400-1453 AD was indeed 10.[13]13
            Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible is this Roman/Romish beast kingdom ever described/related as having come to have 7 horns (see Rev 12:3; 13:1; 17:12)....manifestly as this would put it on Spiritual/Symbolic par with God’s own Little Lamb Kingdom (Rev 5:6) and perhaps God was acting to avoid such an effectuation, indeed through maintaining that “complete division” status rather than the more manageable “division” from just 7 competing powers (=horns=kingdoms) within that realm. The Romans and the Catholic Church did manage to remove its most politically militant (also all religiously Arian[14]14) opposition in the region at this establishment by 538 AD, however the Heavenly Intelligence evidently aim to still keep it unstable by its maintained “complete division” policy. Even in the subsequent days of the more formal Holy Roman Empire, which at its peak encompassed mainly the present-day Germany region as well as the northern half of Italy, this Western Roman/Europe Region was still not “completely” united.

            The Year of the (Political) Rise of the Little Horn- Heidi Heiks has done a colossal job in showing in detail (see here PDF pp. ) how the start of Papal Power in Rome and Western Europe began not in the year when Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian put out a decree in 533 AD but in when that decree went into applicable effect in 538 AD when

Justinian Decree 533 AD

533-1793 - atheism established, religious power church deposed, in France

538-1798 -civil power of Church deposed instead

(See this depicting animation/videography documentary on the 537-538 AD Siege of Rome)

Summary of Heiks findings

Ending of this time at Dan 7:25

Little Horn - Religious
Daniel 7:8b - "While I {naturally} came to myself be contemplating the horns, behold, another horn, a little one, came up among them, and caused three of the first/former horns to uproot themselves before it/by reason of its presence; and behold! eyes like the eyes of a (mortal) man in this horn, and a mouth {forcedly} uttering great/arrogant claims.
Daniel 7:20b - and the meaning of the ten horns that were on its head and the other horn which came up, and before which three [...] fell, namely, that horn, and its eyes, and a mouth {forcedly} uttering great/arrogant claims and its vision was greater in relation to its fellows.
Daniel 7:24a - 'As for the ten horns, out of this kingdom ten kings will arise; and another will arise after them, and he will be different from the previous ones and will cause three kings to be humbled/abased.

and behold! = alu as explained earlier at Dan 7:2; Daniel uses this ‘interjectionary’ expression to now shift/focus the attention on a detail in the dream which was always present, but now is more closely being presented and looked at, namely the “eyes” and “mouth” on that Little Horn power.

eyes of a (mortal) man - Unlike the next detail in regards to the “mouth” of this Little Horn, the mentioned of its eyes is specifically qualified as being ‘like the eyes of a man’. So by simple process of eliminations, these are not eyes like an animal, but those like a man. That is not merely a reference to the aesthetics of these bodily organs (e.g. not eyes located on the sides of its head), but to the functional quality of such organs, -namely what is associated or derived from a human who is able to see. From the other symbolic meaning of “eyes” in prophecy, (such as in Rev 1:14b, -discussed in the commentary here & Rev 19:12 -discussed at that verse in here), it is seen that it is through the eyes that most of the “input” information goes into humans, i.e. into their mind, and so that is how most of their (resulting) views, which are typically expressed via their mouth, are gleaned. The mind does shape the view, but the eyes will typically “glean” what the mind wants to “view” and focus on. (Cf. Matt 6:22-23|Luke 11:34). Which is how/why two people can look at the same source material and come up with two different views...or even not actually see certain things that were actually present in the source material.
            So the eyes are indeed the most pivotal organ when it comes to substantiating the bias/mindset of one’s mind as it will be doing the gleaning for the “supporting” material for such views.

eyes of a (mortal) man - By default, all humans are mortal. However the Bible had a way of pointedly making allusion to this frailty/mortality of man. That is seen in the original word that is used here for man as: the Aramaic 'enash [#606]/Hebrew 'enosh [#582], as opposed to the more generic word for man/mankind Heb. adam [#120]. And this observation is confirmed by the etymological fact that word 'enash/'enosh comes from the root Hebrew word 'anash [#605] which is used to speak of “incurable, hopeless/desperate sickness/sickliness”. And that is defaultly perfectly representative of fallen man as he is doomed to die.
            A counter-argument/claim can be made that the Aramaic uses 'enash [#606] for both “mortal man” as well as “(generic) man”, i.e. not also making the distinguishing uses of an Aramaic equivalent for the Hebrew adam [#120], but that absence of such an equivalent term, pointedly in those ca. 5 chapters of the Bible which are in Aramaic (i.e. Dan 2:4-7:28), could easily be explained by: there never was an instance in those Aramaic segments when the generic usage of “man” was applicable. Several (i.e. 16) instances for a ‘distinguished/certain/valiant man’ was found in those chapters; = Aramaic gebar [#1400] which has a Hebrew equivalent geber [#1397], but, evidently none for the generic reference to man/mankind as those instances pointedly referred to men who, in comparison to the king, or of course outrightly to God, were considered as ‘inferior/deficient & mortals’.
            So the “eyes” of this Little Horn are, specifically, not merely the eyes of ‘generic man/mankind’ (=adam [#120]); nor the eyes of a ‘certain/valiant/distinguished man’ (gebar/geber [#1400/#1397]; but the eyes of fallen/sickly=mortal man.[15]15

eyes of a (mortal) man - A statement in Job 10:4 comes to effectively define what is understood by the symbolism of having “eyes of a (mortal) man”. The comparison, i.e. in Job 10:1-5ff, is being made about how the Infinite/Eternal God’s views, and thus does, things versus how a finite/mortal man (Job 10:5) does. The “eyes of flesh” is another way of saying ‘the eyes of “flesh&bone” (cf. Job 10:9; Gen 6:3; Psa 103:14) mortal man’. So having the ‘eyes of a (mortal) man’ clearly means: ‘seeing/viewing/perceiving/deeming’ things merely as a fallen/finite man does, and not as God does.
            In 1 Sam 16:7 God explicitly specifies why He does not see as man does...because, unlike man, ‘He looks at the heart, and not at outward appearances’ (cf. Matt 9:4; 12:25; Luke 6:8; 9:47). Well an interesting Theological observation can be sequiturly derived from this God vs. man nuance: “outward appearances” are manifested in the works of man; whereas ‘heart|mind thoughts/beliefs’ are representatives of a man’s faith. That is the distinguishing basis of the Old vs. the New Covenant where ‘God’s grace to cover the violation of His Law (cf. Heb 8:7-13) is bestowed according to one’s faith  and not by one’s works’ (Eph 2:8), and the “good works” are only a natural outworking of one’s faith, but again, not the basis for salvation. But as James says: “faith without works is dead” (James 2:14-17-25), because no corresponding works is the outward manifestation that a person actually does not have faith. (Cf. this pertinent discussion on this issue). But, again, when God is dispensing grace, he does not consider the works, but the faith, and that faith is that which produces any acceptable works. (Cf. LDE 219.2-3).

            =False Priest - So any man who claims to be the arbitrator and dispenser of grace by merely considering works and not faith, -which a mortal man indeed cannot do as only God can look at the heart, is, in this particular case, a “False Priest”. They are in no position to be able to determine if one’s faith is valid, and therefore if they are guilty of sin (=Job 10:6); For it is ‘whatever that is not from faith that is sin’ (Rom 14:23)... So indeed only God, in God the Son: Jesus Christ, can, since ‘He always/also looks at the heart’, be the True&Only Priest/Mediator in the New Covenant (See 1 Tim 2:5; Heb 4:12-13, 14-16; 8:1-6ff)
            Furthermore, theologically speaking, endeavoring to ‘walk/speak/act by/from sight’, as manifestly is central/fundamental with the Little Horn power based on these prominent features of it, is antithetical to the New, even Old, Covenant mandate (2 Cor 5:7; cf. Heb 11:6).
            It is not surprising to see that this Little Horn power (blasphemously -Mar 2:7; John 10:33) claims as the bedrock foundation of its authority the power to see/discern sin, thus judge faith, and so impose penance works to from fundamentally misinterpreted and misapplied passages like Matt 16:19; John 21:21-23

            =False Prophet - An also applicable, and actually even most straightforward, understanding/interpretation for this “eyes of a (mortal) man symbol” is seen from the Biblical fact that the ‘eyes/vision of God vs. man’ is prominently pronounced in the prophetic gift. In fact prophets were titularly known as “seers” (1 Sam 9:9; 2 Sam 24:11; 2 Kgs 17:13; 1 Chr 29:29; 2 Chr 9:29; 12:15; 29:25; Isa 29:10; 30:10).
            And the term “prophet” itself pointedly refers to a “spokesperson (for God)” (e.g. Deut 18:18; Isa 51:16; Exod 4:14-16; 7:1; Jer 1:9; Num 23:5, 12, 16; Isa 59:21)  [cf. The SOP seminar presentation on this role-defining issue.] A prophet does not merely “forespeaks” of Divine things to come, but also “forthspeaks” of Divine things for God, but only does so when he/she remains in perfect knowledge, understanding and harmony of what God’s Truth and Will actually is (cf. 2 Sam 7:1-7ff, 17). The faithful prophet indeed/also foresees, foretells and forethinks as||for God.
            And pertinently enough, these (purported) prophetic “seeing” and (resulting) “speaking” functions are both prominently found in this Little Horn power...but as later stated, the power is actually speaking and acting (Dan 7:21, 25) against God (=Rev 13:5-7). As indeed seen in the emphasis in the corresponding Rev 13:5, 6 prophetic detail, the “mouth” of this power is indeed a very significant element of its constitution. And, as stated earlier, and as Jesus said: ‘out of the mouth is spoken and revealed the evils of the heart=mind’ (Matt 15:18-19; 12:34), and as the “eyes are the lamp/light of the body” (Matt 6:22-23|Luke 11:34). So this Little Horn power (“dogmatically”) speaks and does all of its evil/dark pointedly from the “false light views” that it has chosen to: contemplate, internalize and inculcated in/for its beast’s body.
            So, “most straightforwardly”, this Little Horn power having the “eyes of a (mortal) man”, and a resulting “mouth” which speaks evil and blasphemous things (Rev 13:1, 5-6; 17:3), all also makes it a False Prophet power.
            =False King - In 2 Kgs 25:19|Jer 52:25 another application for the symbolism of “the eyes of (mortal) man” can be seen from the fact that a king’s advisers were literally (i.e. in the Hebrew) known as the king’s “seeing (finite/mortal) men” (Heb.: raah [#7200] + 'enosh [#582]). It almost sounds as a manufactured pointedly corresponding office for that of an actual “seer”, the prophet, who him-/her-self related the views of the Infinite God. These ‘seeing (finite) men’ were to advise the king manifestly when a “word from the Lord” was not being expressed on various temporal matters. Of course, when the words of a prophet displeased a king, they just established their own false prophets (e.g. 1 Kgs 22:1-28ff).
            So the “eyes of a (mortal) man” being intrinsically found in this Little Horn power which is representatives of a kingly/temporal entity, thus does intrinsically represent an advising of this power in regards to such Ruling and Worldly Affairs. Indeed this Little Horn power does “advise itself” to take various actions in relation to, and towards, the (rest of the) world, indeed beyond just its own immediate temporal realm, and all of these action also prove to be completely contrary to the Will of God. (Rev 13:3-8; Dan 7:21, 25). Indeed it is merely doing the Truth-oppositional and persecutive work that its true adviser Satan (Rev 13:1ff) had priorly been endeavoring to do, -through pagan Rome, against God’s faithful people (Rev 12:6, 9-17). So this ‘self-advising’ kingly power is thus also a False King.

            ::(False) Priest, (False) Prophet, (False) King = This all strikes at the heart of the crucial characteristics that, [as debunked in here], the Roman Catholic Church claims about it about being Prophet, Priest and King. As the Anti-Christ Power, it is not at all surprising to see that the RCC is attempting to usurp these titles, functions and authority from its rightly owner Jesus Christ.

and a mouth - As noted above, unlike for the “eyes” which are significantly qualified as being ‘that of a “(mortal) man”’, the “mouth” of this Little Horn does not have any qualification. So this does reinforce the understanding that the eyes of this Little Horn, pointedly the type of these eyes, are pivotally/controllingly significant. As already explained above, the mouth is merely expressing what the eyes of this Little Horn have led its mind to conceive as its views.

{forcedly} uttering great/arrogant claims - Here in Dan 7:8 (as well as Dan 7:20), the term “great/large/much/many* (Ara./Heb.: rab [#7229/#7227a]) is actually unspecified...I.e. it does not say: “boasts” (NASB; cf. NIV, NJB), nor “pompous words” (NKJV; cf. NRSV); “things” (KJV; RSV);  in the underlying Aramaic text. It just says “a mouth uttering great.” Hence the italicizing in many of these Bible versions. However in the continuation of the revelation in Dan 7:11, Daniel goes on to state that what were “great” here were the ‘words’ of this Little Horn. However, as discussed next, these were not mere “words”.

*great, large, much or many” - As the listing of all of these usages of this Aramaic/Hebrew term: rab [#7229/#7227a] in the OT shows, it validly can have any of these meanings. So was this Little Horn uttering qualitatively “great/large” things or was it (merely) uttering quantitatively “much/many” things. As a valid/pertinent first hint, in the Greek=LXX rendition of this expression (as well as for Dan 7:11, 20), it is rendered as megas/megale/mega [#3173] which more precisely has the meaning qualitative of “great, large” rather than quantitative meaning of “many, much”, which in the Greek is rendered by polus [#4183], and even more pertinently here: polulogia [#4180] = “much speaking/many words” (see Pro 10:19 LXX), as this word combines the terms polus+logos [#3056], and logos is used in the Greek of Dan 7:11 LXX to qualify what is being said to be “great”. And the clinching hint is how it is megas/megale/mega [#3173] that is used in the NT/Revelation restatement of this Little Horn prophecy in Rev 13:5-6 and those “great sayings” from the “mouth” of this power are, as already mentioned earlier, associated with ‘“blasphemies” towards God’. So these are indeed: “great things” as in being “arrogant” (=Rev 13:5 NASB)
            In fact, the Greek of Rev 13:5 emulates the Hebrew of Dan 7:8 and merely unqualifyingly says: “great”, as in: “a mouth speaking great-ly [=Gr. adjective] and blasphemies [Gr. noun]”. So Dan 7:8 & Rev 13:5 can indeed both be understood to be equally saying: ‘a mouth speaking arrogantly...’

            The precise qualifying term for “great” in Dan 7:11 is the Aramaic word millah/milleh [#4406/#4405]. Succinctly/Summarizingly states here, three levels of “words” can be seen in the Hebrew/Aramaic.
            There is a first/basic level for mere speech/sayings. This is the term emer [#0561] which comes from the verb “to say/saying” amar [#559].
            Then there is the third level from the term dabar [#1697] from the verb for, actually, formal/official/binding speaking dabar [#1696]. So dabar refers to formal/official/binding statements, hence why it is used to speak of commands (e.g. Exod 34:28; Deut 10:4) and official/judicial/legal matters (e.g. Exod 18:19, 22; Dan 9:25; Neh 8:4)
            But then, in between the term for ‘mere/simple speech’ and that authoritative pronouncements comes the term for ‘declaratory claims’. It is millah|milleh [#4406/#4405] These are statements which are merely at the levels of claims which have yet to be set as something proven, binding, true or authoritative. In today’s judicial system, this is the form of speech which is found as a Complainant’s “Statement of “Claims”/“Declaration””, but only an ensuing full investigation and judicial trial can establish this as true, binding and/or authoritative.
            So “millah’s” are really just mere claims, indeed akin to one’s boasts, i.e. which in themselves really do not prove anything, let along prove themselves. But, as what this Little Horn power has effected consequences, then ‘the great “words” of that mouth’ are not accurately rendered as mere, i.e. empty, “boasts/boasting”, but rather as “claims” that it is making about itself and intends to act upon to try to show them to be true. And if these are not opposed and stopped then they circularly are deemed to be true (cf. Rev 13:5-8)...but all along, this is God allowing such things to come to pass to fully expose this Little Horn Power.
            So combining this with the understanding of “great” from above as meaning “arrogantly”, we here can see that this Little Horn’s “mouth” will be ‘speaking/making arrogant claims and blasphemies towards God’.

            So, in summary here: these key symbols of the “eyes of a (mortal) man” along with its tied to “mouth” speaking/making “great/arrogant claims” against God serve to show how this Little Horn power indeed is the AntiChrist||Man of Sin Power, as proven by the unrighteous things that is says and does...both in Religious and Temporal, thus “Church+State” matters... (Cf. Dan 8:10-12, 13 -discussed later, below)

Dan 7:24a
and another will arise after them - This of course is the prediction that after those 10 kings have arisen ‘out of the kingdom’ of this Fourth Beast, which is, as discussed earlier, from the ideology of, and within the territorial realm of, the fallen Western Roman Empire, another king will arise, namely the Papal power now being given temporal authority with the decree of Justinian issued in 533 AD, and/but with its territorial jurisdiction (officially) secured starting in 538 AD.

and he will be different from the previous ones - Unlike the previous kings/kingdoms which were purely temporal/secular powers, this Kingly Papal Power would be one which was borne and rooted in the religious/spiritual realm. This would be a power which would merge the Church and the State power into one ruling seat, which is even “different”from what Emperor Constantine had himself done when he had made Christianity the State Religion of the Roman Empire, as then, the ruling seat of the Church was not also a State’s ruling seat.

Dan 7:20b
and its vision was greater in relation to its fellows - This statement is an interesting one to translate accurately. The NASB has rendered it as: “and which was larger in appearance than its associates” which focuses on the mere outer, physical “appearance” of the Little Horn, and when compared to its (supposedly) “associated” horns. However this Hebrew phrase can instead be rendered with a focus/meaning on the inner, spirit-ual “vision” of this Little Horn power. I.e., exegetically speaking:

vision vs. appearance - When the visual/sighting/outer “appearance” of something is being pointed out, the Hebrew term mareh [#4758] is the more accurate/pertinent one to use (see e.g.: 1 Sam 16:7; 2 Sam 14:27; Job 4:16; Isa 52:14; 53:2; Songs 5:15; Ezek 40:3) rather the term for “vision”, here: hezu [#2376]//Heb. hazon [#2377] (see e.g.: Dan 2:19; 4:10, 13; 7:2//Heb.: Isa 29:7; Lam 2:9; Dan 8:1, 10:14); from: hazah [#2370]//Heb. [#2372] =“see, look”] which indeed rather inwardly-minded of speaks of the “view/perspective” of someone/something. That is why it is the specific term for a prophetic revelation in a “vision (of the night/mind|head)” (see e.g. Dan 2:28; 4:5, 10, 13; 7:1, 2). In fact, of the 12 uses of the Aramaic term hezu [#2376] in the book of Daniel, its rendering as “appearance” in Dan 7:20 would be the lone time, in the NASB, that it is not rendered as a vision (of the night/mind|head)”. Likewise, its Hebrew equivalents hazon [#2377] is always, i.e. 35 times, rendered in the NASB as “vision(s)”. So it would make logical sense from this total of 47 consistent usages of this term to also see/understand it as an inner/spirit-ual/mind “vision” in Dan 7:20.
            It furthermore manifestly is the (Biblical)-lexical fact that when the term mareh is used in reference to a prophetic experience/revelation, it manifestly involved that an actual/physical sighting of something actually “appeared” (see e.g. Ezek 8:4 [=Ezek 1]; Ezek 11:24*; 43:3), whereas a hazon is an “imagined” revelation, -as in: one that is being made to be shown/occur (merely) in the prophet’s/person’s mind.

