text:
Many of the Judeo-Christian clergy have tried, in the past, to push all the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation into the remote past for various religious, political or monetary reasons.
Those who project these prophecies into the future are termed "futurists," and those who contrive them to be in the past are dubbed "Preterists." While there are some prophecies yet to be fulfilled in the future, and many already fulfilled in the past, the proper interpretation for these books should be "Historical."
There is little disagreement that Daniel's prophecies were "Historical" in nature. Therefore, the prophecies of Daniel, which overlap Revelation, must also be "Historical." Once we comprehensively cover Daniel's prophecies, we will discover that "overlap" is greater than we might have anticipated.
As we explore Daniel Chapter 7, we will see it is much the same as Chapter 2: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece & Rome. But, instead of an image of diminishing metals, the empires will be depicted as animals. The important subject we are going to encounter in Chapter 7 is the much disputed "little horn," which in fact is only one of two.
The Two "Little Horns" of Daniel
The two "little horns" of Daniel are the source of much confusion in interpreting his prophecies. The "little horn" of Daniel 7:8 is not the same "little horn" of Daniel 8:9. Some say the "little horn" of Daniel 8:9 is Antiochus Epiphanies, but we will save that misguided assumption until we consider Daniel Chapter 8. With this presentation we will deal only with the "little horn" of Daniel 7:8.
Actually, Daniel Chapter 7 is parallel to Chapter 2. And like Chapter 2, Chapter 7 addresses the four empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome, but from a different perspective. With this presentation, we will read a few verses at a time and then make comment. We will be using the following Bible commentaries: 1). Bible Knowledge Com.; 2). Believers Bible Com.; 3). Clarke's Bible Colm.; 4). Wycliffe Bible Com.; 5). Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Bible Com.; 6). International Bible Com.; and 7). Matthew Poole's Bible Com.
Daniel 7:14:
"I in the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, and told the sum of the matters. Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. The first was like a lion, and had eagle's wings: I behold till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man's heart was given to it."
Bible Knowledge vol. 1, p. 1349: The vision recorded by the Prophet Daniel in his chapter was revealed to him in the first year of Belshazzar's reign, 553 B.C., when Belshazzar was made co-regent with Nabonidus. Daniel's dream predated by 14 years his experience in the lion's den (chapter 6) which occurred in or soon after 539 B.C. When the dream came Daniel was about 68 years of age, for he was taken captive (at about the age of 16) 52 years earlier in 605 B.C.
Bible Knowledge, vol. 1, p. 1350: Throughout the Old Testament, the Mediterranean Sea is referred to as the Great Sea, (Numbers 34:6-7; Joshua 1:4; 9:1; 15:12, 47; 23:4; Ezekiel 47:10, 15, 20; 48:28). This vision then relates specifically to the Mediterranean world.
Wycliffe, p. 789: Four great beats came up from the sea. Hence, the beats, later described, are connected with the Mediterranean area. Likewise, as the prophetic symbolical use of 'sea' indicates, they arise with turmoil, unrest, boisterous talk, etc.
Jamieson, et. Al. p 746: Tregelles takes "the great sea" to mean as always elsewhere in Scripture (Joshua 1:4; 9:1), the Mediterranean, the center territorially of the four kingdoms of the vision, which all border on it, and have Jerusalem subject to them. Babylon did not border on the Mediterranean, nor rule Jerusalem, till Nebuchadnezzar's time, when both things took place simultaneously. Persia encircled more of the sea, vis., from the Hellespont to Cyene. Greece did not become a monarchy before Alexander's time, but then, succeeding to Peria, it became mistress of Jerusalem. It surrounded still more of the Mediterranean, adding the coasts of Greece to the part held by Persia. Rome, under Augustus, realized three things at once; it became a monarchy; it became mistress of the last of the four parts of Alexander's empire (symbolized by the four heads of the third beast), and of Jerusalem; it surrounded all the Mediterranean.