* In this instance, manifestly Ezekiel was, while himself remaining where he physically as, but enable to see elsewhere in vision, made to appear as a vision to those exiles where he spoke to them the message of comfort and hope that he had be previously communicated (Ezek 11:25=Ezek 11:14-21). This special prophetic arrangement is certainly one that the “Spirit of God” can do. (A similar thing seemed to been done in Acts 16:9, with Paul being the object/target of this arrangement.)                 

            So the meaning for/of this “vision” here in relation to this Little Horn is evidently to speak of its own inner/spiritual perspective of things, i.e. its “outlook”, and that as a temporal power, which, as discussed above, was “different” from the other horns=kings=kingdoms=world powers, as this Little Horn was combining a temporal/State power with a religious/Church authority.
            And from that “unique/special” vision alone, its “outlook/perspective” would indeed be “greater” than the other world powers, for, as still observed/cited/effected in our day, despite the Church and the State now been constitutionally/legislatively separate in (esp.) Westernized Democracies, State/Secular leaders/politicians often joking comment that they wish they had the moving/binding influence that Church Leaders can exert and have on their followers...A religious leader can (even validly) claim that the decision of a voter can/will have eternal consequence to them, whereas a secular leader can at best only speak of consequences in this finite age/life. (cf. Matt 16:26-27/Mar 8:36-38)

in relation to vs. than - Here the Hebrew preposition min- [#4481] has the basic meaning of: “from” and is used as: ‘from, out of, by, by reason of, at, more than’. A comparison is indeed being made between the “vision/outlook/perspective” of the Little Horn Power compared to the other (standing) Kings/Kingdoms, but it can be further inferentially derived that it is because those other powers merely have a secular/temporal “vision” for their kingdoms, than the ‘religious+civil union’ “vision” of this Little Horn power does, ‘in relation to these others’, come to be “greater”....Keeping also in mind that, in the present context, that term “greater” has, as shown above, the meaning of: ‘being arrogant towards God’. And just in trying to, effectively, defy Jesus Christ’s policy of keeping: ‘“Caesar” separate from God’ (e.g. Matt 22:21; John 18:36), this Little Horn Power is indeed here also being “arrogant” towards God....
            -But what (else) is the Divinely foreplanned=permitted Anti-Christ Power supposed to do?!! (2 Thess 2:3-4,7ff)-
            And it is significant to observe that, unlike this Catholic Church-based Little Horn Power, the other Kings/Kingdoms did not actually have/possess an option/alternative to try to do the same Church/State thing that the Papacy was does, as they then literally would either have to revert to being (State-imposed) paganistic realms, -and then risk being militarily engaged by the (Eastern) Roman Empire’s forces, as it then only saw Christianity as the acceptable religion, or these kingdoms would have to try to forge their own distinct version of Christianity, as the believers in Arianism had been doing, but here also, they too would be targeted by the (Eastern) Roman Empire, as indeed was the, as discussed earlier at Dan 7:8a, explicitly also involve motivation for trying to “uproot” these Kingdoms.
            So the Little Horn Power really was the only one which had the “valid”/viable or accepted/tolerated religion of that time with which it could ‘envision’ a “different” and “(comparatively/relatively) “greater”” kingdom/realm, albeit “arrogantly so” towards God and His Will....And indeed, from that ‘grandeur vision’, that Little Horn Power would endeavor to, and succeed in, establishing an Empire, a Church-superiority: “Holy Roman Empire”.

its fellows vs. its associates - The key term under question here is the Aramaic habrah [#2273]. It is the feminine form of habar [#2269] which is used in the Aramaic of Daniel as “friend”, namely, Daniel’s three friends (Dan 2:13, 17, 18). Its equivalent in the Hebrew is habar [#2266] which is commonly rendered as “ally/allies” (e.g. Gen 14:3; 2 Chr 20:35,36,37; Dan 11:6) as it has the basic meaning of: ‘joining together (for a common function/purpose/cast/cause)’ (e.g. Exod 26:3, 36:10; Psa 122:3; Eccl 9:4). The “possession” of one’s mind by another “mind”, i.e. a  spirit, i.e. “casting a spell” is also referred to by this word. (Deut 18:11; Psa 58:5; cf. Hos 4:17).
            So we should here be understanding that this Little Horn Power and the other horns/kingdoms were ‘associated’ as “allies”, and working for a common cause....However this would topically seem to be contradictory to their “vision” being not equal. If these are really to be “of one mind” and working towards accomplishing the same “vision”, then why is it being emphasized that the vision of Little Horn was “greater/ grandeur” even/actually: ‘religiously, but blasphemously so, arrogant/ambitious’.It would therefore seem that their “common mindedness” is about something else.
            Looking into history to properly understand this ambivalent stipulation: It would be more fitting to rather see that the Little Horn and the other (then, as discussed earlier: 9) standing kingdoms in 538 A.D. were “associated” in their common purpose, duty to rule some part of their part of the world, namely/specifically here, the former territory of the Western Roman Empire, and potentially more. Notwithstanding, each of these kingdoms quasi-defaultly also had an ambition to at some time, ascend to an hegemonic imperial stature/status and therefore rule over the entire then civilized/advanced world. So the Little Horn’s “vision” towards accomplishing that kingdoms-competed-for temporal objective would be the one which would more easily, quickly and bindingly succeed. And so those other horns/kingdoms were not really its “associates”, as in ‘entities intrinsically involved in assisting them towards accomplishing that goal’, but merely other “friendly rivals”.
            So the use of the word “fellow” more accurately renders this situation as, like a “fellow classmate”, one is not actually in battling competition with other students in the class, but each is working individually to obtain the best results from the same curriculum work and testing. Indeed these 9+1 kingdoms then (i.e. the final listing in 538 A.D. (see charting earlier) and not counting the Ostrogoths who (esp. as militant Arians) were an enemy avowed to destruction of/by the Little Horn) were not battling rivals/enemies then, -pointedly towards the Little Horn Power itself (but at times against the others), even though they all wanted to ‘rule the world’, but rather sought to peacefully coexist...but, all the while, the Little Horn Power, by literally working to make itself seem as a god on Earth, i.e. ‘God/Christ own representative and kingdom on Earth’, was advancing a, (comparatively/relatively) indeed “superior” vision which would cause them to triumph over these other temporal powers.
            So “fellows” (=N/KJV, RSV, NJB) seems to be a more accurate way of labeling this (peacefully/friendly rival) relationship between the Little Horn Power itself vs. the other 9 (established/main) kingdoms of that time. They indeed were not “associates” as they were not all “assistively” working together so that the Papacy could rule over them and so, rule world. Indeed they would all just have technically ceded their throne, kingdom and authority to the Papacy if that is what their objective was. They instead tried to retain their territorial independence and ruling sovereignty, however, by “uniquely” being the “ruler” of the only, and widespread, religion in that larger part of the world then, the Papacy had the unstoppable advantage of having direct and superior influence, and thus, control, over the “subjects” of these other (rival) realms....And the Little Horn did indeed so triumph, especially when it got to marry that influential authority with (now directly-controlled) Roman Military Power (=Rev 13:2, 4, 7).
            It indeed came to so/eventually (effectively) have “authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation” (Rev 13:7), which is actually an interrupted, deemed God-ordained, objective that it is still seeking to come to have in the present/future world (=Rev 17:2, 12-13, 18; 18:3)....pointedly in its prophesied deceptive Religio-Economic: “sanctified/Philanthropic-Capitalism” future manifestation.

The Little Horn’s War Against the Saints
Daniel 7:21b - "I [had] kept looking, and that horn was {naturally} waging war with the saints and {naturally} overpowering them
Daniel 7:25b - 'And {forcefully} wear down the saints of the Highest One,

I [had] kept looking - By this point in Daniel’s prophetic revelation experience (i.e. at Dan 7:21), the entire vision had already been given in full (i.e. Dan 7:2-14), and after, yet while still in vision, having taken/been given some time to collect his “alarmed” thoughts/wit upon the conclusion of the vision (=Dan 7:15), Daniel now has questions about specific segments/details in the vision, especially the, as interpreted, post-Grecian Empire developments (Dan 7:7ff)....and the communicating angel goes on to address/answer those questions (Dan 7:16-18, 19-20ff)[16]16  And so, when Daniel is here saying “I kept looking/observing”, -which is a statement which he common makes during the changes of scenery/theme/focuses in vision (e.g. Dan 7:4,6,7,9 ,11,13, 21; 8:2,3,5; cf. Dan 2:34), he is not saying, as it may surfacely seem, that he was at this point seeing the things described in Dan 7:21, but he is rather here summarily repeating/restating what he had priorly ‘been looking at’ during the vision, manifestly what he had seen between the scenes of: Dan 7:8 (=Dan 7:20b) and Dan 7:9ff (=Dan 7:22), but which he had not previously (recalled) to relate..perhaps because it was so distressing/discouraging to him. So here he is now effectively, remonstratingly saying/asking to his communicating angel: ‘Hey, what was up with that scene when that arrogant little horn began to “wage war against the saints and overpowering them”’.

{naturally} waging war with - It is telling to see that this (Aramaic) verbal expression “(making/doing)/waging war” is the Aramaic Peal = Hebrew Qal form, which, is a non-causitive (i.e.: Aphel=Hiphil); nor non-forced (i.e.: Pael=Piel); (basic) verbal form. So this is quasi-explicitly implying here that this “waging of war” would be a “natural” action on the part of this Little Horn Power against the saints of God. So the sequitur question that then can, and should, be asked&answered here is: why exactly is this waging of war a natural development instead of a forced one. Well the quite obvious answer would be that: this Little Horn power is so evil, even the Anti-Christ power, that this is indeed just the “natural” thing that it would be doing, indeed especially against people who are righteous and faithful to God. (=2 Tim 3:12; GC 48.3), but there is, indeed within this ‘obvious reason’ also an underlying causation for this warring...
            To put it succinctly: just like animals do not attack other animals, or humans, unless they feel “vitally” threatened by them, including being in “vital” need of food to eat in order to survive, humans generally, even for self-safetying reasons, do not engage in such life-jeopardizing “warring” actions unless they come to feel/be “vitally” threatened...So it can be deduced, -though that does it make it correct/right, that this Little Horn power began to feel threatened by these righteous & faithful people of God (=“saints”)...

            -[That itself should tell you all there needs to be known about the desperate evilness of this Little Horn Power....That it is those who are most faithful to God who are its greatest threat (~1 Kgs 18:17-18|PK 139.4ff), and so much so, that it feels that it needs to murder them. So once the identity of this Little Horn/Anti-Christ/Man of Sin is known, the rational and wise, (esp.) Christian Believers should literally get the “!!!Hell!!!” out, and as far away from, that entity/system (=Rev 18:2-6ff), for it is indeed ‘birthed for &destined to destruction/perdition’ (2 Thess 2:3ff); -just like the Satan-coopted&possessed (John 6:70-71; 13:27), Judas was (Matt 26:24)....and since the Bible clearly, detailedly, identifies this Satan-sock-puppet, “Harlot Babylon”, Power as being the Roman Catholic Church and its Papacy headship, then the Biblically/Godly sincere Christian Believer should consider themselves to have been amply warned by the Heavenly Intelligence....]

            ...Well the fact that this Anti-Christ Power began to, like its Pagan Roman ancestor (Rev 12:3-4ff ~ Rev 13:2ff), feel “vitally threatened” by God’s Faithful/Righteous People is because these Saints of God were indeed (inherently) “vitally threatening” their Satanic Political and Ecclesiastical authority, possession and power...As expounded on here on Rev 19:15, it is the Truth of God’s word (=a sword, cf. Heb 4:12), as believed, and so as fully and faithfully lived out, by His People, which indeed ‘takes away the false/facade “peace (in lies&sinfulness&unrighteousness”’ (=Rev 6:3-4=Luke 12:51) that such followers of Satan’s causes cherish. Jesus indeed could not have been more starkly clear about this inevitable “natural” issue of “vital” difference that would be caused by His Truth. (Matt 10:34-36//Luke 12:51-53). And, echoingly, the “Testimony of Jesus” (Rev 12:17; 19:10) itself could not but be any less “starkly clear”:

“If unity could be secured only by the compromise of truth and righteousness, then let there be difference, and even war” (GC 45.3; bold+italics emphasis supplied)

            So...“naturally”...when, by the Fourth Church Age (=Rev 2:18-23; 6:7-8; 8:12-13 [=ca. 538-1560's AD]) those faithful people of God categorically refused to give in to the Church+State+Falsehoods/Paganism+Greed literal c-o-m-p-r-o-m-i-s-e that had been, at worst misguidngly, forged with the “(Christ-proscribed) world” (John 15:18-25) during the Third Church Age (=Rev 2:12-16; 6:5-6; 8:10-11[=ca. 313-538 A.D.]) there indeed/incontrovertibly was, as prophesied here, this “war”...

            “war” vs. “persecution” - It is commonly understood (in Protestant circles) that this “waging of war” against the saints was actually a “persecution”. By that term, it is understood that these saints were peacefully/passively just minding their own religious business, and then the Catholic Church dispatched its military forces after them to pursue/“chase them away”, and also directly or upon a (fundamentally flawed) judicial process kill them when caught. But it is interesting to see that in the Hebrew, there is a distinct word which has this sense of “persecute”, involving: “putting to flight”/“pursuing”/“chasing after/away”. That is the word radaph [#7921]. But here in Dan 7:21, that is not the term that is used. Instead the one for “war” qerab [#7129/#7128] is used (=Rev 13:7)....and that all corroborates what historically was seen, in that, these faithful ones which constituted the True Church of Christ were actually actively ‘taking the battle “to the gates of” this “hellish” kingdom of Satan’ (=Matt 16:18b), and, faced with that threat of being overpowered, that triggered the militaristic response from this Church+State Apostate Power.
            In other words, despite suffering privations, loss pain and even death, the faithful ones of God did then not retreat to a hide out to try to just live in secrecy...they still actively attacked this Anti-Christ Entity through head-on, open “Protests”, Rebuking Denunciations and Proselytizing Evangelistic works (Just like Jesus’ persecuted Apostles (e.g. Acts 5:25-32)). So, as indeed seen with various Reformatory Movements during Church History (See at Rev 11:3-4, 7 in this post), the saints were courageously fighting “back”, actually fighting “forth”, i.e. from the very instances when there ‘was an official matter/issue/cause’ (cf. 1 Sam 17:29 KJV; 16MR 34.1), thus when, (as seen in more detail below), the (Divine) Person, Ministry, Truth & Law of God and His Christ began to be: blasphemed (e.g. Dan 7:20|Rev 13:5-6), usurped (e.g. Dan 8:10-12a); compromised/perverted (e.g. Dan 8:12b) and changed/annulled (e.g. Dan 7:25b) by this (prophesied) Satanic, “Lawlessness”, Anti-Christ Power (=2 Thess 2:3-12).
            So whereas Satan was effectively “limited” to not being able to himself bring death to these righteous ones, -and so merely, himself “pursued/persecuted them” (Rev 12:13), in this “dragon-like” Fourth+ Beast power, he was able to find the “Stately-iron teeth & claws” (=Dan 7:7, 19) which could/would effectuate this, his (Rev 12:12ff), rageful wanton vexatious destruction and carnage.

and {naturally} overpowering them  - Aramaic: yekel/yekil [#3202] = (basically): “was able towards them”, but also, from the usage of its Hebrew equivalent: yakol [#3201] = “prevail” (e.g. Gen 30:8; 32:25; 1 Sam 17:9; Psa 129:2; Hos 12:4) & “overpower” (e.g. Jdg 16:5; Jer 38:22; Oba 1:7).
            Despite their valiant and faithful efforts, these fighting “forth” & fighting back holy ones of God were being consistently “naturally” overpowered by this beastly power (cf. Rev 11:7ff))....This was all in the Great Plan, will of God (Rev 6:9-11)...For by allowing these saints to be martyred, it not only would objectively sealed the eternal dooming fate of those who committed these capital crimes against them, (unless they completely repented upon learning of the truth like Saul/Paul did (1 Tim 1:13)), but, -(as discussed in detail here, at Rev 19:14), it would warrant the special-preserving of these greatest of Spirits/Psyches of these faithful ones; -who “this world was not worthy of” (Heb 11:38), for God’s strategic, endtime, re-issuance in/through the Latter Rain Spirit Outpouring (=Rev 20:4ff) to (properly, most likely) accomplish His Final, Lovingly-Merciful, Redemptive/Testifying Work on/for this Fallen World. (=Rev 19:11-16ff)

and {forcefully} wear down the saints... - Second things first, the action represented by the verb “wear down” Ara. bela [#1080] is seen from its (more frequent) Hebrew equivalent: balah [#1086] to not actually mean “to bring to an utter end”, but rather ‘to variously reduce, pointedly in/from an original/newer composition/form. E.g. ‘by aging’: Gen 18:12; Isa 51:6; ‘health/sickness’: Job 13:28; Lam 3:4; ‘(frequent, normative) usage’: Deu 8:4; Jos 9:13; Neh 9:21; Isa 50:9. Even when it is used to speak of the ‘decomposition of the body in death’ (Psa 49:14), it can be seen that something of the original still remains, namely the skeletal bones.
            So this word here is not indicating an utter ending of God’s saints by the waged war that they are being overpowered in, but just a (normative) decreasing of them. And this “decreasing” is manifestly merely in overall numbers, -with Church History estimates being that between 50 Million to 100 Million (various) people were (sadistically) persecuted and murdered by the Medieval Roman Catholic Church, and clearly not in constitutional quality because, Church History also reveals, that the “Light” of the Reformation only kept getting brighter and brighter until it just could no longer be contained (Pro 4:18; cf. Dan 12:3)