Wycliffe, p. 789: The lion symbolizes Babylon here and also in Jeremiah 4:6-7. The eagle's wings speak of swiftness, as the lion of strength. These are natural symbols scarcely needing explanation (cf. 2 Samuel 1:23; Jeremiah 49:19-22; Ezekiel 17:3-24).
Poole's, vol. 2, p. 830: Lion and eagle; one of the king of beasts, the other king of birds, for which he is called the golden head, as Daniel 2:32, 38. Thi8s was the Chaldean or Assyrian; whose seat was first at Babylon, after Nineveh, and then at Babylon again. The wings thereof were plucked; which was first in stopping the career of their victories, and after in casting them out of their kingdom, the nation was not destroyed, but their monarchy.
Jamieson et al, p. 746: But after he learned by this sore discipline that 'the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men" (4:35-36), the change took place in him, "a man's heart is given to him; instead of his former beast's heart, he attains man's true position.
Bible Knowledge, vol. 1, p. 1350: The lion's rising up on two feet (its hind legs) made it look more like a man. The fact that it got a man's heart suggests that the animal lost its beastly nature and showed compassion. (here man = enash, #606)
"And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raise up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise devour much flesh."
Believer's, p. 1083: The bear pictures Medo-Persia. The Persian section was raised up to gather importance than the Median. The three ribs which it held in its mouth perhaps represent the three sections of the Babylonian Empire which were sacked by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus: Babylon in the east; Egypt in the south; and the Lydian kingdom in Asia Minor.
Poole's, vol. 2, p. 831: Another beast, viz., the Medes and Persians, a fierce, grim ravenous creature, and barbarously cruel, especially the mountainous part, as of Caucasus, Armenia, and Media by the Caspian Sea near the Tartars, and that which borders upon the Mongol, the Usbecks, and the Sasbuts; read Isaiah 13:7-18; Jeremiah 51:48, 53, called spoilers. See Jeremiah 51:11 also. Thus Yahweh sent in the northern bears upon Babylon to devour flesh. See how Yahweh calls them against Babylon, Jeremiah 51:20-23, 27-28; he reckons Ararat, Minni, and Aschenaz, and Medes, i.e., Armenia, Parthia, Hyrcania, the rough northern hungry bears. On one side, i.e., the north side; for the Medes first arose and sent to Cyrus the Perian to come in and assist him against the Assyrian, and made him general. It had three ribs in the mouth of it: several of the Babylonian subjects revolted from the Babylonian, (and all these made the three ribs) as the Hyrcanians, and Gobrias.
Wycliffe, p. 789: The bear is an apt symbol of the Medo-Persian kingdom. Strength and ferocity figure in almost every Biblical use of the bear. The onerous bulk fits the massive Persian armies. Xerxes is said to have moved two and one-half million men to attack Greece.
Jamieson et al, p. 746: Bear; symbolizing the austere life of the Persians in their mountains, also their cruelty (Isaiah 13:17-18, Cambyses, Ochus, and other of the Persian princes were notoriously cruel; the Persian laws involved for one man's offense, the whole kindred and neighborhood in destruction, ch 6:24) and rapacity. "A bear is an all-devouring animal"...raised...itself on one side, but the Hebrew, "It raised upon dominion." The Medes, an ancient people, and the Persians, a modern tribe, formed one united sovereignty in contrast to the third and fourth kingdoms, each originally one, afterwards divided. English Version is the result of a slight change of a Hebrew letter. The idea then would be, "It lay on one of its fore feet, and stood on the other;" a figure still to be seen on one of the stones of Babylon (munter, Relig. Babyl., 112); denoting a kingdom that had been at rest, but is now rousing itself for. conquest. Media is the lower side, passiveness; Persia, the upper active element (Auberlen).
"After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of its four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it."
Believer's, p. 1083: The leopard is a type of Greece. Its four wings of a bird speak of the rapid expansion of the Grecian Empire. Four is the number of the world. Wings speak of speed. Within thirteen years Alexander conquered the world, marching as far east as India. Then died at thirty-three; empty handed. The leopard's four heads apparently set forth the division of the empire to four of Alexander's generals after his death.
Clarke's, p. 698: Another, like a leopard...four wings...four heads. This was the Macedonian or Greek empire, and Alexander the Great its king. Four wings of a fowl. The Babylonian empire was represented with two wings; and they sufficiently marked the rapidity of Nebuchadnezzar's conquests. But the Macedonian has here four wings; for nothing in the history of the world, was equal to the conquests of Alexander, who ran through all the countries form Illyricum and the Adriatic Sea to the Indian Ocean and the River Ganges; and in twelve years subdued part of Europe and all Asia. The beast had also four heads. Signifying the empire after the death of Alexander, divided between his four generals: Cassander reigning over Macedon and Greece; Lysimachus, over Thrace and Bithynia; Ptolemy, over Egypt; and Seleucus, over Syria. Dominion was given to it. It was not owing to the skill, courage, or valor of Alexander and his troops that he made those wondrous conquests; the nations were given to him. For, as Bishop Newton says, had he not been assisted by the mighty power of God, how could he, with only 30,000 men, have overcome Darious with 600,000; and in so short a time have brought the countries from Greece as far as India into subjection?
"After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots; and behold in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things."
It's At This Point The
Commentaries Go Astray
In the mainstream, most commentaries identify the "fourth beast" as being the Roman Empire. Because they are blind to the fact that the Israelites are the Anglo-Saxon, and related peoples, they depart from their well-founded understanding of Daniel's prophecy, and venture into several confused direction. Other than his incorrect remark about Antiochus Epiphanies, Matthew Pole, vol. 2, page 831, is less biased:
"Daniel considered and this calls upon us to consider the matter. Another little horn: some will have the Turk meant; others, before him,, Antiochus Epiphanies; others Julius Caesar; other antichrist. It is certain the horn that riseth out of the he-goat is Antiochus, Daniel 8:9-12, but the horn here mentioned riseth out of the fourth beast, or under him..."
With this in mind, let's use such commentary without getting on the subject of the "little horn."
Poole's vol. 2, p. 831: A fourth beast: this was the Roman empire; for that followed the Grecian, and was monstrous as to his rise and progress. Stamped the residue with the feet of it. As to the variety and cruelty of the government, it made use not only of Italians, but Spaniards, Gauls, Germans, Britons, which made their armies hardy and hard as iron, which broke in pieces the gold, silver, and brass. But it is clear this is the last kingdom of the four, that was to be destroyed by Christ's kingdom...
Bible Knowledge, vol. 1, p. 1350: Daniel now described a FOURTH BEAST. Instead of likening it to some known animal Daniel simply called it a beast. Apparently it was a mongrel composed of parts of a lion, bear, and leopard... This fourth beast was more TERRIFYING and POWERFUL than the three preceding beasts, which were all ferocious and destructive. This beast HAD LARGE IRON TEETH with which it was able to crush and devour its prey. The empire represented by this mongrel bast had CRUSHED and assimilated into itself the three previous empires by the lion, the bear, and the leopard (it TRAMPLE UNDERFOOT WHATEVER WAS LEFT; cf. Daniel 7:19)
To sum up what we have learned from these Bible commentaries, we have found the four beast-empires which Daniel was prophesying about centered around the Mediterranean Sea. Therefore, chapters 2 and 7 can only primarily be; Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. But, in a secondary sense they can represent the RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, MONETARY and RACIAL aspects those empires projected, in some cases up to our present day. That being said, the Roman Empire will never be reestablished as many "Futurists" claim. The Futurists' problem is, they are unable or unwilling to see that many of the primary aspects of Daniel's prophecies have already "HISTORICALLY" happened.