            And now, first thing second: while the “waging of war” & “overpowering” activity of Dan 7:21 were linguistically depicted as “natural”, i.e. “uncaused or unforced, developments, this ‘wearing down’, endeavor is expressed using the Aramaic intensive verbal form, the Pael which is the equivalent of the Hebrew Piel form. Seeing from history, as just noted above, this is manifestly because, while it was indeed “natural” for the Papacy to militarily respond to the vital/existential threat that Protestantism posed to it, and while it was “natural” for such an army to overpower regular, unarmed, non-militant people, -(which is pointedly why God “purposefully” had allowed the Religion of Islam to be created, and to (inherently) be Militant, in order to, both, Evangelistically check, and Physically/Militarily, oppose the growth/spread/conquering of Roman Catholicism’s heretical Christianity), trying to keep Protestantism from continuing to, nonetheless, still grow and spread about, i.e., at least “wear it down”, would take this “intensive/forceful” effort from their (otherwise vulnerable) part.
            Indeed, just going by the fact that: during the 18-year/session Council of Trent (1545-1563), -[the longest of the 21 Ecumenical Councils of the RCC; and only one of two councils to be convened for more than ca. 5 years], -{cf. in this CNN documentary at [35:42-37:05]}, which was convened pointedly to deal with the threat that Protestantism posed to Catholicism, the Catholic Church almost effectively capitulated to Protestantism by nearly conceding that they too should go only by the Bible (=Sola Scriptura) and not also by Traditions...until, -as detailedly discussed here (See also here & here), they were swayed to maintain their stance of going by both Scripture & Tradition by the speech of Gaspare Ricciullo [del Fosso], Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Reggio Calabria-Bova, in the 17th Session of the Council, in 1562, who cited and argued that: the fact the Protestants were also keeping Sunday as their Holy Day, -which they said was established solely by the authority of the Church, instead of the Seventh Day Sabbath, as the Bible solely taught, showed that they too (hypocritically) valued Church Tradition over the statements of Scripture’,[17]17 all shows that Protestantism did almost cause the downfall of Catholicism. And so, they did have to “energetically/intensively/continually” work and act to try to contravene it before/less it overrun Catholicism..
            Likewise, the present-day (membership) fact that Protestantism, after merely ca. 500 years of established existence almost has as many adherents (ca. 920,000,000 [1,117,000,000 with Orthodox+Fringe Christianity]) as the ca. 1700+ year old Roman Catholic Church (ca. 1,285,000,000) also reflects the ‘overrunning’ threat that Protestantism poses to Catholicism...Indeed it can easily be argued that if it was not for the Catholics Church unScriptural practice of infant baptism and dogmatic opposition to artificial birth control, whereas Protestants Biblically practice (volitional/cognizant) “Believer’s Baptism” and (generally) is not opposed to the use of (pre-conception) contraception, there today would likely be more Protestants than Catholics in the world. But going by their worldwide growth trends today, this surpassing of Catholics by Protestants is projected to happen by 20??

...of the Highest Ones - This title for God would seem to be straightforward as God being “the Highest One”, but it is intriguingly made complex by the fact that it is here expressed in the plural form, hence: “the Highest Ones”.
            First of all, as seen in its 23 uses in the Hebrew, this term elyon [#5945a] basically means: ‘a topmost thing/position/location’ (e.g. “upper”, “high/highest”, “top”, “exalted”). In its Aramaic equivalent [#5946], which have 4 occurrences, it solely used in reference to God, and all in Dan 7, and all by the Angel relating that vision to Daniel. (=Dan 7:18,22,25,27). And what is interesting in these instances, is that they are always in the plural form (i.e.: “saints of the Highest Ones”)....Whereas, in the only time that its Hebrew form is used in reference to God, in Psa 97:9, David(?) says, in by using a singular, that: ‘Yahweh is “Most High” all over the earth’...
            Plus all of those (4) Aramaic and (1) Hebrew uses in reference to God are grammatically “adjectives (masculine absolutes)”...So it is not that David is merely making a descriptive reference to God, while the Angel of Dan 7 is making a titular citation...All of these usages can be (equally) understood to be descriptive namings of God. But the consistently plural “Highest Ones” is quite intriguing indeed, ...indeed when considering the uttering source, an angel...who, unlike David(?) in Psa 97:9, surely knows exactly what/Who is “plurally” talking about...
            My sequitur/logical conclusion here, and being now capable of being informed by the full (i.e. +NT) testimony of Scripture in regards to the ‘plurality of God’, =in a 3-member Godhead,* terms the “Trinity”, is that the Heveanly Messenger did know that the ‘God of these saints’ was indeed a 3-member Godhead, and so he corresponding had to refer to them in the plural form....and that all comes to make the next-discussed statement, -but which was priorly-stated in this Dan 7:25 verse, even most meaningful and interesting, as it instead involves a singular form....

* -Which is a Theological fact that was actually various hinted at throughout the Old Testament, -from e.g.: the “Us”+“Our” in Gen 1:26; Gen 19:24's Dual-Yahwehs citiation [see at Note #1 in here]; the sins-pardoning, Yahweh-name, “Angel of the Covenant” (Exod 23:20-21) = Angel of the Lord (Jdg 2:1; cf. Exod 3:2) = Archangel Michael =“who is like God” (e.g. Jude 1:9; 1 Thess 4:16); 

The Little Horn’s War Against the Father & His Christ
Daniel 7:25a - 'And arrogant claims towards the side of the Most High{sing.} he will assert.

...the Most High{sing.} - So, as discussed just above, the reference to God from this Angel that occurs next in this verse is (oddly) in the plural form as: the Highest Ones”. But here, this preceding reference to God =“Most High” is in the singular form....The underlying Aramaic word here is a cognate of the one discussed just above. It is the term Illay [#5493], and in all of its 10 occurrences in (the Aramaic portion of) the book of Daniel, it is used to refer to God. (Dan 3:26; 4:2,17,24,25,32,34; 5:18,21; 7:25). Its Hebrew equivalent: illi [#5942] occurs only 2 times, and with the usage as/for: “an upper spring” (Jos 15:19; Jdg 1:15). illi is said to be derived from the Hebrew alah [#5927] which occurs ca. 813X in the OT with the basic meanings of: ‘to go up’; ‘ascend’, ‘climb’, ‘rise’.
            Pertinently here, only the occurrence of Illay [#5943] in Dan 7:25 is spoken by a Heavenly Being. The other 9 occurrences are spoken by human who are speaking of God, and pointedly His “Higher” superiority in regards to all/any Earthly ruler/king (e.g. the king of hegemonic Babylonian Empire). But the fact that the Angel Himself can make a singular reference to God as well as a plural one, and within the same ‘verse’, even sentence/statement, is all strongly suggestive that he knew that both distinct forms were applicable...but manifestly here distinctively...So who were the ones that the Angel was making distinct reference to here?...
...towards the side of...  - another key piece of this “distinct identification” puzzle is gleaned from this phrase here. Succinctly said here, the Hebrew//Aramaic term in question here: tsad [#6654//#6655] clearly and only means, -as consistently in its 27 Hebrew (versus only 2 Aramaic)) uses: “the side of”. This is not at all an ambiguous expression. It “locationally” means the/one’s side....And in its only other occurrence in Aramaic Daniel (=Dan 6:4), the translation as “in regards to” is a proper rendering of the meaning there of, more woodenly: ‘in his (distinct) part/side of his government functions/affairs’.
            ....Soooo then....What or Who is at “the side” of the “Most High{sing.}”??!...
            ....Well, as the full Testimony of Scripture can now easily reveal that: it is another One of those subsequently-plurally-referred to: “Highest Ones”, namely another member of the Godhead, who is in Scripture consistently revealed/copiously referred as being “at the Right Hand [=“Side”] of God/Power”, namely God the Son, Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Godhead/Trinity!!!...and pointedly/specifically in the Post-Ascension/New Covenant Era. (See Rev 12:5; Heb 1:3-4|Phil 2:5-11; Rev 3:20; Mark 16:19; Matt 26:64; Luke 22:69; Acts 5:31; 7:55-56; Col 3:1; Heb 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22; Eph 1:20-21; Rom 8:34; Psa 110:1; 5/Matt 22:44|Mark 12:36|Luke 20:42-43|Acts 2:33-35|Heb 1:13 [-discussed here])
            So, (safely) prolepticly deduced here: this Little Horn power, the Roman Catholic Papacy, would be directing its “words” =“blasphemously arrogant claims” directly/pointedly at ‘the (one who is positioned/seated at the) side of the Most High’, namely: at the Person/Position of Jesus Christ.... ...Indeed what else is the Anti-Christ supposed to be doing?!!!!
            ...But there is more unequivocally corroborating supplied evidence:

And arrogant claims ... he will assert - As it was seen earlier from the detailed commenting on Dan 7:8 the ‘words’ =millah [#4406] (Heb. +milleh [#4405]) that this Little Horn utters, from its specification in Dan 7:11 are said to be “great”, but negatively so, as in: ‘grandiose & arrogant’. They are on a technical of being “(mere) claims”. I.e. ‘unproven arrogant claims’, and from its synonymity with the parallel/restating prophecy of Rev 13:5-6, they turn out to be on the same level of “blasphemies”.
            And here, in this furthering statement of Dan 7:25, those ‘technically so’: “(mere) claims”, further substantiate as indeed being “merely unproven claim”, by the use of the cognate ‘speaking’ term/verb, =melal [#4449]/Heb. malal [#4448a], which is, all lexical/exegetical things considered, more accurately understood to technically be “an assertion” I.e. a ‘forceful’, ‘defending’, ‘moving’ (Job 8:2), ‘affirming’ (Job 33:3; Dan 6:21) or ‘professing’ (Psa 106:2) declaration which itself is not that concrete proof of the claim being “asserted”, but indeed a mere “assertion”.
            In legal usage, an “assertion” is what content-wise ‘populates’ a ‘case-initiating “Statement of Declaration”.  It indeed is defined as: “A declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)”. In Pro 6:13, as so-deemed ‘secondary entry” for the Hebrew root/word malal [#4448b] is said to mean “rub, scrape”, but that manifestly was a ‘well-understood ‘signaling’ of “worthless/wicked” = mischievous people (Pro 6:12-14), and evidently a “signal” which did not need to be further substantiated/explained to be understood. So that usage and meaning in Pro 6:13 may be thematically related to a basic meaning of ‘a (relatively/comparatively) empty (in itself), but meaningful/understood, statement/action’. So a “millah” indeed is such a type of pronouncement. And, here in Dan 7:25, this joining of millah (=“claims”) with melal (=“assert”) is quite technically pertinent, as these terms are thematically, even lexically, related to one another.
            A relation to another malal [#4448c] is manifestly likely with its meaning of ‘withering, fading (when cut off from its source of vitality)’ (Job 14:2; 18:16; 24:24; Psa 37:2; 90:6). Indeed, similarly, an “assertion”/“claim” without ensuing concrete substantiation/validation results in a dying/dead matter/case”.
            So, in concluding summary here, what is being exactly said here in the first part of Dan 7:25 about the Little Horn Power is that:
‘he will be asserting arrogant/blasphemous mere claim pointedly towards the Person (and the Position of the One) who is at the Right Hand of God Most High, namely God the Son, Jesus Christ.’

            And as inherently Spiritually involved in “blasphemies”, (e.g. John 10:33; Mark 2:7) they are efforts to slanderous claim for oneself the prerogatives which only belong to the Divine.

            So...did the Papacy do any such thing, indeed pointedly towards such an usurpation of Jesus Christ Himself...Well any Protestant worth his/her (still Protesting) credentials clearly and copiously knows that this is the Historical and Present Hallmark of the Papal Power/Office. Such blasphemous claims are well/copiously documented (particularly by Michael Scheifler on his Bible Light website), indeed from the ‘words’ of Popes, Catholic Priest and the Church itself over the years, as seen in, e.g., the following websites/webpages:

Papal Claims to Authority
Pope Quotes Reveal They Are The Son Of Perdition
Secrets Unsealed: Notes on Daniel 7 [135 pages]
Blasphemous Claims
            Confirmingly/Sealingly enough, the Papacy indeed Chiefly claims to be: “the Vicar of the Son of God”:

-which in their Latin expression is: Vicarius Filii Dei; and which “arithmetically” works of to be the “666” ‘number of the name of the man heading this Beast’ of Rev 13:17-18

666, The Number of the Beast
666: The Number of a Man
The Search to Authenticate and Document "Vicarius Filii Dei"
Another Look At The Number 666
-and whose “mark”, God’s faithful people are to, and indeed will, keep from ascribing to (Rev 14:9-11; 15:2):

Bible Truth about the Beast’s Mark
The “Fuller” Understanding of the Mark of the Beast

            And in addition to these blasphemies, -as if that was not enough, by ‘asserting blasphemously arrogant claims towards the side of the Most High, thus towards Jesus Christ, this AntiChrist Papal Power comes to oppose whatever Christ stands for in that person and position, as indeed seen above. But here are more blasphemies & usurpations:

::Against the Priesthood of Jesus Christ - Hebrews 8:1 states that Jesus is functioning as our only Priest & High Priest at the Right Hand of God (Cf. Heb 4:14-16; 9:11ff). Of course, the Catholic Church with its supposed New Covenant Earthly Priesthood System has come to completely eclipse in/with most Christians, in history and still now, this important ministering of Christ and/through the “ministering spirit” Angels. (=Dan 8:10-11)

::Against the Testimony/Revelation/Prophecies of Jesus Christ - As discussed in detail in this post: Rev 5:1-7ff reveals that there is a pivotal 7-seals book/scroll at the “right side” of the Father. It is, as seen in Rev 6, a prophetic scroll which reveals the true, fore-envisioned/-planned (troublesome) history of the Christian Church, pointedly revealing the “Great Church/AntiChrist Apostasy” (=2 Thess 2:3-4ff). So it is not surprising to see that the right hand man of Satan, the Papacy, also attempts to fiddle with this “Testimony of Jesus”, which is the Spirit of Prophecy (Rev 1:1-2; 12:17; 19:10; cf. Rev 22:8-9) as it exposes and thus condemns him...And that is (see from here & here) exactly what the Catholic Church tried to do in regards to how Bible Prophecy is to be interpreted, pointedly, when/as Protestant started to denounce it from the Bible as being that prophesied AntiChrist Power.
            Contrary to the Catholic apologetic claims made here, identifying the AntiChrist is not limited, nor to be limited, by the AntiChrist heresies which had manifested themselves in the times of the Apostles during the First Century A.D., as stated by the Apostle John in 1 John 2:18-22. The identifying heresies of the AntiChrist are to be denounced in whatever way it seeks to oppose whatever is of God’ (cf. 2 Thess 2:4), pointedly, as seen next and discussed later, in regards to the Law of God (2 Thess 2:3, 7)

::Against the Covenant & Commandments of Jesus Christ - Correspondingly enough, with the Old Covenant symbol in the “Mercy Seat” Ark of the Covenant being a representation of the Throne and Throne Room of God (cf. Exod 25:10-11; Heb 4:14-16), and with the (OT) covenant given through Moses being written down on scrolls and stored at the side of this Ark (Deut 31:24-26), then in the New Covenant, with Jesus being the One who was to be its Covenant Agent, as Moses was for the Old (=Deut 18:15-19), ‘blasphemously asserting arrogant claims towards the side of the Most High, corresponds now to try to usurp the New Covenant’s “Teachings and Commandments” of Jesus Christ (e.g. John 14:15; 15:10).

            So the “targeted” assault of the Little Horn Power towards the side of the Most High indeed has great, multi-faceted, implications, pointedly “Anti-“ =“in the place of” “Christ” ‘intentions’...

The Little Horn’s War Against the “Times & Law” of God/Christ
Daniel 7:25c1 - and he will {naturally} greatly bear in mind in order to cause alterations in times and in law;

and he will {naturally} greatly bear in mind - The Aramaic word here: sebar [#5452] is very telling, as it is, effectively: pun intended, very “loaded”. Its basic meaning is “to carry or bear a burden”. So when applied to a human’s state of mind, it means, as stated by the Gesenius Hebrew Lexicon:  “to bear in mind”. Therefore this comes to speak of a “mental burden”.
            Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicons (e.g. HALOT (vol 5/p.1936) #10914+ its several references) have cited the Hebrew equivalent of this Aramaic word sebar to be s{h}aber&s{h}abar [#7663b&#7663a], though the first letters of these roots are actually (technically) different: i.e s = samech vs. s{h} = s{h}in. Indeed, as suggested/stated here: “It is possible that the original name for the samech was sin, which is the Hebrew word for a thorn, and at some point divided into two letters, the samech and sin and then the sin became associated with the letter shin.”
            Breaking down, first, the Aramaic root sebar [#5452] to arrive at its deeper meaning:

s - the samech letter is derived from the pictograph of: a thorn. It has the basic meaning of: “pierce”, “sharp” and “grab hold”.

b - the beyt letter is derived from the pictograph of: the (floorplan of a) tent. It has the basic meaning of: house, tent, and family as well as in, with, inside or within as the family resides within the house or tent.

r - the resh letter is derived from the pictograph of the head of a man. It has the basic meaning of: "head" and "man" as well as "chief," "top," "beginning" and "first," each of which are the "head" of something.

            So from just these origins and meanings, an understanding for the Aramaic root sebar in Dan 7:25 could be seen to be: ‘to grab hold of in/within the head (=chiefly)’. Even, literalistically: “a thorn in(side) the head” (cf. 2 Cor 12:7-9). 

            Then, as for the equivalent Hebrew root s{h}abe|ar [+7663b&+7663a] on the first letter is different:

s{h} - the s{h}in letter is derived from the pictograph of two front teeth. It has the basic meanings as: “teeth” “sharp” and “press”, and also “two”, “both”, “again”.
            So, as the root s{h}abe|ar, it can be seen to have the meaning of ‘to press in/within the head (=chiefly)’. So, though the first letters are (slightly, but relatedly), different,  s{h}abe|ar indeed has a very similar meaning to the Aramaic sebar.

            Add to that a manifestly cognately related other Hebrew root, namely sabab [#5437]; cf. here, Sabab has, -as per the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Entry: #1456+), the basic meaning of “turn (around, aside, back, towards), go (about, around), encircle, surround, change direction”. It is also said that sabab also characterizes the turning of one’s mind so as to give attention to thorough investigation (Eccl 7:25)”. Indeed the root letters involves a redoubling of the beyt letter which could be seen to serve to produce the final term notion of: ‘to grab hold of within within’, which indeed figuratively depicts one going about/over something repeatedly, thus indeed “thoroughly”, “carefully”.
            Anyway way much more scholarly study/research can be done on this root letter etymology, and really/duly, and much more deeply/detailedly/substantiantingly, for all Hebrew roots, -including what exactly is, if any, the meaning of the manifest relationship between samech, s{h}in and shin),  but I think that a most plausible case can be made that this Aramaic root sebar can, from it Hebrew equivalent s{h}aber, as well as its manifest Hebrew lexical “relatives”/cognates of sabab that, pointedly in Dan 7:25, it is being stipulated that the subject, i.e. the Little Horn Power, will be effectively: ‘regrouping to busy itself with trying to resolve a chiefly/taxing/weighty (thus ‘crushing’ issue/problem/dilemma’. It indeed is “hoping” = “longing” to accomplishing this task, as manifestly it will indeed be most damaging to it if he does not. And that “task” is. basic said at this point: “changing times and law”.
            So, in other words, the Little Horn will have come across a “most pressing” that it will be “bearing in mind” as it will need to have it “changed” if it “hopes” to get past it, and thus survive. So something in those “times” and “law” became an existential threat to it & its ruling power’s: identity, validity and vitality...

            ...And whether it is by its innate nature and/or by sequitur necessity, this ‘burden-bearing in mind’ would be something that this Little Horn Power would “naturally” engage in doing, hence no need of a agent-causitive [S/H/Aphel=Hiphil] nor direct-causitive [Pael=Piel] verbal form here, but merely the non-causitive Peal=Qal.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

NOTE: Alright. This blog post, as well as most of the other posts in this blog, are not either intending nor pretending to be the exhaustively studied out statement on, pointedly, exegetical matters, as that would literally produce a detailed doctoral dissertation for each point, as most of these advanc-ed/-ing studies have not, and are not being done in the scholarly world, =hence the long ago made call to have the WBSC Research Institute .... So, in pointedly those ‘deeper exegetical matters, as involved/seen in the preceding section, this blog post will have to just state its observed points and insights as cursory, but actually surveyed/educated, but not yet “exhaustively” substantiated, theses. People familiar with, pointedly Biblical languages should be able to readily/perceivingly/cognizantly recognize that there is a “there, there”, and that such deeper “dissertational” studies & work should indeed substantiate these theses...
            ...Indeed this entire blog was really underlying intended for, like Martin Luther and his 95 Theses, “springboard” into endeavoring to do this needed furthering work...Which is indeed way beyond the capacity of just one person’s lifework....So if/as this is not being cared to be enjoiningly endeavored...blame it on: ‘bad/careless/indifferent/self-serving shepherding’ (=Ezek 34:1-22ff|EW 36.2), including complacently sheer ignoramus incompetence on the part of these “leaders” (John 3:10)....
            So, as above, while all of what is exegetically expressed and “advanced” in this blog post has first been comprehensively surveyed, assayed and corroborated, the details of the ‘pre-studies’ is not here organizedly & systematically reproduced for all of these quasi-dissertational background processes....or we would literally ‘be here all day’....
            ...Nonetheless...if you can/could prove me wrong....For the Truth of God sake’s...please, (even (genuinely-)try to), do!!!...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

towards {indirectly} cause alterations - This {protracted} translation expression is from just one word unit in the underlying Aramaic text, but it indeed has been (grammatically/syntactically) packed with meaningful linguistic elements. In the Aramaic it (transliteratedly&subdividedly) is : lé|ha|shé|nå|yåh. It is grammatically identified as the Haphel Infinitive Construct form of the word shena [#8133] (=Heb. #8132) which is given the basic (Strong’s) definition of: “to change”.
            All exegetical things considered, the NASB’s rendering/translation/reading of “make alterations” is basically satisfactory for a smooth (English) reading, and also on point meaning understanding, however each of the following 8 “packed in” grammatical/syntactical elements (= “Exegetical Factors”) in this word do add a furthering layer of meaning which help to unequivocally recognize, pinpoint and appreciate in history how this prophetic prediction was fully fulfilled:

Exegetical Factor #1 - Verbal “Stem”:
lé|ha|shé|nå|yåh - As stated above, the verbal form here is in the Aramaic Haphel stem. As seen in here (p. 9), this verbal stem corresponds to the Hebrew Hiphil form. And, succinctly stated, as explained here, this is a causitive form, and pointedly, one by which the action is actually passively/indirectly “caused to happen” by the subject onto an object through a (“third-party”) agent/agency. This is distinct from the Hebrew Piel (=Aramaic Pael) form where the action is actively/directly (=intensively) “made to happen” by the subject itself onto the object (=the subject’s “patient”).
            -Prophetic Stipulation #1 - So from this grammatical element alone, we can prophetically (fore)see that this action of ‘causing alterations’ will involve an “indirect & agencied” notion/implication.

Exegetical Factor #2 - Aramaic Causitive Verbal Form(s):
lé|ha|shé|nå|yåh - While in the Hebrew verbal system, there is only one (strictly) causitive verbal stem, in the Aramaic, there are, as cited in here (p. 9), three variations of this stem. There is the Aphel, the Haphel and the Shaphel, and as highlighted in bold in this citing, it is the prefixing of a letter to the original Aphel form which make/indicate these form sub-distinctions. So did Aramaic writers just do that for no connoted special/distinct meaning at all??...Or were these expressedly written variations intended to indicate specific and distinct notions!! From my examination, the latter possibility is the case, and these distinctions are succinctly summarized as follows:

Aphel - (simple/normal/natural) causation via an agent

Haphel - “outer”=indirect causation   - by (an)other peripheral/“outer/foreign/non-organic” actions. The object is not a “voluntary” participant, in the sense of being, to some involved degree, oppositional/adversarial.

Shaphel - intensively assisted/contributed, even directed, causation by the subject (Dan 6:20, 28), but (unlike Piel) still via an agent. (Dan 6:22)

Exegetical Factor #3 - (Hhet) Preformative:
            Much like it still is in modern languages, one, or a couple of, letters can completely alter the meaning of a word, [e.g. muse (=‘serious pondering’) vs. amuse (=‘frivolous entertainment’)]; it is most manifest that this was likewise being meaningfully done in the Medo-Persian’s “Imperial” Aramaic, -(which, most pertinently, was the basis for Biblical Aramaic), and pointedly here: with their causitive stem:
            As stated above, the Aphel evidently is the Aramaic’s simple/normal causation form. But then, to pointedly/explicitly indicate/emphasize an “outer” causitive agent, the semitic letter “h (pronounced Hhet) was prefixed to the Aphel, thus forming the Haphel. As seen/stated in this webpage about the Hebrew/(semitic) Hhet letter:

“The ancient pictograph [for this letter] is a picture of a tent wall. The meanings of this letter are "outside," as the function of the wall is to protect the occupants from the elements, half, as the wall in the middle of the tent divides the tent into the male and female sections, and secular, as something that is outside.

            So the preformative “H” in the Aramaic, added to the Aphel indicates that the causation action is effectively being done by a subject which is, or is being considered, as an “outsider” = opponent/adversary to the object. Furthermore, the “half” meaning/notion itself can indicate that “outsider’s” share in the performed action, i.e. coming to the ‘service’ of the subject...and the “secular” meaning/notion can stress the “foreignness” of the performer of the action (i.e. not the subject nor object, but an alluded to third party “agent”)
            For the Shaphel form, the “Shin” letter is used as the preformative, and, as it has the meaning of: “press” and “both/two/again”, it indicates an “intensified” (indirect) involvement of the subject in causing the bringing about the endeavored action upon/to the object. -Indeed as in a ‘“doubling” of effort’ by the subject. (Indeed e.g.: God acting to “deliver” (His) people (Dan 6:20, 28) however through the agency of an angel(s) (Dan 6:22)

            -Prophetic Stipulation #2&3 - So the use of the Haphel form here in Dan 7:25 for “cause changes to” indicates that the object of this action, -namely the “times” and “law”, will not be ‘willful/participating/cooperating/non-oppositional, but rather even (inherently) adversarial’, objects. Therefore it can be naturally anticipated that these “times” and this “law” will not be the times or law of, i.e. promulgated by, that Little Horn Power itself, but that of another entity...yet, as the Little Horn is predicted to be so obsessively, indeed “vitally so”, seeking to make changes to it, then these obviously are “times” and “law” that are contrary to it, and also actually have binding authority over it...
            So, for a power which, as already seen, is to rise to be a World Hegemonic “Super-” power (Dan 7:20b), and in both matters of Church and State (Dan 7:7b), then the only “times” and “law” which can so “be bindingly over” this Religio-Imperial Little Horn Power have to be those which have been established (cf. Isa 55:9) and set (cf. Dan 2:21; Acts 1:7) by God Himself.

Exegetical Factor #4 - The Lexical Meaning:
lé|ha|shé|nå|yåh - So, that all said above in the first three :exegetical Factors, what is the exact/core lexical/definitional meaning of the term involved here. As stated earlier, it is the Aramaic word shena [#8133] (=Heb. #8132), and is basically rendered in (English) translation as: to change. But lexically delving deeper in this word, it has a more precise/distinct notion than that. Looking at the various uses of this word in the OT (=21 times in Aramaic; 16X in Hebrew), an interesting notion is consistently seen which indeed leads to the understanding and translation of “alteration” rather than “change”. In these uses, it can be seen that the underlying basis/form of the object to “altered” actually remains the same, and only some “superimposed” form is ‘changed’. For example:

-The face of a person remains, but their facial expression/color/features is what is “altered”/ ‘changed’ (e.g. ‘grows pale’ -Dan 3:19; 5:6, 9, 10; 7:28 || Eccl 8:1; Job 14:20).

-Nebuchadnezzar still has a mind/brain, but it is just ‘altered’ to now think/function like that of a beast. (Dan 4:19)

-“Disguises” of various types are used to alter one’s appearance (1 Sam 21:13; 1 Kgs 14:2)

-As discussed earlier at Dan 7:3 all the 4 beasts here in Dan 7 are ‘underlying’ “beasts”...but they are all ‘“different” in outward form from one another’....

-...but the Fourth Beast is repeatedly said to be ‘“different” from the first three’ (Dan 7:7, 19, 23, 24)

-and there of course is the infamous situation in regards to a law, here of the Medo-Persians, which could not be changed (i.e. altered) once enacted by the king’s signing. (Dan 6:8, 15, 17)...Only an entirely distinct, but competing law could be enacted to counter the prior law. (Cf. Est 8:5, 8ff)

The Theological Wordbook of the OT (p. 942) ‘assumes’ that this root shana/shanah is related to the root for a “dye” (i.e. ‘scarlet’) shani [#8144]. That would further corroborate the understanding that merely an external/cosmetic “alteration” is being made...I.e. the “color” of the fabric and not the material itself.
            The TWOT (p. 941) also asserts that the meaning/word “year” shanah is derived from this root. With the root consonantal letters for this root being: SHin + Nun (+Hey) which have the basic meanings of: SHin - “press/eat” + Nun - “seed/continuance” + Hey - “Beheld/Seen” = the pressed seed is beheld/seen, it, on one hand, is indicating the seeing of a changed state as that ‘broken/killed seed’ (cf. John 12:24) has now (suddenly) sprouted/blossomed into a (visible) crop. Also: ‘the eating of the seen/visible (now transformed) continuance of the seed. It therefore can also be an indication of the time when the seed has indeed sprouted/blossomed as opposed to the earlier time in the year when had been planted. So a start vs and end, and so a representation of a “year” period.
            All this to show that the root shanah focuses on an alteration of the visible/manifested form of something but the constituent form itself remains the same. Only a “disguising” is being effectuated. Even a “year” goes through the varying changes of its seasons, but it still is a similar cycle [i.e. the Earth rotating around the sun] that is being repeated each year.

            It is also pertinent and beneficial to see what shanah itself does not mean: It does not mean:

-an “exchange” = mur [#4171] (e.g. Lev 27:10; Psa 106:20; Jer 2:11; Hos 4:7)

-to ‘repentingly’ change [=complete turnabout] = nacham [#5162] (e.g. Gen 6:6, 7; Exod 32:12, 14; Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:11, 29, 35 versus Mal 3:6)
-to return/restore to an original/other state i.e. cancel entirely = “revoke” = shub [#7725] (e.g. Num 23:20 Est 8:5, 8; Amos 1:3,6,9,11,13; 2:1,4,6)

            -Prophetic Stipulation #4 - So shanah evidently involves merely components/features/parts modifications, rather than a wholesale change, or even ex-change (e.g. one law for another law), or an entire revoking (e.g. a law for no law). This will not be an outright “doing away with”, but a (favoring) redefining. A maintaining of the basic form, while making impactful alterations to elements of it, to the point where it can externally be seen/deemed to be an entirely different thing.
            So we are to expect to see the Little Horn Power act to see “tweaking” modifications in the “times” and “law”- (of, as seen above in PS#3: God)...to the (succeeding) point where God’s original intent and expectation is not being seen.

Exegetical Factor #5 - Meaning of Lamed+Infinitive Construct:
lé|ha|shé|nå|yåh - Another present exegetical factor in this one term is the prefixing of the a preposition, the Lamed, to this verbal form. It would seem easy to just gloss over this prefix, i.e. as having no meaning or translation value, but the fact that a preposition is prefixed to actually ca. 69% of the Infinitive Construct forms for the top (Hebrew) Verbal Stems*, -which, of course, correspondingly means that 31% of the time, no preposition is prefixed, shows that when it is used/present, it is (manifestly) because it has a specific/distinct/pointed meaning.

* I.e.: Infinitive Construct of: Qal = 3153/4532 [70%]; Hiphil = 674/946 [71%]; Piel = 500/724 [69%]; Niphal = 98/205 [48%]

            Succinctly, summarily stated here, my observation and assessing of this feature, pointedly with the Lamed+Hiphil Infinitive Construct shows that it mirrors what is syntactically perceived in the Greek Language. Namely an “Infinitive of Purpose versus an “Infinitive of Result. So, in the Hebrew/Aramaic, the Lamed preposition, which basically has a directional meaning (=“towards”), is used to indicate a ‘pursued/intended function/action’ = a “purpose”, e.g.: “towards causing”. And its absence indicates ‘an arrived at, or inherent, function’ = a “(degree of a) result”, e.g.: “begin to cause”. So the distinction here is between an immediate effectuation vs. objective effectuation.
            -Prophetic Stipulation #5 - So this exegetical factor is pointing to the Little Horn being engaged in the objective/purpose of trying to make these changes in “times” and “law”, and not speaking of having successfully, i.e. truly, effectuated that result.
            Now, will the Little Horn ever actually accomplish this, or, will a (Remnant) group of (Apostolic) Christians who “keep the commandments of God and have the Testimony of Jesus/Spirit of Prophecy” (Rev 12:17; 14:12; 19:10) keep it from attaining such a fully achieved result?...In order words, would this Remnant group keep the Little Horn merely pursuing that desperate/vital intention/objective/purpose?!! [The answer of course, from just those cited verses, is “Yes”. Hence why the Little Horn constantly wages war against this opposition, right to the utter end (Rev 16:12-14, 15-16; 17:9-13, 14-17)].

Exegetical Factor #6 - lamed particle vs. lamed preposition:
|ha|shé|nå|yåh - Another pertinently key exegetical factor here in relation to this single term in Dan 7:25 is that, in addition, or really in “competition” with, -as just presented above in Exegetical Factor #5 above, the way the Hebrew/Aramaic indicates “purpose” with its Hiphil Infinitive, (-and actually as well as other (i.e. Qal, Piel, etc) verbal forms of the Infinitives), which is by prefixing a Lamed preposition to the verbal Stem), such “purpose” is even more pronouncedly/explicitly indicated in the Hebrew by rather prefixing that Lamed to a preceding, specific Hebrew term to form a special distinct particle which pointedly indicates/means: “purpose”, “intent”.
            That particle is (with the prefixed Lamed highlighted): le+maan [#4616; =ca. 272 occurrences in 255 Verses]. The (unprefixed) “maan” portion of this term itself is actually from the word anah [#6030a] (cf. maaneh [#4617]) and basically means: “to answer, respond/reply”. So prefixing the directional lamed preposition to it gives it the reading of: “towards an answer”.
In the NASB, the term lemaan has been rendered as: e.g. “so; that; so that; in order to/that; because; for the sake; for the purpose; etc”.*

* BTW/FYI, the NASB explicitly translates only ca. 155 of the 272 Hebrew Bible/Text occurrences of lemaan.

            Delving deeper, i.e. beyond the translation surface, of the occurrences of that prefixed term lemaan (=‘towards+a/the response/answer’) for its pointed thematic meaning, it is manifest that the usages of this special particle is used to explicitly make reference to the (due) answering/responding to an explicitly stated or implicitly involved, overarching issue in the passage. In other words, this, basically “in order that/for the purpose of” term is pointedly used to preface the stating of a deemed ‘resolving’ statement/action, -one which “answers/responds to” an (explicitly or not cited) outstanding and pivotal issue in the context.
            Now, what is indeed exegetically quite significant here are the several (13X) verses/instances* when, rather than merely prefixing the lamed preposition to an Infinitive Construct, as is done in Dan 7:25, the lamed+anah (=lemaan) particle is used instead, followed by an Infinitive Construct, of course here, without a prefixed lamed AND there also is/are other instances of Infinitive Construct term(s) in that same verse...In other words: Why use the lemaan particle for one Infinitive Construct and not for those other instance(s) of Infinitive Construct in that verse....(and vice versa).

* Namely: Gen 37:22; Gen 50:20; Lev 20:3; Deut 6:23; 8:2, 16; 17:16; Jdg 2:22; 3:2; Isa 30:1; Jer 11:5; 32:35; 43:3; 44:8.

            That answer reveals the pointed meaning of the usage of merely an lamed+(Hiphil) Infinitive Construct in Dan 7:25 instead of the particle lemaan followed by, as a distinct word, a (Hiphil) Infinitive Construct, particularly when these two distinct forms have, at least, the very same subject. So let’s take a close detail look at some of these instances:

Genesis 37:22 - Reuben strategized ‘towards causing to deliver’ Joseph out of the hands of his other brothers ‘in order to cause him to be restored’ him to his father Jacob. The greater “purpose” of Reuben was not merely to deliver Joseph, but to restore him to Jacob. So really it can be argued that Reuben was merely doing this “for the sake of” Jacob, which, as stated above, is an underlying meaning of the particle lemaan.
Leviticus 20:3 - The Piel stem occurs in the two verbs here rather than the Hiphil, but the “greater purpose notion is still present: From the viewpoint of the offending people here, their sacrificing to Molech here [~abortion, btw], caused the more visible ‘purpose (=consequence) of defiling God’s sanctuary’ although it also was acting ‘towards profaning God’s name’.
            Now while it can be validly argued/claimed that the ‘profaning of God’s name’ is a greater, -even “overarching”, offense than merely defiling a man-built temple, where God doesn’t actually need to be dwelling in, -(even if it was remotely (fully) feasible (=Acts 7:48-50; 2 Sam 7:5-7; Matt 12:6; John 2:19-21)); but the express/pointed purpose of these abominably sinning people, i.e. what they “visibly” were aware that they would be doing, was, at the very least, in their blinding apostasy, was to alter (cf. Acts 7:43) the worship of God with these offerings to Molech. So by being such a clearly evident result, that was the “greater purpose/result” of these actions, but the profaning of God’s name was still, inherently, involved in all of this.