Adam Clark Gets The "10 Horns" Right
Out of all the Bible commentaries, available only Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible interprets the ten horns of Daniel 7:7 in a correct manner, though he fails to identify them properly and doesn't do well on the "little horn" of Daniel 7:8, page 698:
"I say...a fourth beast...it had great iron teeth. This is allowed, on all hands, to be the Roman Empire. It was dreadful, terrible and exceeding strong; it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue, that is, the remains of the former kingdoms, with its feet. It reduced Macedon into a Roman province about one hundred and sixty-eight years before Christ; the kingdom of Pergamos, about one hundred thirty-three years; Syria, about sixty-five years; and Egypt, about thirty years before Christ. And, besides the remains of the Macedonian empire, it subdued many other provinces and kingdoms; so that it might, by a very usual figure, be said to devour the whole earth, to tread it down, and break it to pieces; and become in effect, what the Roman writers delight to call it, 'the empire of the whole world.' It had ten horns. The ten kingdoms into which the Roman Empire was afterwards divided."
There is a lot of speculation on Daniel 7:8, but we will dispel most of that errant supposition with that previously presented evidence.
Let us study a passage that was prophesied by Daniel during the Judean captivity in Babylon and see how it affected Judah when it was fulfilled about 100 years later. This passage is Daniel 7:24-25:
"And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."
As you will see before we get done with this, we will find what this passage IS, and what it is NOT.
First of all, we are going to skip the subject of, "And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise," as it is a subject all in itself. The part we are going to concentrate on is: "...and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse form the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."
From William V. Fowler's book, End Time Revelation, page 127:
"To identify the ten horns of the fourth beast which was the Roman Empire, ONE HAS BUT TO EXAMINE HISTORY WHICH RECORDS THAT TEN KINGDOMS AROSE AFTER 476 A.D., IN THE WESTERN HALF OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, while the eastern half continued to flourish. History also reveals that Justinian at the head of the Eastern (Roman) Empire at Constantinople subdued three of the ten kingdoms that were established in the western half of the Roman Empire after the fall of Imperial Rome. These were VANDALS whose kingdom had been established in north Africa, the OSTROGOTHS who had established a kingdom in Italy, and the ALEMANIAN kingdom north of Italy. 'And he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.' (Verse 24) JUSTINIAN, AS HEAD OF THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT, UNITED THE INTEREST OF THE CHURCH AND ESTABLISHED THE TEMPORAL POWER OF THE PAPACY WHICH clearly fulfilled the prophetic little horn by DOMINATING EUROPE FOR 1,260 YEARS until curtailed by Napoleon (538 A.D. to 1,798 A.D.)
"AND HE SHALL SPEAK GREAT WORDS AGAINST THE MOST HIGH, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and THINK TO CHANGE TIMES AND LAWS. (Verse 25) Justinian's best known work was a codifier and legislator. He greatly stimulated legal studies, and set up a commission under Tribonian which issued the codex, the digest, and the institutes. (Originally introduced in December 534 A.D., and completed in 538 A.D.) The second edition of the codex contained Justinian's own laws known as the Novels (Novellae Constitutions). One need only read the utterances of Pope Innocent III in the thirteenth century and his immediate successors to recognize the fulfillment of speaking 'great words against the Most High.' Study the history of the inquisition with its massacres, martyrdoms and every kind of persecution to substantiate this interpretation. (See Halley's Bible Handbook, chapter on Church History)."
This is one of the key passages "futurists" use to prove a future SO-CALLED ANTICHRIST and a THREE AND ONE HALF YEAR PERIOD OF TRIBULATION, along with the SO-CALLED MARK OF THE BEAST. If our people understood history, they wouldn't be falling for such nonsense. All that futurist bunk was dreamed up by a Spanish Jesuit (a Jewish Basque) by the name of Ribera about 1580 A.D., and no one before that time ever heard such a doctrine.