Deuteronomy 8:2; (cf. Deut 8:16) - {(2) Piel+(1) Qal stems} Here, God’s greater purpose was ‘in order to make Israel be humble’ and God had done this by leading them in various (arduous) ways in the wilderness thus ‘towards making them be tested/tried’, which itself was ‘towards {naturally} knowing’ what was (really) in their heart.
            In other words, when Israel realized the actual obstinacy towards God of their heart, as God perceived to stiffneckedly be in them, then that should serve to humble them to see that they were not as worthy of God’s approval as they blindly thought themselves to be.

Isaiah 30:1 - {(3) Qal stems} These acts of the rebellious children of Israel ‘towards: doing (non-God) plans’ and ‘weaving (non-Spirit-ual) allianceswere all ‘in order to add’ sin onto sin’.

Jeremiah 32:35 - As above in Isaiah 30:1, the acts ‘toward causing their daughters to pass’ through the fire lead to the ‘greater, general purpose/theme of causing Judah to sin’.

Jeremiah 43:3 - the ‘giving into the hands of the Chaldeans’ was the greater/overarching act which could then either involve the killing or exiling of these captives.

Jeremiah 44:8 - {various stems} Also here, two “lesser/preliminary” acts which are done are stated with a prefixed lamed and the infinitive construct, namely: “provoking [=Hiphil]” and “burning [=Piel]”.* But the (dual) greater purpose that these preliminary acts of Israel were: ‘in order to “being cut off” from the land’ and in order to “becoming” towards a curse and towards a reproach amongst the nations of the Earth’.

* [“(entering) to reside” is also a lamed+[Qal]infinitive construct but it is not thematically related to the main “sinning” theme here.]
Ezekiel 22:27 - {Qal/Piel stems} - ‘{Qal}shedding blood’ & ‘{Piel}destroying lives’ contribute to the “greater purpose” of these evil princes of “cutting off (for themselves) dishonest gain”

            -Prophetic Stipulation #6 - So what this all reveals in regards to the use of merely a lamed+(Hiphil) Infinitive Construct in Dan 7:25 is that the acts towards causing alterations to times and law’ were, though self-evidently quite significant, were not being expressed as the “greater/general purpose” of the Little Horn Power. If this was so, the lamed particle + Infinitive Construct expression would have been used. And that would perfectly/duly indicate that sensed ‘overarching reason’ why this Little Horn was, -as discussed at the start of the commentary of this verse: ‘(crucially) “bearing in mind” to cause these changes in times and law’.
            So these changes in themselves were not the ‘greater motivation/purpose’ of the Little Horn’s actions here, but merely contributive actions “in order to” accomplish that greater purpose.
            What was/is that greater purpose? Well the answer can be deduced from what it was “vitally” seeking to change, namely: the “times” and “law”... See Isa 14:12-14; Rev 13:1-2.

Exegetical Factor #7 - “times”: zeman vs. iddan (and moed):
(make alterations) in times - The Aramaic word which is translated as “times” here is: zeman [#2166//#2165]. And, (actually contrary to the LXX translation here, -which inherently is merely an interpretation of the Aramaic/Hebrew (cf. e.g. Eccl 3:1)), it corresponds to the Greek term chronos [#5550] as these are both references to: an appointed/set period of time”. This is opposed to the other Aramaic/Hebrew & Greek word for ‘time’, which is iddan//iddah [#5732//#5713c] = Gr. kairos [#2540] as these terms distinctly refer to: an appointed/set “point(s) in time”.* [So contrary to the, as patent/common with SDAs: exegetically shallow&glib claim made by Stephen Bohr within his (intended) ‘NAD-wide advocation study’ [audio], those two terms are not actually ‘one and the same’.] The distinct meanings in the joint uses of these terms in Dan 7:12 (cf. Dan 2:21) will be discussed later.

* An addition case in point about the mistranslation of the LXX here, later in that verse “iddan” is used for the “time, times and half a time” set period of time but is then also, and now rightly, translated into Greek by using the word “kairos”.

            The lexical summary here is that zeman and iddan indeed both refer to appointed/set times....However zeman speaks of a, typically undefined, period of time while iddan/iddah refers to defined points in time. And add to that the term “moed” [#4150] (derived from yaad [#3259] =appoint/summon) in the Hebrew. Succinctly said, this reference to “time” more specifically refers to an ‘appointment/meeting/assembly” time. It virtually indicates the specified “hour” when something is to take place.
            To distinguish those three “time” terms through an example: In planning for a meeting with someone else in the future: zeman would be used to say: “sometime next summer”; iddan would be used to say: “on July 14”; and moed would be used to specify the meeting time/hour, e.g. “at 3 PM”.
            In Dan 12:7, as the angel is referring back to the already set time for permitted persecutions of stipulated in Dan 7:25, it is thus effectively a specific referential “hour in time”, so the term moed is used there. The “time, times and half a time” is indeed being used as a specific reference point in Dan 12:7.

            -Prophetic Stipulation #7 - So the Little Horn would be seeking to make alterations in an appointed/set “period of time” =zeman, or in other words, an epoch/era, but it manifestly would not be doing this by pointedly making alterations to “set points in time” =iddan , therefore, not by directly changing the “iddan” “points in time” stated here as: “times. times and half a time”...So it manifestly would be going about effectuating its “alterations” by attacking the more wider “period of time”. Manifestly the “AntiChrist” evidence against it was much more broad and involved than just that (“1260”) “set point in time” period. I.e. even if it managed to make alterations in that 1260 time period, e.g. claiming that ‘it was/is not 1260 years, but merely 1260 days’, there would be, as already seen above, many more damning evidence that could/would be held against it in the Protestant denunciation of it as the AntiChrist.
            So the Little Horn would be “bearing in mind” to (vitally) make much wider alterations, i.e. to the wider epoch/era for the manifestation of the Anti-Christ. And given that the “set point in time” period does cover a quite broad 1260 year period, those “epoch/era alterations” would literally have to involve multiple millennia’s e.g. at least 2000 years....

Exegetical Factor #8 - Legal Reference of dath:
(make alterations) in law - The word translated as “law” is the Aramaic/Hebrew word: dath [#1881//#1882]. As it occurs only in passages which refer to the Medo-Persian Empire (i.e. only in the books of Ezra; Daniel (ch. 6ff) & Esther or in the Aramaic portions of Daniel (i.e. Dan 2:9, 13, 15), which was the official&imperial language of the Medo-Persian Empire), it evidently is a term that is specific to the Medo-Persians.
            From its several uses in juxtaposition with the term for “a formal/official word/matter” = command/commandment, namely dabar [#1696/#1697] (e.g. Esth 1:19; 2:8; 3:15; 4:3; 8:14, 17; 9:1), it is manifest that, pointedly in the Persian mindset, a king’s spoken pronouncement would need to be heightened, by writing it down and publishing it, in order to become a law...and manifestly because, as a Medo-Persian law, it then could not be changed (see e.g. Dan 6:8, 12, 15; Esth 1:19). So that distinct, heightening “inditing” step would have to first be deliberately made.
            Also the expression in Esth 2:8; 4:3: “the king’s command [dabar] and his law [dath]...” can easily be exegetically rendered as: “the king’s command [dabar], that is his law [dath],...”.
            From Ezra 7:12,14,21,25,26; Dan 6:5, it is seen that dath was also used to refer to “the law of God”, which evidently is the entire corpus of the OT Laws. Also, theologically famously, the “Ten Commandments” of God (Exod 20:1-17) are literally the “Ten Words” [=dabar] (Exod 34:28; Deu 4:13; 10:4; cf. Exod 20:1). And as these “formal/official words” spoken on Mount Sinai were also “written” down (see Deu 4:13; 10:4), on tablets of stone, well that would ensure that this technical Aramaic/Medo-Persian term dath would also apply to them.

            -Prophetic Stipulation #8 - So this term dath pointedly speak of “law”, particularly laws which have been written down to make them bindingly official. It also is applied to the corpus of the laws given to Israel by God, which also chiefly includes the Ten Commandments of God, which themselves were “bindingly and enduringly” written down on stone tablets.
            Also, the, -above noted (in Prophetic Stipulation #2&3) “higher entity law” that this Little Horn Power would be seeking to make alterations to, would be from the corpus of the Law of God...and as, by then, from 538 A.D. on, the ceremonial/ordinance aspects of the Law (=of Moses) had been done away with in the New Covenant Era (Eph 2:15), but not other laws (e.g Health Laws) (cf. Heb 8:7-13), especially the Ten Commandments (e.g. Rom 3:31; 7:7), then the Law which this Little Horn will be contending with, will clearly chiefly be: God’s Ten Commandment Law.

Succinct Recapping + Historical Application/Fulfillment:
            So keeping in mind that the object of these “alterations” by the Little Horn Power of: “times” and “laws” are respectively:

#7 the greater prophesied period of time for the presence of the Anti-Christ power, which is beyond the 1260 years of ‘set point of time’;

#8 the still binding Law of God as encapsulated in the Ten Commandments;

then it can be seen in history exactly just how did this Papal Little Horn Power set out to make “alterations” to these key elements which were ‘exposingly, vitally standing/speaking against it’, and pointedly if/how they harmonize with the specific exegetical grammatical & syntactical factors stipulated almost 1000+ years before in this Daniel 7 prophecy.

Application #1
-Exegetical Factor #1 - Verbal “Stem” - An Aramaic Causitive Stem (=Hebrew Hiphil).

-Prophetic Stipulation #1 - An “indirect & agencied” alteration action of the Little Horn.

-Historical Fulfillment #1 - As this is to be an indirect and agencied alteration action, then we are not to expect to see the :Little Horn Power, i.e. the Papacy, itself “directly” making those action, but rather, indirectly, i.e. through an agency. This “indirect” exegetical stipulation can be fulfilled by the fact that, when it, firstly, came to God’s Ten Commandment Law, the changes to at least 3 of these Commandments, -(namely the Second: Idol Worship; the Fourth: The 7th Day Sabbath and the Tenth: Coveting) were really “indirectly” accomplished by the Papacy.
            In the sense that whether it was the “venerating” worship of images or the keeping of Sunday instead of Saturday as the Sabbath, the Papacy/Catholic Church did not first start off by getting together and making changes to the Ten Commandments in order to allow for this. They instead found themselves in a then long “tradition” of doing these Unscriptural things, and when, and only when, people (e.g. Biblical Christians, and then later, additionally Muslims), as seen in the iconoclast controversy in regards to image veneration/worship, started to remonstrate them to the UnBiblicalness of their practices as opposed to what the Bible/Ten Commandments actually says, did they then make changes to the(ir) text of the Ten Commandments (as seen in their Catechism [PDF]): E.g. removing the Second Commandment entirely.
            Why else would you remove this commandment against image making and worship unless that is what you know you are actually doing. Catholics nowadays also like to counter claim that ‘God himself commanded and ordained the making of (representative) images for His OT Sanctuary’...Well when God Himself tells you to make images of Mary, the Apostles and other :saints, and venerate/worship them...let me know...But of course the Catholic Church’s Papacy believe that they effectively are God on Earth....

            So the “vital” alteration here was actually indirectly made, in that, it had been tacitly made long before any formal changes and Church rulings had been passed by the Catholic Church stipulating these changes.

Application #2&#3
-Exegetical Factor #2 - Aramaic Causitive Verbal Form(s) - A Haphel form, and not an Aphel nor a Shaphel.
-Exegetical Factor #3 - (Hhet) Preformative - “H” Letter forming Haphel used to explicitly allude to an “outer” “contribution-sharing” and/or “foreign” agent performing that causitive action on the “times and law”.

-Prophetic Stipulation #2 - An “outer”-borne, =indirect, causation by (an)other peripheral/“outer/foreign/non-organic” party and/or actions. The object is non-“voluntary”, thus unwilling, up to even oppositional/adversarial.
-Prophetic Stipulation #3 - These “times and law” are God’s own stipulations, and are (inherently therefore) authoritatively over and bindingly against, and “vitally so”, the Little Horn Power, -which is why it is seeking to ‘cause changes to them’.

-Historical Fulfillment #2&3 - In the Bible we find two key legal and prophetic (=Law & Prophets) bulwarks which Satan has to work to diffuse or entirely overthrow in order to have any kind of success in his Great Controversy rebellion against the Authority of God and Rule of Christ in/on the Redeemed World. The two bulwarks are: God’s Eternal Ten Commandment Law and God’s provided Apocalyptic Prophetic Road Map in Daniel and Revelation which all relate, focus and/or culminate in the work of Satan’s Anti-Christ Power. So to be successful, this, as prophesied, realized AntiChrist power will have to do away with these two major points of reference which clearly expose it to be the Enemy of God and Righteousness Power.
            This AntiChrist Power, Babylon, which in history was manifested in the religio-political  Roman Catholic Church (=Rev 13:1-10); -and in eschatological times is being socio-economically expanded in its “coverage” by the United States of America (=Rev 13:11-18) with these two working together to for the finalized: religio-political-socio-economical Babylon Entity/Form (=Rev 17); has indeed made moves to try to defeat these two [Law & Prophets] “witnesses” which were exposing it.
            As already cited above, and further seen next, the Catholic Church came to have major issues of veracity/legitimacy when it came to God’s Law in regards to the Seventh Day Sabbath (the Fourth Commandment) and the Commandment against image/idol-making and worship (the Second)...(Indeed, as seen at the start of this (Catholic event picketing) video [00:00-01:20ff], any Protestant still worth their “salt” (Matt 5:13) knows of at least this latter action to change God’s Law...and the change to the Sabbath has always been resisted by various groups of Christians who remained faithful to God)
            Then later in Church History, another flashpoint of crisis occurred with the denunciations by Protestants that the Catholic Church was Babylon and the Anti-Christ Power...Notably this really fomented around the mid-to-late 1500's, -indeed triggering the major Counter Reformation Council of Trent and Jesuit Order by/from Catholics; so even before this identifying of the AntiChrist was literally sealed by the fulfillment of related timed prophecies ca. 200 years later in 1798. (I.e. the 1260 days=years = 42 (prophetic) months = 3.5 (prophetic) times).
            The AntiChrist Power did indeed seek to alter these two main/comprehensive, ‘Legal & Prophetic’, “witnesses” standing/speaking against it. So various types of changes were made to the Ten Commandments to attempt to address the Law of God breaking charges it faced due to its usage of images for veneration...The Second Commandment was entirely removed, and try to camouflage this change, the Tenth Commandment was split into two, purportedly distinct, Commandments.
            The change to the Fourth Commandment, from Saturday Sabbath to Sunday, was/is done without any such formal textual editing/amendment to the Letter of the Law in the Fourth Commandment. It is instead being claimed, taught and practiced that “Sabbath” there refers to Sunday, the First Day of the Week....and most of the Christian World go by that Biblically false view.
            In regards to “Times”, as stated earlier, long before the concrete/objective prophetic “time” proof came in, in 1798, that the AntiChrist Power had indeed, i.e. as prophesied, held world hegemonic power for 1260 years, changes were made during the Counter Reformation Era to change the entire expected wider/greater “times”, i.e. era/epoch, when an AntiChrist Power would come upon the scene. This is pertinently discussed later at Prophetic Stipulation #7.

Application #4
-Exegetical Factor #4 - The Lexical Meaning - The Aramaic/Hebrew shanah pointedly speaks to making superimposing/cosmetic alterations, such as in putting on a disguise, rather than making intrinsic changes. So the outer/external form itself is altered, and so ‘fools’ those looking upon it, while the underlying constitution is actually basically the same.

-Prophetic Stipulation #4 - These “alterations” by the Little Horn Power to ‘God’s “times and law”’ would not actually be making changes to the constitution of these Divine establishments and enactments. So the Little Horn would actually only be making surface, “disguising”, alterations, which would be only fooling those who would be shallowly considering these issues.

-Historical Fulfillment #4 - This “Cosmetic” nature of these changes that the Little Horn made to the Law and Times of God has been alluded to above in Historical Fulfillment #2&3 and further demonstrations of this surface/shallow changes will later be seen in later expounding of applicable Fulfillments. To put it briefly, the Little Horn engaged in changes which sought to redefine/readjust the Time and Law of God, -so that it would cease to exposingly speak against it, but it did not seek to actually, in general, do away with those two entities entirely. So merely “disguising/covering up changes” and not overtly destroying/annulling changes to these stipulated (Prophetic) Times and (Moral) Law of God. So it could then claim that it was still following the Ten Commandments and still upholding Bible Prophecy, but both of these entities had been keyly “disguised” by them so as to not look like, therefore, not mean what God is intending them to mean.
            It is however most telling that to try to get away with the practices which were condemned by others as violating the Second Commandment, the Catholic Church felt it imperative to remove that Commandment entirely...But as the Bible clearly states, the violation of one of the Ten Commandment results in the violation of all Ten of them (James 2:8-12)...So the Catholic Church is thus guilty of indeed violating the entire Law of God.

Application #5
-Exegetical Factor #5 - Meaning of Lamed+Infinitive Construct - When the Lamed preposition is prefixed to the Infinitive Construct form, it syntactically indicates an “Infinitive of Purpose”, and not an “Infinitive of Result”.

-Prophetic Stipulation #5 - So this action is merely speaking of what the Little Horn would be moving towards doing, and in hope of effectuating this result, i.e. successfully, =truly making alterations to God’s times and law. It however is not being predicted to ever having attained that achieved ends =“result”, which includes deceiving all people to believe its “disguising” of God’s times and law.

-Historical Fulfillment #5 - Indeed, while these changes by “Babylon”, pointedly in regards to the Sabbath and to Prophetic Interpretation, have spread throughout Christendom, indeed even (Modern) Protestantism, where virtually only less than one percent of Christians out there still keep the Biblical Seventh Day Sabbath and probably around that same percentage have the, -as discussed later at Prophetic Stipulation #7, Biblical “Historicism” framework/basis from which to properly interpret & understand Bible Prophecy, there indeed is still a faithful Remnant (=Rev 12:17; 14:12; 19:10) which is not being duped by these popular “Babylonian” heresies...Thus the intended changes of the Catholic Church have not produced its expected completely duping results to the point where that enduring, oppositional, faithful remnant of God is what will spell the end/doom of this Babylonian power.