The important thing to notice with this passage, is that we are looking for a king of a kingdom who subdued three other kingdoms of our people during his reign. You will also notice we are looking for a king, who, during his reign had a very strong impact upon writing and managing laws. You will notice Justinian fits both of these qualifications. As we go along, the picture of the fulfillment of this passage will start to come into focus. The World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 11, page 168 has this insight on this subject:
"Justinian I, jus TIN ih un (482-565 A.D.), was the Byzantine (East Roman) emperor from 527 A.D., until his death. He collected Roman laws under one code, the Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law). This code, also known as the Justinian Code, is the basis of the legal systems in many nations today...Justinian was called The Great. He recaptured many parts of what had been the West Roman Empire from barbarians. He built fortresses, harbors, monasteries, and the famous church of Saint Sophia in what is not Istanbul, Turkey.
"Justinian was born in a part of Macedonia that is now in Yugoslavia. His uncle, Emperor Justin I, made him co-ruler in 527 A.D. Justin died a few months later, and Justinian became sole emperor. During Justinian's reign, his wife, Theodora, tried to influence his politics...Justinian was an orthodox Christian, and tried to unify his empire under one Christian faith. He persecuted Christian heretics (those who opposed church teachings), Jews, and pagans (non-Christian). In 529 A.D., he closed the schools of philosophy in Athens, Greece, because he felt they taught paganism.
"In the early 530's, Justinian began a series of wars against the VANDALS, OSTROGOTHS, and VISGOTHS, who had conquered most of the West Roman Empire in the 400's. By the mid-550's his armies had taken northern Africa, Italy, and parts of Spain...
"Justinian Code. Justinian I, ruler of the eastern Roman Empire from 527 to 565, commanded 10 of the wisest men in his realm to draw up a collection of the Roman laws. This collection is known as the Corpus Juris Civilis, which means Body of Civil Law. Also called the Justinian Code, this body of law is recognized as one of the greatest Roman contributions to civilization. It was a compilation of early Roman laws and legal principles, illustrated by cases, and combined with an explanation of new laws, and future legislation. The code clarified the laws of those times, and has since been a basis for law codes of many countries.
"The scholars who compiled the Justinian Code divided it into four parts. The Institutes served as a textbook in law for students and lawyers. The digest was a casebook covering many trials and decisions. The Codex was a collection of statutes and principles. The Novels contained proposed new laws."
You will notice that in both of these quotes, three kingdoms were taken by Justinian. William V. Fowler records them the same as The World Book Encyclopedia except for the Alemanian which the World Book Encyclopedia calls the Visigoths. The Alemanni and Visigoths are different tribes of the same people, so there is no problem here. Justinian was corrupting the church and the state with his law code, so we will not completely understand this passage unless we look further. To see all of this happen, which can be seen in the book, Study in Daniel, by Howard B. Rand, pages 182-183:
"Having discovered the identity of the four beats; let us now note the meaning of the little horn which Daniel saw arise from among the ten horns on the fourth beast. THE TEN HORNS REPRESENT SUBDIVISIONS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE.
"THE LITTLE HORN THAT AROSE AMONG THE TEN, WHICH WAS DIVERSIFIED FROM THEM, PULLING UP THREE, IS NONE OTHER THAN JUSTINIAN AT THE HEAD OF THE EASTERN (Roman) EMPIRE AT CONSTANTINOPLE. HISTORY REVEALS THAT HE SUBDUED THREE OF THE TEN KINGDOMS WHICH WERE ESTABLISHED IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE AFTER THE FALL OF IMPERIAL ROME. These were the VANDALS whose kingdom had been established in north Africa. The OSTROGOTHS who had established a kingdom in Italy and the Alemanian Kingdom north of Italy. In the eyes and the mouth that appear in this little horn we have a new power associated with the rule of the little horn. In fact, this power became the eyes and mouth of the civil and economic activities of the government represented in the little horn. JUSTINIAN, AS HEAD OF THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT, AND THE POPE, AS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH, UNITED THEIR INTEREST AND CHURCH AND STATE BECAME ONE. FINALLY THE POPE BECAUSE THE DIRECTOR OF BOTH CHURCH AND STATE AND RULED AS A GREAT POLITICAO-ECCLESIASTICAL POTENTATE. One needs but read the utterances of past Popes to recognize the fulfillment of speaking 'great words against the most High' as prophesied by Daniel."
Again the connection between Justinian and the popes of the Roman Catholic Church. This is an interesting perception, for the popes gained their state-political authority by Justinian's Law Code.
What we are talking about here is an ecclesiastical-political power with the combination of Justinian and the Pope. That is why this new ecclesiastic-political beast is diverse from all the beasts that were before it, Daniel 7:7. We will not quote form Howard B. Rand's book Study In Revelation, page 44:
"Upon the ruins of the ancient Roman Empire there arose, gradually, a new and different type of Empire, which became all the more powerful because it CLAIMED control over the souls of men as well as their bodies, and extended its dominion beyond this life into the grave. History has amply verified these facts and that the Popes claimed the right to temporal power, taking the place of the Caesars, while the Eternal City under pagan Rome BECAME THE ETERNAL CITY UNDER PAPAL CONTROL. How apt is the description of her supporter as named by John, Hell. This is Hades or the abode of the dead, for through the doctrine of Purgatory, the church was able to hold supremacy and exercise tremendous power over her followers not only in this life, but beyond through the fear of future suffering in Purgatory."
Then quoting on page 49 from this same book:
"Church over State: Pope Agapetus, in a dispute with Justinian the Emperor of the east, won his point and the Emperor yielded to the Pope. The head of the Church had triumphed over the head of the government. This was 536 A.D. A Church council assembled at Constantinople this same year and informed the government, as a servant of the Church, that an edict be issued ordering a decision of the council executed. This was done and thus Church and State became united. Persecutions followed, which the dictated and the State supported. ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND SIXTY YEARS of cruel torture and destruction now followed, RESULTING IN NEARLY A HUNDRED MILLION DYING VIOLENT DEATHS." (You should remember that most of the murders were under the order of Jewish Popes)
538 A.D. to 1798 A.D. = 1,260 Years, Not 3½ Years
Let's go back to our original Scripture of Daniel 7:24-25 and pick up the sentence concerning this period of time: "and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."
This sentence is used by futurists as a basis for their postulation of a future three and one half year tribulation period, when a so-called antichrist will set up his kingdom after a so-called rapture. Some futurists call for a seven year tribulation period. The futurist theory was dreamed up by a Jewish Spanish Jesuit priest by the name of Ribera, about 1580 A.D., and the teaching had never been heard of before that time. It has a long and sordid history, and we don't have space here to go into much detail on the subject. But this portion of Scripture quoted immediately above is one of the basic passages they use, out of context, to support their theory. By showing you the true historical meaning of this passage. It will drive a nail into the coffin of this doctrine so it will stay dead for a long time. What could be more of a tribulation that 1,260 year and 100,000,000 violent deaths, mostly of our people, and during our time? Some estimate as low as 60 million, but it is still a lot of people. This is the legacy of Justinian and his law code, along with the Universal Church.
Example of Lack of Insight on Daniel 7:20-26
Now that we have covered this prophecy of Daniel 7, Let's take a look at some comments from The Bible Knowledge Commentary on this passage found in vol. 1, page 1355. While there are some positive remarks by this source, other statements are deficient, lacking any understanding. The follow quote is an example, compare it with the evidence:
"The amillenairan view that the 'little horn' has already appeared sometime in the past (but since Christ's First Advent) is wrong because: (a) no such ruler has attained worldwide status (7:23), (b) no such ruler has subdued 3 of 10 kings who were ruling at once (7:24), (c) no such ruler has persecuted Israel (7:21) for three and one-half years (7:25), and (d) no such ruler has been destroyed forever (7:26) by Christ's return. Nor could this 'little horn' be the Roman Catholic papacy because: (1) the 'little horn' is a king, not a pope, (2) the papacy's power has not been limited to three an d one-half years, (3) the papacy has not concentrated on persecuting the nation of Israel, and (4) the papacy has not been destroyed by the return of Christ to the earth."