Application #6
-Exegetical Factor #6 - lamed particle vs. prefixed lamed preposition - When the particle form of the lamed preposition is used before an Infinitive Construct form, rather than the lamed preposition being prefixed to the form, it explicitly indicates that “higher/highest”
purpose of passage, and with any other thematically related lamed-prefixed infinitive construct forms being contributive actions towards that higher/grander/chief purpose.

-Prophetic Stipulation #6 - While this endeavor to change God’s times and law seems “grand” in itself, it actually is not the “higher” reason why the Little Horn Power is “(vitally) bearing in mind” to seek to cause these changes. There is a greater reason why it is doing these two actions, and these two changes attempts are merely contributive endeavors towards accomplishing that greater purpose.

-Historical Fulfillment #6 - The greater purpose of the Catholic Church in making changes-after-the-condeming-fact to the Ten Commandments and Prophetic Interpretation was for attempting to survive and keep its legitimacy, let alone power. It can be seen that the issue of the Sabbath and Image Veneration/Worship was a major point of separation with many Christians then. Many Christians who then separated from the Catholic Church in these times were known to have either continued to, or returned to, keeping the Seventh Day Sabbath and/or not engaging in image veneration/worship...
            Later on in history, around the 1500's, it pointedly was the Biblical Historicism method of interpreting Bible Prophecies which led virtually almost half of Christendom then to (correctly) denounce and reject the Catholic Church as the prophesied “Babylon”/(First) Beast and its Papacy as the AntiChrist/Man of Sin. So the greater purpose of the Catholic Church in making changes to the “times” here, was for the greater purpose of trying to end this damning, indeed existential, Biblical prophetic condemnation of it.
            So in either of these cases, it was not changes merely for change sake, but for a greater purpose of preserving itself. Indeed if the intention was merely to make changes in Law and Interpretation, the Catholic would have made these changes long before any such vital/existential crisis occurred where they were then forced to try to (futilely) do something to end it.
            In fact, the change to the Sabbath itself is heralded by Catholic as their ‘greatest and boldest change’ and the ‘Mark” of their Ecclesiastical Authority’ (cf. in here and here) to make changes to the Bible as they see fit’, and also it is/was, as shown here, pivotally used to justify their stance on the equal weight the give to Church Tradition on par with the Bible.
            So all of these changes are indeed involved by them in vitally trying to validate the Little Horn Power, i.e. the Catholic Church and its Papacy. It can be easily deemed that there literally would not be a Catholic Church today if these changes had not been made.

Application #7
-Exegetical Factor #7 - “times”: zeman vs. iddan (and moed) - The “times” spoken of here are an “appointed/set period of time” (=zeman) and not an “appointed/set” point in time. (=iddan).

-Prophetic Stipulation #7 - So it is not even the “iddan(s)”: “time, times and half a time” (42 months/1260 days = 1260 (literal) years) later mentioned in Dan 7:25 which is the pointed object of the Little Horn “alterations” endeavor, but an actually wider/grander “time”, i.e. an epoch/era which is greater than those 1260 years.

-Historical Fulfillment #7 - As detailedly related on this webpage, and see my own summary exposition in this university paper (more info here), products of Jesuit interpretation came to claim that either the “time” for the Anti-Christ Power had already been fulfilled by the end of the First Century A.D. (=Preterism), or it would be fulfilled some time, still in the/our future (=Futurism). So through this, the entire +2000-year period/epoch/era of Church History (=Historicism) is entirely bypassed...and so, those inner time prophecies of 1260 days/42 months/3.5 times =1260 years is claimed to not have any application in Church History. So they cannot be used, as founding Protestants did, to pinpointingly and timely denounce the Catholic Church and the Papacy as Babylon and the AntiChrist.
            So it is the change as to the period of time, epoch era when prophesies, including their time elements, would apply that the Little Horn saw it as existentially vital to try to make (disguising) changes to. Indeed it did not claim that these prophetic times and period had no fulfillment, nor did it claim that these times really were e.g. actually 200 days or years or 3000 days or years. It just misdirected people to any other time than the present unfolding History of the New Covenant Church = Spiritual Israel.
            And a key part of this “seamless change”, is to deny the application of the Biblical Day-Year Principle of Bible Prophecy. So for/in Catholic, Preterist or Futurist interpretation. Those time period of (prophetic) days do not translate into (literal) years, but are supposed to be literal days.

Application #8
-Exegetical Factor #8 - Legal Reference of dath - The formal and binding laws of a ruler, (=additionally written down/out for mortal rulers/kings). It also applies to the Law(s) of God, chiefly, His Ten Commandments.

-Prophetic Stipulation #8 - This “Law(s) of God” is the “higher & binding” Law that the Little Horn is so “vitally” concerned with, an in the applicable New Covenant Era context, any Law of God which is still binding on Christian Believers, and opposes the agenda of the Little Horn , is what is subject to be “altered” by this AntiChrist Power. 

-Historical Fulfillment #8 - As already discussed in the Fulfillments above, the Little Horn indeed sought to contour any of God’s Ten Commandments which exposed the practices (of Image Worship and Sunday Sacredness) as being (Capitally) UnBiblical.

The Nature, Extent and Duration of the Little Horn’s Power
Daniel 7:25d - and they will cause themselves to (repeatedly/continually/persistingly) {seem to} be (duly) given over (from God) into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.

            So most translators have opted for the view of rendering the pivotal verb here “to give” in a passive form/voice/sense, = “and they will be given into his hand”, despite it being in the grammatically distinct reflexive-middle-reciprocal form called, in Aramaic Grammar, the Hithpeel... (which generally corresponds to the Hebrew Hithpael form). I myself have actually never, -upon originally dissertational examination,  found such claims of a ‘loss in distinct meaning/usage over time” claims for (Biblical) Languages (i.e. Hebrew and Greek) to actually check out..What rather turns out to be the case is that the original author did have a distinct meaning in mind when using a specific grammatical form and it is just the later grammarians and translators who have “missed” that intended specific/distinct meaning. So here, I am going to treat this verb here as its original “reflexive-middle-reciprocal” is and see how that works out when applied, i.e. given that this is a prophecy, in fulfilled history and also controlling theology.
            For starters the Aramaic language was much more of a precise language than the Hebrew Language, probably merely directly due to the fact that Aramaic (derivatedly) originated after Hebrew, and it is most natural for later/subsequent languages to “improve” upon prior ones. (And Aramaic did eventually, -mainly due to conquesting influence, overtake Hebrew as the common language of the Jewish people.[18]18) Well, as already seen earlier with the Causitive form, which in the Hebrew principally has one form the Hiphil, but in the Aramaic it has 3 (the Aphel, Haphel, Shaphel), this reflexive form likewise has three distinct forms in the Aramaic, in fact just for its Causitive form itself, and thus, respectively, are: the Ithpeel, Hithpeel and Hishtaphal (cf. A.F. Johns A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic p.38 (51))

            So the following is the explanation of the WBSC’s translation of this part of Dan 7:25 which bring out all of the incorporated grammatical/syntactical features of the underlying Aramaic Hithpeel form:

and they will cause - The “they” of course is referring to the “saints of the Most High”.  As the Hithpeel is the direct correspondent to the causitive Haphel [=Hebrew Hiphil] form, then the notion of ‘causation’ is indeed present in the type of action being described. So this is not a more direct “patiency” action, as indicated by the Aramaic Pael [Heb. Piel] form (and which corresponds in a reflexive form to the Aramaic Hithpaal form), but a more indirect notion of “agency”. So this is not the saints (directly) “making” something happen, but indirectly “causing” something to happen to them...and, Spiritually speaking, as this is an adversarial thing, then it must be because they had ‘lived godly/righteously in Christ Jesus’. (2 Tim 3:12)

themselves - This is notion of the subjects performing an action in some way in regards to themselves is indicated by the reflexive form of the Hithpeel. So this is the saints, actually oddly enough “(indirectly) causing themselves” to be persecuted....Again, as stated about, this is form them having chosen to live fully devoted to being Godly and righteous, and that naturally enrages the unrighteous, i.e. the apostates in the Christian Church then, -headed/under the “Little Horn” Papal Power, against them. The saints could have just stopped doing God’s will and caved to the demands and will of the Papacy, and so they would not have been persecuted...but indeed throughout the period of the hegemonic rule of this Papal Little Horn, they kept encountering groups of Christians who refused to abandon the “faith once delivered to the saints” (=Rev 12:13-17).

to (repeatedly/continually/persistingly) - As seen in IBHS p. 427-428 from the Hebrew cognate verbal form the Hithpael, a syntactical iterative and/or durative aspect can be indicated by the Hithpeel form. That syntactical aspect will be determined by the contextual understanding of the verb. Well clearly, if it will be quite well known that anyone who opposes the Papal Power will be violently and fatally persecuted...and yet this persecution of righteous Christian continued throughout the prophesied period of 1260 years...So there indeed was an iterative aspect here by the saints Godly/righteous actions “repeatedly” causing this persecutive backlash to occur, and as this was “continued/persisted” by them throughout the 1260 years, it was indeed durative. These saints, like that Apostolic models, just wouldn’t stop being faithful to Christ and His Gospel Commission...not matter what the cost from evil men. (Acts 5:25-33)
            The “reciprocal” aspect of the Hithpeel is indeed also involved here as the saints were effectively (continually) causing this to happen to them...
            Not that this is not expressed in a passive verbal form (e.g the Hothpael), though the translational sense is best expressed in English as a passive. This was indeed an active doing by the saints themselves were, through their unrelenting faithfulness, actuating this persecutive reaction from the Little Horn Power against them.

{seem to} be - The Theological context that ‘no power in the heavens nor on Earth can have any “authority” (Rev 13:5, 7) nor power over the saints of God unless God so, purposefully, allows/ordains it.’ So here the “estimative-declarative” nuance of the Hithpeel can be implicitly seen where it “appears”, i.e. seems like, it is God who is being the persecutor and adversary of these saints, and is just indifferently “giving them over” to their Papal enemies. So it “appeared” that these saints were merely just being “given over to slaughter” (Cf. This emblematic Waldensian Outcry {see this docuvid} =Rev 6:9-10; cf. Psa 94:1-2; (see the Papacy’s recent apology to Waldenses...which they (rightly) rejected).
(duly) given over - Comparing the term translated as “give” here Aramaic yehab [#3052] (= Hebrew yahab [#3051]) with the term for a “gift” Heb. nathan [#5414] Ara. nethan [#5415], it would seems that whereas the term nathan/nethan speaks of an open/generous/gracious giving, i.e. not from any obligation, the term yahab/yehab speaks of giving someone his/her dues (e.g. “wages” Zech 11:12; ‘payment’ Gen 47:16; Ezr 6:8;  ‘a promised wife’ Gen 29:1; “offspring” Gen 30:1; “glory to God” 1 Chr 16:28, 29; ‘a conquered dominion’ Dan 7:6, 14, 27.
            So it was here “appearing” that God was “duly” giving over His own faithful saints to suffer the decreed judgement and penalty for not obeying the apostate temporal ruling powers...But this was all purposeful, and what was “dutiful” in all of this was that God was filling up the cup of damning iniquity of the AntiChrist Power...because with God not supernaturally interposing Himself to deliver His saints from persecution, this Apostate Power objectively fully demonstrated to the onlooking Universe that in any world where the righteous and unrighteous are allowed to coexist, the unrighteous will always, and most violently and murderously so, seek to wipe out those righteous people who naturally remonstrate their unrighteous and evil ways.
            Do keep in mind here that unlike us today, and even unlike Christians who would appear in the later days of the Reformation Era, early persecuted Christian had no awareness of this God-permitted set prophetic time of persecution...So to them, it would seem that this was a never ending losing battle...yet, as counseled, they, like their pre 1260-years persecuted ancestors (=Rev 2:10), “remained faithful unto death”.

(from God) - As already shown in the prior explanations about, this “given over” all seems to be coming from God’s own permissiveness here...and in a sense, it was...but not towards the utter and pointless destruction of his faithful...(but really to their Triumphant benefit =Luke 21:16-19; Heb 11:35-39; -see the special “Martyr’s Reward”). But this pointed emphasis is explicitly made here particularly to represent the “H” preformative involved in the causitive Haphel form (discussed earlier at Exegetical Factor #3) from which the Hithpeel is the direct reflexive correspondent in the Aramaic.
            God is indeed that “outsider” agent who is effectuating this “giving over” action as, without Him having chosen to not be defensively involved towards His faithful people, the Little Horn Power could not have exercised this persecutive or deadly authority and power. And all “appearance” did make it quite rational to think, through the eyes of the flesh rather than faith, that God was to be considered as the “opponent/adversary” of His own saints...But in reality, He was not...He just needed to make it seem like that so as to truly flesh/smoke out the unrighteous tares amongst His Christian World field....and concurrently also to remove the tares (i.e. insincere seemingly righteous followers) from that group of saints(cf. Dan 11:33, 35; 1 Pet 1:6-7; James 1:2-4).
into his hand - That is, of course, the saints being given over (seemingly by God) into the hand (=authority/power) of the Papal Little Horn.

for a time, times, and half a time - Again, as a general contextualizing, given what has been learned earlier about this period...This time period is not the greater/wider Church History Epoch/Era that the Little Horn will be seeking to alter, but rather a period of time within that larger Epoch/Era when the Little Horn is allowed to, effectively objectively show to the entire onlooking world what it, controlled by Satan (Rev 13:1-2) is really all about in regards to hating and destroying what it fully Godly and Righteous.
            Now, as it has been quite copious claimed and explained in Historicist/(SDA) circles, this time prophetic period of “a time, times and half a time” interpretatively/applicably works out, -using the day-year principle (cf. Num 14:34; Ezek 4:6; Luke 13:32), to literally be 1260 years. Of course this comes from understanding that the (Jewish) lunar (cf. e.g. Neh 10:33; Isa 66:23) calender year had 360 days (cf. Gen 7:24; 8:3-4), and a “time” was understood to mean/represent ‘one year’ (cf. Dan 4:16, 23, 25, 32). And so it works out that:

“a (=one) time” = 360 days = 360 years
“times” = 2x360 days = 720 days = 720 years
“half a time” = ½ of 360 days = 180 days = 180 years
Total: 360+720+180 = 1260 years [19]19

            And since this prophetic time period began in 538 A.D. is was scheduled to find its end in 1798 A.D....and it did!! However, as explained here, that 1798-fulfillment was not (necessarily) the “deadly wound” of Rev 13:5 which was to occurred to (actually “one of the 7 heads of”) the First Beast, it was rather the “within one hour” (=ca. 15 days) “great shaking” event of Rev 11:13...And that “shaking: event was God then, in 1798, “shaking the powers of the Earth (=Heb 12:26, 28), in Europe (=EW 41.1-2; cf. discussion here at Rev 6:13) in order to “shake” the “kingdom” of the First Beast, the Little Horn Power, to end its then World Influential and defacto Imperial/Hegemonic reign which had now lasted for 1260 years and all in order to allow for the shifting that Global Influence and defacto Imperial/Hegemonic Power over to the Second Beast around this time, thus to the United States of America....all to allow for the full demonstration of the Unrighteous “Babylon” Power; -both in its Politico-Religious manifestation (=the Roman Catholic Church) [=“Mother Babylon” (Rev 17:5)], and now, additionally, in its Socio-Economic phase (=the (Protestant/Capitalist) U.S.A.) [=“Daughter(s) Babylon” (Rev 17:5)].

The (Possible) Periods Breakdown of the “time, times and half a time”
            Now, while this understood time period as 1260 years and its application as from 538 to 1798 A.D. is quite well attested in Prophetic Interpretation, I would here advance, as a working thesis that: as this period here in Dan 7:25 (=Dan 12:7; Rev 12:14) could easily have instead been given as one whole/single time unit, as done at other times in the Bible (i.e. “1260 days” (Rev 11:3; 12:6); “42 months” (Rev 11:2; 13:5)), then, just as, (as presented in/from here), the time period of Daniel’s 70 Weeks in Dan 9:25 could easily have been given as “69 Weeks” but instead was broken down and stipulated as 7+62 weeks, and this break down highlighted an important reckoning date/event after those 7 weeks (=49 years) which was the reckoning of Israel’s important Sabbatical cycle, and then the beginning of the Messianic ministering at the end of the ensuing 62 week period, then it would seem that the breaking down of this prophetic time as time, times and half a time, was to highlight various shifts in the development of the Little Horn over this period, as illustratingly charted here below:

Chart of (possibly) the 3 Development Periods of the 1260 Years

So in brief explanation here:

538-898 A.D. - the first period for the “time” = 360 years would be from the time of the establishment of the, then mainly/purely Religious, Little Horn Power in 538 A.D. as a temporal/civil authority...and then, over these next 360 years it gradually ascended to rise to full temporal authority and power, gradually overtaking the hegemony from competing temporal powers, all culminating in the creation of a/the Holy Roman Empire. I would say that this first period of 360 was the time that God would set for the Little Horn Power to ascend to this Temporal Imperial Realm position. It can be seen that they achieved this by 800 A.D. when Charlemagne was crowned by the Pope as the “Emperor” of the/a Holy Roman Empire. So they would have achieved this temporal power heightening ca. 98 years before the planned/allowed time.
            Again, these points are presently merely as a “working thesis”...

898-1618 A.D. - It can be argued that the systemic persecution of people who opposed/disobeyed the Papal Power and its Holy Roman Empire rule was all done during this period of ca. 720 years. So this can be seen as God’s allowed time for such persecutions to be done. (See Fox’s Book of Martyrs)

1618-1798 A.D. - Then starting around this time, God has set a time period for the gradual degrading of the Little Horn’s Holy Roman Empire (HRE) power and 1618 A.D. could be seen as the year when this pivotal shift in temporal strength and hegemony began to take place, pointedly with the start of the quite destructive Thirty Year’s, Protestants vs. Catholics, War in, mainly, the HRE. This war ended up allowing ‘France to emerge strengthened and increasingly dominant towards the latter part of the 17th century, contributing to, and culminating in, its zenith of Imperial (Secular/Atheistic) Authority and Power, including over the Roman Catholic Church (RCC), and its Holy Roman Empire by the latter part of the 18th century. And the events that France did execute around and in 1798 against the RCC and its HRE, did end this prophetic Little Horn rule period of 1260 years.
            So it can be claimed that the breakdown of this prophetic time period was roughly for various time periods that God allowed for, for the natural Rise, Zenith and Downfall of the Little Horn Power.