The answers to these blatantly false statements by The Bible Knowledge Commentary, edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck of the Dallas Seminary Facility are: YES, the "little horn" did attain worldwide status in the prophesied Roman world. YES, Justinian did subdue 3 out of 10 kings. YES, the Roman Catholic papal system did persecute Israelites of Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic of European descent. YES, that prophecy was for a prophetic 3½ years, or 1260 actual years. YES, that papal ruler lost his power in 1798 A.D., and will be totally destroyed at the Second Advent. YES, the papacy represents the "little horn" of Daniel 7:8. YES, the papacy's power did continue for a prophetic 3½ years or 1260 actual years. YES, the papacy did concentrate on persecuting European, Anglo-Saxon and related "Israelites" during that period. And YES, while the papacy did lose its ruling power; it will finally be totally destroyed at Messiah's Second Advent.
How true is Matthew 15:14 and Luke 6:39, that if the blind lead the blind, both fall in the proverbial ditch. Not only are there blind leaders of the blind in the Judeo-unchristian churches, but there are blind leaders of the blind in the Israel Identity movement. A good example of blind leaders leading the blind in Israel Identity are those who deny the Two seedline message of Genesis 3:15, That puts the responsibility for the truth squarely upon OURSELVES, for Scripture implores us to "...study to show THYSELF approved..." (2 Timothy 2:15)
Now we have studied about Nebuchadnezzar's dream-image, interpreted by Daniel, concerning the four beast empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. We saw how the great amount of people in the Roman Empire; how the Teutonic German tribes wore down and eventually destroyed Rome; and, the destiny of the two-legged image which represented the western and eastern branches of the Roman Empire.
We discovered the "little horn" of Daniel 7:8 was the Roman papacy. Now we will investigate the "little horn" of Daniel 8:9. To begin, we will read each verse followed by commentary by Adam Clarke. Clarke is preferred because his comments are somewhat better than the other commentaries on this passage:
Daniel 8:1: "In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared unto me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me at the first."
Adam Clarke: "IN THE THIRD YEAR OF THE REIGN OF...BELSHAZZAR. We now come once more to the Hebrew; the Chaldee part of the book being finished. As the Chaldeans had a particular interest in both the history and prophecies from chapter 2:4 to the end of chapter 7, the whole is written in Chaldee. But as the prophecies which remain concern time posterior to the Chaldean monarchy, and principally relate to the church (CALLED-OUT ASSEMBLY; THE PEOPLE OF YAHWEH SPECIFICALLY), THEY ARE WRITTEN IN THE Hebrew language, this being the tongue in which God chose to reveal all His counsels given under the Old Testament relative to the New."
Daniel 8:2: "And I saw a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan IN the palace, which IS in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai."
Adam Clarke: "I SAW IN A VISION. Daniel was at this time in Shushan, which appears to have been a strong place, where the kings of Persia had their summer residence. It was the capital of the province of Elam, which was most probably added to the Chaldean territories by Nebuchadnezzar; See Jeremiah 49:34-35. Here was Daniel's ordinary residence; and though here at this time, he, in vision saw himself on the banks of the river Ulai. This is the same as the River Euleus, which divided Shushan or Susiana from Elymais."
Daniel 8:3: "the I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood before the river a ram which had TWO horns: and the TWO horns were high; but one WAS higher than the other, and the higher came up last."