Note: This commentary/study on the Prophecy of Daniel 7 is continued in this post for Dan 7:9-14, 18, 22, 26-27, 28.

1. [1] A response is also being made for similar/corroborating claims. So, for a (general/background) comparison with what is going to be more Biblically, exegetically, (historically) precisely/accurately and Spiritually advancedly/furtheringly presented here in this post about Daniel 7, see the following common/typical SDA (Evangelistic) Presentations on this prophecy:

After 2012: 05 The Antichrist Unmasked - Daniel Pel
Dimensions of Prophecy: 20 The Antichrist - Kenneth Cox
Anchors of Truth: The Little Horn and the Rise of the Antichrist - Kenneth Cox
Pillars of Prophecy: The Little Horn of Daniel 7 - Kenneth Cox
His Way is in the Sanctuary: 11 The Chronology of the Judgment - Stephen Bohr
Revelation of Hope: Exposing Histories Greatest Hoax - Mark Finley
Revelation's Ancient Discoveries: 12 “Revelation Reveals History’s Greatest Hoax” - Mark Finley
Unsealing Daniel's Mysteries: Part 6 - Mark Finley
Total Onslaught: 205-The Man Behind The Mask - Walter J. Veith

Amazing Discoveries: Identifying the Antichrist - Walter J. Veith
Amazing Facts: Who is the Antichrist?
Secrets Unsealed: Notes on Daniel 7 - Stephen Bohr
Bible Universe: The Anti-christ - Daniel 7 and Revelation 13                    
2. [2] Even to this day, it is widely known that a “mama bear/grizzly” protecting her young is a fierce force to reckon with in/from the animal kingdom....E.g. as lately coiningly made politically, and also pop-culturally famous by [former U.S. Vice Presidential nominee] Sarah Palin (See in political ads here & here).
3. [3] Indeed the sacred vessels of God’s Temple that Belshazzar chose to misuse here were surely always know to be in the, presumably storage (i.e. versus displaying/showcasing) location where he had then sent for...So it is not that he suddenly discovered them, or learned about their existence on that night of wild feasting. It rather is that he, and manifestly unlike his predecessors who left them undisturbed in their set place, dared to break this unwritten policy of reverence of these items of God’s Temple, and make arrogant and sacrilegious mal-use of them.
4. [4] Also, if as claimed by some, ‘Herodotus was trying to formulate a legendary myth about Cyrus to give greater importance to the Persian Empire, then (a) firstly, why would that be the concern of a Greek, (b) why isn’t the account more “legendary”, i.e. contain more, actually, from what I read, any, supernatural/fantastical claims/elements (as e.g. found in the ‘Mars-god born, Rome founding twins and their nursing she-wolf’ myth), and in fact (c) Herodotus (at Histories 1:122+1:123 = Loeb pp.161), actually dispell a legend/myth about Cyrus by explaining what actually really happened...I rather see that it was Herodotus concern to indeed try to dispell the popular myth circulating about then about the founding of the then ruling Persian Empire, and pointedly its founder Cyrus, by doing historical research to find out what actually/really had happened. His account indeed is in my view free from “mythical” claims/elements, and really I can only see the claims of Cyrus’s grandfather having had two ominous prophetic dreams about Cyrus that has led “higher critical” people today to dismissively deem the whole account as a fabricated legend....much like they do with the Bible.
            Again, my view is that God was involved with the rise of Cyrus, and so perhaps even, protectively, from his birth and childhood and pertinent developments leading up to then. The Medes perhaps had become corrupted with power, which would explained why the prophecy of ca. 740-700 B.C. of Isa 13:17-19 from which spoke of them by name to be God’s choice to supplant Babylon, had now to be reconfigured to speak of the replacing Persians themselves.* 
And so, with especially Satan seeing that God was working behind the scenes to do something special and favoring with and through Cyrus, he exercised his Great Controversy rights to seek to oppose, through the natural, especially selfish and jealous dispositions of men, to oppose and even kill Cyrus before he could fulfill this sovereign calling of God on his life.

* Btw Babylon itself was also planned by God in that ca. 740-700 B.C. pronouncement to be the kingdom, i.e. rather than Assyria, which He would have his wayward Judah Kingdom be punished and deported to.
-And relatedly, -as discussed here and here|here, the Biblical understanding of this Theological Views Blog prophecies of Isa 40-54 were given to a “Deutero-Isaiah”, i.e. an unnamed student from the school of the prophets of Isaiah () raised up by God sometime during the early/pre-regnal life of Cyrus between 590/576 to 559|539 B.C., to, (anonymously) seamlessly continue the prophetic ministry of Isaiah with those more pointed prophecies about the Restoration and the, now confirmed, fate of Babylon.
5. [5] As discussed here, my surmising theological view about this is that God had initially only intended to create, as manifestly with angels, the male gender, and He would, as with angels, reproduce Man Himself. Manifestly God had pondered the hazards of creating a (full/true) female gender with humans but here deemed that it was “not good”. (Gen 2:18) (Factually speaking, Adams envious pondering over the male-female dynamics with animals (Gen 2:20) confirmed God’s already arrived at decision.). So God created Woman, but with a factual basis for her “belonging” to man, pointedly her husband which is unlike with animals where there is no such marriage belonging and bond.
6. [6] Pertinently, the Greeks named the leopard by combining their words/name for “lion” =leon and ‘(male) panther’ =pardos = “leopardos”... and manifestly that was based on their, albeit (naturally unscientific and mythologic claim/belief, as claimed in Pliny the Elder’s 1st century A.D. encyclopedic Natural History work (Vol. 3 Bk. 8 Ch. 17) that: ‘a leopard came from the mating of a (male) panther and a (‘care-freely’ promiscuous) lioness.’
7. [7] It would seem that it “naturally” was the threat of being invaded and ruled over which had impelled the former tribal people in the Middle East and East to band together into the stronger and better defensible entity of a kingdom. And so, with the Western parts of the then known/inhabited world not having experience these threats, there really was nothing greater than tribal groups of people from Rome to encounter in its Western expansion.
            A similar development was seen in the founding of the United States where from over 150 years, the people who inhabited this newly discovered/populated American land mass, only lived as separate States. But when it decided to revolt against its British rulers, it adopted the form of a Country (=Kingdom) of (Federally) united States with even the express aim of “providing a common defense”.
8. [8] This interplay/relationship between the “kingly”=political affairs of the Earth and God’s overseeing “redemptive purposes” is probably what is behind God’s Sanctuary “(4) horns of the altar (Exod 30:10; Lev 16:18; cf. 1 Kgs 1:51) representation/symbology” (=Rev 9:13ff). Optimally is was through a faithful monarchy of Israel, leading a “Kingdom of God” on the Earth, that God would “shepherdingly” execute these Redemptive GC measures for the Earth. (Psa 2=Rev 2:26-27=Rev 19:15-16). All this to show that it indeed is through Righteousness (which the sanctuary/altar was to lead to) that God will regain total control of this Earth. (Rev 19:11ff)
9. [9] In contrast to this ‘kings/(national) kingdoms-parametered’ approach being followed here for identification, the common/patent thing that has been done in Historicist/SDA circles is to claim, generally, that it is ‘the main tribal/people groups who overtook the Western Roman Empire which qualify as these ten horns’. And so we get the following traditional tabling & mapping:

First of all, the SDABC has the listing of the: [1] Ostrogoths, [2] Visigoths, [3] Franks, [4] Vandals, [5] Suevi, [6] Alamanni, [7] Anglo-Saxons, [8] Heruli, [9] Lombards, [10] Burgundians

Teaching Hearts’ Tabling

William Shea’s Mapping

cf. {Teaching Hearts’ Mapping}

Again as typical with SDA/Historicist understandings up to now, as seen in the various
prophetic expositions in this blog, which patently provide much more Biblically-founded, deeper detailing, and so more valid/exact/accurate textual interpretations and historical, and Spiritual, application, {=the Biblical work of those (still) “seeking to advance” of Dan 12:4, 10 in order to “improve the light”}, while their interpreting claim and application may have been, up to now, acceptable, it can however be variously defeatingly challenged, -as later variously pointed out, and thus dismissed, indeed in the light of various, actual, historical facts&developments, as well as not properly reflecting what is being prophetically specified in/by the exegetically ascertained Biblical text. So more work also needs to be done here (by SDAs) in order to properly and accurately understand this prophetic passage....as is now being done in this blog post.

            -(Relatedly, I still don’t see/understand what all of the sharp denominational disagreement amongst Pioneer SDAs was about in, -as succinctly related here: the “Hun” (=Uriah Smith) vs. “Alamanni” (A.T. Jones) debate, as the (renown) Hunnic Tribe, -though a major forceful power in European and, -as led by its famous/legendary leader “Attila the Hun” (434-453 A.D.), counter-Roman Empire, affairs for a while (cf. this migrating/evolving/conquering historical animation), collapsed, and thus were not longer a kingdom nor conquering/imperial power by 469 A.D....so even before the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 A.D.!...-as A.T. Jones had discovered in his ‘more indepth historical studies leading up to his challenge by the (pivotal, but failed) 1888 SDA Minneapolis General Conference...Manifestly, as implied in Light Bearers (1979) p. 186...the real reason/spirit for/of disagreement was, not surprisingly, mainly due to a peripheral issue of pride by the brethren/members.)

10. [10]
“The Frankish kings adhered to the practice of partible inheritance: dividing their lands among their sons. Even when multiple Merovingian kings ruled, the kingdom—not unlike the late Roman Empire—was conceived of as a single realm ruled collectively by several kings and the turn of events could result in the reunification of the whole realm under a single king.”

“The tradition of dividing patrimonies among brothers meant that the Frankish realm was ruled, nominally, as one polity subdivided into several regna (kingdoms or subkingdoms). The geography and number of subkingdoms varied over time, but the particular term Francia came generally to refer to just one regnum,”

“After Clovis's death, his kingdom was partitioned among his four sons. This tradition of partition continued over the next century. Even when several Merovingian kings simultaneously ruled their own realms, the kingdom—not unlike the late Roman Empire—was conceived of as a single entity ruled collectively by these several kings (in their own realms) among whom a turn of events could result in the reunification of the whole kingdom under a single ruler.”
“After the death of Clovis, there were frequent clashes between different branches of the family, but when threatened by its neighbours the Merovingians presented a strong united front.”

“To the outside, the kingdom, even when divided under different kings, maintained unity
and conquered Burgundy in 534.”

The four sons of Clovis then all fought the Burgundian kings Sigismund and Godomar; Godomar fled and Sigismund was taken prisoner by Chlodomer. Theuderic married Sigismund's daughter Suavegotha. Godomar rallied the Burgundian army and won back his kingdom. Chlodomer, aided by Theuderic, defeated Godomar, but died in the fighting at Vézeronce.
Chlothar I became King of (all) the Franks in 558-561
By the end of his life, Chlothar had managed to reunite Francia by surviving his brothers and seizing their territories after they died. But upon his own death, the Kingdom of the Franks was once again divided between his own four surviving sons. A fifth son had rebelled and was killed, along with his family.
11. [11] In his most commendable monumental work on this (and other related) timed prophetic issue(s), the (March 2017)-late Heidi Heiks claimed as his controlling thesis for selecting the 3 uprooted horns, that there was an overarching “Great Controversy” theme of “Religious Liberty”** at issue here with the Franks, then the Romans, being impelled behind the scenes to get rid of the kingdoms which were Arian as these, being in the minority, rather favored Religious Liberty. Heiks did indeed documentingly show (see pp.39-56 [=PDF: pp.55-72]) how the Catholic Church influenced the Franks to stand and move against the Arian Visigothic Kingdom, -succeeding in pushing them out of their Frankish Kingdom territorial-encroaching holding, but letting them keep their kingdom on Iberean Peninsula, and then Heiks did show how (Catholic) Church and (Roman) State was seamlessly intertwined in the +533 AD Military Campaign of Emperor Justinian, -starting with the campaign on the Vandals (pp.57-78 [=PDF: pp.73-94]), and then the Ostrogoths pp.79-98 [=PDF: pp.95-114]*...But that itself is not that surprising as, since the time of Constantine, Nicean Catholicism had been made the (exclusive) State Religion of the Roman Empire. So it was actually quite normative for them for the Roman Emperor to authoritatively involve himself in Church matters, and for the Church to give quasi-binding “(religious) advice” to the Emperor.
            In fact, as related in Procopius, History of the Wars Bk.3 Sect.10 par.7-18-21 [Loeb pp.93-97-99] when Emperor Justinian was about to “check[] his eager desire for the war”, i.e. completely abandoning his ambition and plans to reconquer the former Western Roman Empire realm, from having harkened to the advice of the (532-541 AD) pretorian prefect of the East (=the second most powerful man in the East after the Emperor =the first minister) John the Cappadocian who thought that ‘this was too high a risk to take’, -indeed so uncertain of an outcome that its fate was: “on the knees of God”, and an endeavor which would have ‘extensive adverse repercussions if it failed given that Rome had initiated the shattering of the present, existing, moreover treaty-abiding, peace in the region’, pertinently also pointing out that (par. 15): ‘in order to hold a conquered Libya, Sicily and Italy would also have to be conquered by Eastern Rome’, it was an Eastern Roman Bishop who convinced, even convicted, Justinian, to not dare give up on this re-conquering ambition, as he had had a dream (supposedly from God [but really, like the (also prophetically-purposeful) experience of the Muslims’ prophet Mohammed later (=Rev 9:1), and (purportedly) Emperor Constantine earlier, it was a {albeit God-allowed (~1 Kgs 22:19-23ff)}, dream/vision from Satan (=Rev 8:10)], which ‘rebuked Justinian for drawing back about going to defense of Arian-persecuted Nicean Christians in Libya’, and which also told him that ‘he shouldn’t fear for God Himself would be with him.’ So then Justinian launched into his war preparations and set out this execute his ambition project.
            So in trying to substantiate his “Religious Liberty” thesis/theme, Heidi Heiks is quite adamant that the Visigoths should therefore be included, even, as seen here (pp.1-18ff) in his ensuing “Answers to Objections” volume being quasi dogmatic about it claiming that merely viewing/deeming things “historically” and not also “Spiritually” is quasi-‘heretical’ (pp.9-10) I would basically agree with him here in regards to understanding, interpreting and applying Bible prophecy...except I am not (exegetically) seeing his insistence that ‘the 3 uprooted horns must be Arian and they have to be uprooted because of “Religious Liberty” issues. As shown earlier, I have rather exegetically seen that this uprooting prophetic element is actually quite flexible as to its application and broadly can include any horn which, for any reason, stands in the way of the successful arising to power of this Little Horn. And as I have shown here from history, the Burgundians, the Vandals and the Ostrogoths were three (immediate) potential and actual (primarily) militaristic obstacles to the Eastern Romans retaking control of Rome and permanently occupying Italy.
            Furthermore, as noted earlier, the Visigothic Kingdom remained alive and well on the Iberean Peninsula after their  507/8 B.C. to the Franks. If they were such a “religious-based threat” to that Little Horn, then it would have been prudent, even required, that the Roman completely removed them from their position of kingdom and militaristic power, as they did with the Ostrogoths. But the Romans did not see to it then, or at all after that, even while they had not yet converted to Catholicism (=589 AD). Indeed Rome did not even cite the Visigoths in their 535 AD  ‘anti-Arians’ bribing letter to Franks while alarmedly citing their kin-kingdom: the Ostrogoths.

* In his work, Heidi Heiks gives his dismissing reasons on the claim/choice of the Heruli tribe/kingdom at pp.28-38=PDF: pp.44-54.

-As a wider, but related/pertinent comment, Heidi Heiks gives [at pp.13-21=PDF: pp.29-37] a detailed explanation as to why the number of “10 horns” is to be merely considered as a symbolic/figurative representation of “completeness” (e.g. 1 Sam 1:8 & Matt 25:1 as he says, there were much more than 10 tribes/kingdoms in existence after the fall of Rome [as later discussed, I view I myself had also ascribed to...prior to doing my indepth and original “10 horns” investigation in/for this blog post here], however he then goes on to defaultly claim, even silently assume that the 3 horns must be 3 numerically literal kingdoms. That is not a consistent, even whimsically contradictory, claim/stance. Both have to be literal or both have to be merely symbolic... (And a plausible “symbolic” explanation for the number 3 could have been that: 3 represents the Trinity, and so anti-Trinity powers, as the Arians were, would be the ones to be uproots.)
            In fact Heiks, and others who share his claim/view here, should ascribe to the Theological/Biblical/Prophetic view, which he dryly dismisses as “confusion compounded” (p.17=PDF p.33), in the “Historical” =pre-1844 fulfillment, these 10 horns (i.e. in Dan 7:8, 20, 24 & Rev 13:1) are literal, but in the “Eschatological” =post-1844 fulfillment, as involved in Rev 17:3, 12, the number ten can have a mere symbolic meaning/implication.
            Like I said, I cursorily previously (see in the “Babylon” post’s Note #2 =the now: italic struck out section), also claimed a similar: “10 symbolic”...and effectively also “but 3 literal” horns view...but, given my findings here in this post, I no longer do. Nonetheless, I still see that God had a “completeness” meaning in using the number 10 [actually as in Gen 31:17 & Num 14:22 -shown here], in terms for ‘the whole realm of the former Western Roman Empire”, but it is just that He would be acting to also make this number have a literal fulfillment...including, as cited earlier, throughout the history of the post-476 to 1453 AD Roman Empire which indeed historically averaged 9.8 (=10) qualifying “kingdoms” in the “head” =Western Realm of its Empire.

** Also, succinctly said about Heiks overarching ‘Great Controversy’, “Government of God” “Religious Liberty” theme/thesis (see pp.1-12=PDF: pp.16-28), the Government of God actually does not have a “Religious Liberty” tenet/principle, in the sense that everyone can do whatever they think/believe is right/true. The history of this Great Controversy is filled with patent examples that God does variously oppose and punish those who oppose and violate His revealed Will, including His “Natural Law” (Rom 1:18-2:16).#
            So that definitely is NOT “Religious Liberty”. Indeed ‘doing what is right in one’s own eyes is deemed as evil and punishable by God. What God does have as a governing principle is the Freedom of Truth...
            ...Case in point: as pointed out in the post on the World Hegemonic Kingdom of Daniel (at Dan 2:34) from the SOP’s statement in 1MR 51.1 God would have no problem/controversy with a Kingdom which combines Church & State (like His Israel did), if they honored God’s Sabbath, but instead that kingdom would instead uphold the False Sabbath of Sunday. Indeed, as later discussed, one of God’s indicting issue with the Little Horn power is that it “casts down (His) Truth to the ground” (Dan 8:12).
            Now, in regards to the actual freedom in matters of belief that God grants, it is actually to the end of ‘having a ruling absolute Truth’ that He graciously allows time for Truth to come to be objectively established, demonstrated and/or validated...and so then, sincere and honest people will “freely” harmonize their “conscience” to this evident Truth....But as/when that is done, He then does not allow for people to “freely” choose to do and believe whatever they prefer to.
            God does not compel obedience, but the judgements He does can serve as a basis to become fearful and so obey Him...though the patent way in which most of these judgement are done, especially those done amongst/to (various degrees of) non-followers of His, easily allows for unbelievers to attribute the event to something/someone else. So there too, people are compellation-free to choose to whether to (lovingly) fear/obey/believe God or not.

# E.g. Satan’s and one third of the angel’s expulsion from Heaven
-Adam and Eve expulsion from Eden and the death sentence on humans for the disobedience to God’s will
-the Noah’s Flood Judgement,
-Sodom and Gomorrah
-Israel’s Mandated Capital Punishment
-Judgement on Idolatrous (Northern) Israel and Covenant ignoring Southern (Judah)
-Anannias and Sapphira

12. [12] It can be plausible argued and claimed that as the Vandal Kingdom was actually a coalition of the tribes of the Vandals with the (Iranian) Alans, thus technically having the name of the “Kingdom of the Vandals and Alans” for their North African realm, then just like the coalition kingdom of Media and Persia is depicted as having two horns in Dan 8:3, 20, then this “nationalistic” coalition kingdom can also be deemed to have had two horns. And so when this kingdom was defeated by the Eastern Roman Empire armies, it was actually two horns which were “uprooted” then instead of merely just one. So this could replace the choice of the Kingdom of the Burgundians as one of the humbled/abased/uprooted horns, which would be by a more direct action for making way for establishing the little horn power.
            But, that suggested, I am still seeing the choice of the Burgundians as being still valid and applicable instead.
13. [13] And this ‘average number of horns’ factor comes to take care of the objecting claim made here [13:30-18:30] that ‘over time most of the “10 horns=tribal peoples” typically claimed by Historicists/SDAs did all come to be overtaken, extinct and/or assimilated.
14. [14] Interestingly enough, the Arianism vs. Nicean Christology debate is one which still exists to this day. As succinctly discussed here, I think the matter is satisfactorily resolvable when all of the pertinent passages are taken into consideration and harmonized into a comprehensive theology. So there are indeed many passages which imply that Jesus was literally “begotten” by the Father, and also subservient to the Father’s Will, and there are several Bible passages where the two are said to be both Eternal and Equal. So the attempted resolution view which wants to make Jesus a being created from nothing is Biblically deficient.
            I see that my own resolving view which involving the Godhead dividingly cloning itself into three distinct being is the best understanding and pointedly because it adds the view that, beyond just mere “Eternal & Divine” substance sharing, it also involves the sharing of the Divine mind, i.e. the Eternal knowledge and memories of God. However, once they became distinct, by reason of the necessity of Free Will in Love, each Divine Being, namely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit could formulate their own private thoughts and distinct views memories...but that is where the hierarchy issue of God the Father vs. God the Son comes into play because they came into the post division/cloning agreement that God the Father would be “greater” than the Son. (cf. John 14:28)
            And the fact that the Messianic Davidic Son Prophecy of Isa 9:6-7 stipulates that this personage would also be called “Eternal Father” may be the explicit proof that God the Son Jesus had indeed originally been an Eternal part of the (subsequently = since+now called) “Father” (as well as “Mighty”:) God!
            So when the involved elements of: Eternality, Substance, Hierarchy and here also the Divine Mind are properly factored in, then can the most Biblical Theology be arrived at.
15. [15] An interesting Biblical anecdote involving this meaning of the Hebrew word 'enosh as ‘fallen/(hopelessly) sickly/mortal man’ is from Gen 4:26 where it relates that Seth had his firstborn son and named him Enosh....and then it is said that “Then men began to call upon the name of the Lord”. With names in the Bible always being full of meaning, it seems that righteous Seth was here preaching a sermon by naming his son after the word for the ‘hopelessly sickliness and mortality of man’. Manifestly he was trying to remind mankind then, who most likely, at ca. 235 years after Creation (=Gen 5:3, 6), had not yet experienced a natural/aging death on the Earth, with Adam himself being comparatively merely in his mid-twenties on today’s 100 year-lifetime scale. So Seth’s son-naming-sermon would indeed be a stark and startling reminder to everyone that they were all mortals, and, as per the imposed curse of Gen 2:17; 3:22, were doomed to die no matter how youthful/healthy they now seemingly were....And so, confronted with that reminder/realization, which manifestly produced a ‘religious revival’ amongst people, it is from then that “men began calling upon the name of the Lord”....likely hoping that God would change His mind on their death sentence.

16. [16] The fact here that this post-vision explanatory exchange focuses pointedly on what is to take place after the time of the World Hegemony of the Grecian Empire, thus from ca. 168 B.C. and onward, is God’s foreset “in your face” response to today’s many “higher-criticism” opposers of the Bible, and especially the book of Daniel, who ignoramusly=wrongly have claimed that the book of Daniel was “retrospectively” written during the latter time of Grecian Empire, thus around the 200's or 100's B.C. and so, was not really “prophecy”, but mere already transpired history being fraudulently retold as forward-prognosticating “prophecy”.
            Their primary springboard into that view was the supposed fabricated/misidentity of a certain “Darius the Mede” in Daniel 9:1....but as it has been discussed (summarizingly) from here, that was just another regnal naming for civil name of “Cyrus the Persian (=the Great)” (=Dan 6:28)...and that itself shows how informed the ‘compiler/arranger/composer of the biography (Dan 1-6ff) and prophecies (Dan 7-12) of the prophet Daniel’ was about Medo-Persian affairs. So even if that ‘arranger/compose’ had done his work of couching the first-hand of prophecies accounts of Daniel (see Dan 7:2; 8:1; 9:2) some years, even a few of centuries after the time (=600-500's B.C.) that Daniel himself had lived/ministered, he nonetheless has demonstrated that he was well informed about the history of Medo-Persia by such (validated) precisely detailed annotations.
            A Secondary point of attack against the validity of the book/prophecies of Daniel has been the seeming ambiguousness/nebulousness in the detailing of the Fourth “indeed nondescript” Beast (Dan 7:7) as compared the first 3 beasts (cf. Dan 8:20-21) and about what is to take place after the time of the (supposed: then existing) Grecian Empire (e.g. Dan 8:22ff) . It is thus suggested that a fraudulent&late author of the book of Daniel, living in the time of the Grecian Empire, had no idea what kingdom would replace Greece and what it would do....But such claims have already been invalidated above by the preciseness seen in these prophesied post-Greece historical developments (e.g. the 10 horns, 3 humbled horns, the Little Horn, its differing nature and, -as now being examined, its religious and political actions).
            As already mentioned&explained in detail earlier at Dan 7:7, the fact that the Fourth Beast was “nondescript”, was literally because no one alive then had seen such a beast on the earth then, and that was because it was either a (symbolic) reconstitution of the God-extinct Leviathan Beast, which was a (real) “dragon” beast (Isa 27:1; cf. Rev 12:3, 4, 7, 9, 13, 16-17; 13:1, 2, 4, 11, 16:13; 20:2) or it was a very close, tailored imitation/derivation of it by Satan...Meaning that, as beasts do represent kingdoms, Satan knew that to be successful in his long desired plan to destroy all the righteous people on Earth, particularly in the then, comparatively, more civilized world of post-Greece times, he could not revive a brute, literally “fire-breathing”, beast like the Leviathan was, as everyone would immediate see the overt evil and unjust nature of such a kingdom against the peaceful, faithful people of God....(Much like the overtly evil action of Nazism against Jewish people disgusted and outraged most of the civilized world)...So God foresaw that Satan would instead be using a more refine approach, thus producing a (seemingly) tamer beast....one which, -under a seemingly indiscriminate Imperial Doctrine of “Law and Order (= “teeth of iron -Dan 7:7” Militarism (=“claws of bronze” -Dan 7:19), would more slyly execute his “of old serpent” plans to bring suffering, ruin, death and annihilation of God’s faithful followers (Gen 3:1-5ff) from the face of this, -until the repossessing Triumph of Christ: up-for-grabs Planet in Rebellion. (cf. Rev 12:7-12 -see more on this Cosmic warring here). So Satan would pointedly make use of the seemingly innocuous Rome, who moreover was purporting to merely be endeavoring to establish ‘World Peace’, their Pax Romana...which indeed was the Roman version of peace...Which was, (-as it similarly was the case with the Atheistic French Revolution =see esp. Rev 11:7ff)): whatever was in harmony with how they dictated that “peace” should be....
            And/But with even Pagan Rome itself also being a State-Religious power, a major part of that peace was that its subjects had to, pertinently as “Babylon” (cf. 1 Pet 5:13) of Old, also had to superiorly honor their State-Pagan Religion (cf. Dan 3)...Meaning that, in their/Satan’s “tamer/more civilized” version of that Ancient Babylon Imperial Doctrine, if ever a tenets or the whole religion of one of its subjected people came in conflict with the Mythological Pantheonic+Emperor-god State religion of Pagan Rome, then these people and their “rebelling” religion could not be permitted to stand....So when Christianity and its various righteousness tenets began to spread in the Roman Empire, there came to be an issue of “conflicting difference” and Satan thus found his “civilized excuse” for his Dragonish Fourth Beast to persecute and kill these faithful People of God....
            ...As Daniel’s prophecy involves here, as discussed next, that “Dragonish Fourth Beast” adapted itself for a further major civilization shift when the persecuting of Christians was no longer acceptable, starting with the 313 A.D. Roman Edict of Milan. So that “Dragonish Fourth Beast” now seamlessly manifested itself as, effectively a Fifth Beast, the “Little Horn” Papal Roman Empire (=Rev 13:1-10)...and, as discussed next, that power too would “persecute, wage war and even overcome” God’s faithful, (strategically)-martyred, people..
            ...And as Satan’s Protestant-persecuting approach was really just exposing his Fifth Beast as being indeed of an evil/non-Godly nature, in the waning years of this Fifth Beast Era, i.e. after the rooted establishment of Protestantism in Europe (i.e. ca. 1600's ff), when the murderous religious persecutions of the Catholic Church were no longer acceptable, Satan would need to morph himself into his tandem “serpent” form (=Rev 12:9; cf. Rev 20:4; Isa 27:1), and like his subtle “serpent offensive” back in Eden (Gen 3:1-5), he now would work to try to inwardly pervert the Protestant Church. As the post-3.5 times = 1260 years = A.D. 1798ff of Rev 12:14ff stipulate, this serpent would now be working to send from its mouth a “river”* =a Church entity grouping of peoples = denominations, -and not “fire”, to try to (democratically) “flood” that upstart Righteous, Protestant movement (=Rev 12:15), with the issue of the union of Church&State being a stridently debated matter in “Colonial America”....But, in those post-(1776)-America-establishment days of 1798+, the “earth” =, i.e. this “non-Church” State of this new land would indeed help the righteous woman as it could no Church Entity could be “democratically flooded” by a/any ‘mob of people opposing it’.(=Rev 12:16)

* Fittingly enough, as shown here about the Leviathan/Behemoth=“dragon”, the main function/purpose of the Leviathan was to purify the, pre-Flood, incidentally salinated, sea waters of the Earth, which was done by intaking a large amount of water, then boiling it to separate and calcinate it sal content and then raising itself up above the sea surface and spewingly releasing that now desalinated/purified water on the surface. And so this involved that this “serpent Leviathan” (Isa 27:1) could contain a large amount of water in its body....And that fits perfectly with the imagery of this same type of (“behemoth”) snake being able to spew out a ‘river-amount’ of water after that woman in order to try to “floodingly” overpower her...
            ...And manifestly with cold, or more likely lukewarm, but definitely not hot, water = Laodiceanly lukewarm water (Rev 3:15-16). “Lukewarm” water would keep that woman unsuspectingly at ease in this river’s water, as it continues to rise up around until it floods her....

            So the Truths of God which existed in this Faithful Woman entity were protected from being “democratically overrun”, indeed even from other Protestants with differing beliefs and views....and eventually God’s (InitialRemnant Movement/Church would freely be allowed to become establish in/from this land...and that is a strongly-shielding development that Satan will eventually have to resort to his more brute beastly approach (=Rev 13:11ff), indeed right in these “Religious Freedom” land of America, in order to try to overcome & defeat it/them. (=Rev 12:17)
            Indeed that, originally Fourth Beast, will eventually returning to its full “beastly form”, but through another camouflaging “re-invention” of its evil&persecutive self, in order to remain within the “imperceiving” lines of the ever evolving “civilized” times of human history, now as, as mentioned earlier at Dan 7:7b, an effectively, Sixth Beast and then, when that too will be self-defeated, a most deceptively civilized and Christian, last-ditch effort of a Seventh Beast.
            So it was indeed foreplanningly “wise” for God to present in Dan 7:7ff this Fourth Beast as a nondescript one, even an indeed (ever-)adapted version of the original “Leviathan/Dragon” terrorizing Beast, for it would indeed be Satan’s resolute endeavor to try in various camouflaged/subtle ways, to overcome God’s People and so establish his own Sinful Imperial Kingdom upon the Earth...But, as seen in the concluding portion of this Dan 7 (& Dan 8) vision, God Himself has well-laid plan for His True Righteousness Kingdom to decidedly and enduringly Triumph. (=Rev 11:15-18)
17. [17] Interesting here to see that this Catholic argument during the Council of Trent that it was the Church that changed the Sabbath was actually thinking that it was the Jerusalem=Apostolic Church that had made that change. They cite also the banning of circumcision on (Gentile) New Covenant Believers (=Acts 15:1-5ff). Catholics then have been assuming all of this time that it was the Apostles themselves who in those Apostolic times also changed the Sabbath to Sunday....But as stated & documented here, in the 1970's, Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi discovered a document in the Vatican Archives which concretely and conclusively, and commendedly, showed that the change of the Sabbath to Sunday was not made by the Apostolic/Jerusalem Church.
            What the Apostles did away with then at the ca. 50 AD Jerusalem Council, were parts of the law of Moses which were purely ceremonial, =“ordinances” (Eph 2:11-15ff) as was the (pedagogic/“tutoring” -Gal 3:23-29) rite of circumcision. And that was actually not replaced in the New Covenant by “baptism”, -as taught and claimed by the Archbishop of Reggio in that Council of Trent sermon, but by the spiritual “circumcision of the heart/mind” (Rom 2:25-29), which actually was an OT ideal&imperative (Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4).
            And the Sabbath itself remained untouched by that Jerusalem Council, as they seamlessly fully expected that even/also Gentile Believers would hear about the remaining, binding, teachings from the books of Moses when they would be in Church on “every Sabbath”. (Acts 15:21)...So ca. 20 years after Christ resurrection and His Disciple and NT Church were still faithfully keeping the Sabbath as their day of Worship and teaching all other Believers to do so. If Believers were keeping Sunday then, (or ‘any day of the week they were personally/privately convinced of’, as wrongly claimed by Christians today from the misinterpreting of Rom 14:5), they the directive here from the Jerusalem Council to them would be that ‘they would hear what else was binding on them when the books of Moses is read to them on, at the very least, ‘every Sunday/‘Lord’s Day’’...But that clearly was not the case....
            ...As discussed&referenced here, it was the Post-Apostolic Church who, for reasons of discriminating hardships and punitive taxation avoidance, changed the Sabbath to Sunday all in order to avoid being mistaken, and so, mistreated, as Jews by the Romans.
18. [18] I priorly had always deemed it annoying that the original text of Dan 2:4b-7:28 is suddenly found only in Aramaic instead of Hebrew...but now, given how I see how much more grammatically/syntactically advanced/precise/specific Aramaic is versus Hebrew, it would have been an exegetical benefit if the entire OT text was (also) in Aramaic.
19. [19] For all of the pivotal importance of the Day-Year Principle in regards to deciphering and interpreting, and so properly understanding and applying timed Bible Prophecies, concedingly, the Biblical evidence to establish it are indirect/tangential at best. Really, as presented in here, only Num 14:34 & Ezek 4:6 make mention of the possibility that a literal time period of a day can symbolize a year. Then in Luke 13:32 we see that Jesus clearly was symbolically speaking of 3 days which were representative of the (=Dan 9:27) set prophetic (3) years that his public ministering would last.
            As the SOP foundationally says in Steps to Christ 105.2:

            “God never asks us to believe, without giving sufficient evidence upon which to base our faith. His existence, His character, the truthfulness of His word, are all established by testimony that appeals to our reason; and this testimony is abundant. Yet God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration. Those who wish to doubt will have opportunity; while those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith.

            Well for those who have studied the major prophecies of the Bible (i.e. in Daniel and Revelation), there is indeed abundant evidence and “testimony” that those prophecies were (primarily) meant to have an “historical” be fulfillment, i.e. during/over the course of Church History. And so the understanding and application of the Day-Year principle naturally harmonizes and confirms this approach for prophetic interpretation. However as there is no explicit statement in the Bible which says that the time elements in these prophecies are to first be converted from days to years, there indeed is (also) here “(Divinely-deliberate) room for doubt”...which all results in the present-day’s stark division and dichotomy in the Christian World where it virtually is only people who believe in keeping full Ten Commandment Law of God, i.e. just as He stipulated it, pointedly the Fourth = Seventh Day Sabbath Commandment who nowadays actually apply a “Historicist” Day=Year conversion principle to these time prophecies. The rest of the Christina World are either Preterists or Futurists who claim that those time period are all literal (i.e. a Day=Day). So they, and quite unlike their Protestant Reformation Founders, in the case of Protestant Christians today, just do not see/think that these prophecies had any say/application in what transpired, pointedly with/from the Roman Catholic Church during Church History.
            So as with God’s allowance for doubt in matters of Faith in general, He most manifestly has also allowed for this to be present in regards to the roadmap that He has provided to successfully make it through the deceptions of the end times. So only those who are faitfhul in obeying all that God has said is to be observed and done in, now the New Covenant, will have this proper, and so fullest understanding in Bible prophecies. (Cf. Dan 12:4, 9-10).

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog aims to be factual and, at the very least, implicitly documented. Therefore if applicable, any comment which contains unsubstantiated/unsupportable ideas will not be allowed to be published on this blog. Therefore make the effort to be Biblical, truthful and factual.

-It typically takes 1-2 days for an accepted submitted comment to be posted and/or responded to.

[If you leave an "anonymous" comment and, if applicable, would like to know why it may not have been published, resend the comment via email (see profile) to receive the response.]