Adam Clarke: "A RAM WHICH HAD TWO HORNS. In the former vision there were four beasts, pointing out four empires; in this we have but two, as only two empires are concerned here, viz., the Grecian and the Persian. The Babylonish empire is not mentioned; its fate was before decided, and it was now at its close. By the RAM, the empire of the Medes and Persians was pointed out, as explained by the angel Gabriel (verse 8:20); and particularly Cyrius, who was the founder of that empire. A RAM was the symbol of the Peresians; and a ram's head with two horns, one higher than the other, appears as such in different parts of the ruins of Persepolis. This ram had two horns; that is, two kingdoms, viz., Media and Persia; but one was higher than the other, and the higher came up last. Media, signified by the shorter horn, was the more ancient of the two kingdoms. Persia, the higher horn, had come up but lately, and was of little historic or political consequence till the time of Cyrus. But in the reigns of this prince and his immediate successors, Persia attained a political consequence greatly superior to that possess at any time by the kingdom of Media; therefore it is said to have been higher, and to have come up last."
Daniel 8:4: "I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there ANY that could deliver our of his hand; but he did according to his will, and became great."
Adam Clarke: "I SAW A RAM PUSHING WESTWARD. The Persians, who are signified by the ram, as well as their founder, Cyrus, pushed their conquests west, north and south. The principal theater of their wars, says Calmet, was against the Scythians, northward; against the Greeks, westward; and against the Egyptians, southward. HE DID ACCORDING TO HIS WILL. There was no other nation at that time that could stay the progress of the Persian arms."
Daniel 8:5: "And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat HAD a notable horn between his eyes."
Adam Clarke: "BEHOLD AN HE GOAT. This was Alexander the Great; and a goat was a very proper symbol of the Grecian or Macedonian people. CAME FROM THE WEST. Europe lies westward of Asia. ON THE FACE OF THE FACE OF THE WHOLE EARTH. Carrying everything before him. TOUCHED NOT THE GROUND. Seemed to fly from conquest to conquest. By the time Alexander was thirty years of age he had conquered all Asia: and, because of the rapidity of his conquest, he is represented as a leopard with four wings, in the preceding vision."
Daniel 8:6: "And he came to the ram that had two horns, which I had seen standing before the river, and ran unto him in the fury of his power."
Adam Clarke: "AND HE CAME TO THE RAM. This and the following verse give an account of the overthrow of the Persian empire by Alexander (WHO) ran unto him in the fury of his power. The conflicts between the Greeks and the Persians were excessively severe. Alexander first vanquished the generals of Darius, at the river Granicus, in Phrygia; he next attacked and totally routed Darius, at the straits of Issus, in Cilicia; and afterwards at the plains of Arbela, in Assyria."
Daniel 8:7: "And I saw him come close unto the ram, and he was moved with choler against him, and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand."
Adam Clarke: "AND BRAKE HIS TWO HORNS. Subdued Persia and Media; sacked and burnt the royal city of Persepolis, the capital of the Persian empire and, even in its ruins, one of the wonders of the world to the present day. This he did because 'he was moved with choler' against Darius, who had endeavored to draw off his captains with bribes, and had labored to induce come of his friends to assassinate him. Alexander, finding this, would listen to no proposal of peace, and was determined never to rest till Darius was seized and made prisoner by some of his own treacherous subjects, and afterwards basely murdered. HE CAST HIM DOWN TO THE GROUND, AND STAMPED UPON HIM. Totally destroyed the family, and overturned the whole monarchy."
Daniel 8:8: "Therefore the he goat waxed very great: and when he was strong, the great horn was broken; and for it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven."
Adam Clarke: "THE HE GOAT WAXED VERY... STRONG. He had subdued the whole of the then known world. THE GREAT HORN WAS BROKEN. Alexander died in the height of his conquests, when he was but about thirty-three years of age. His natural brother, Philip Aridaeus, and his two sons, Alexander Aegus and Heracles, kept up the show and name of the Macedonian kingdom for a time, but they were all murdered within fifteen years; and thus the great horn, the Macedonian kingdom, was broken, Alexander's family being now cut off. AND FOR IT CAME UP FOUR NOTABLE ONES. The regal family all dead, the governors of provinces usurped the title of kings; and Antigonus, one of them, being slain at the battle of Ipsus, they were reduced to four, as we have already seen: (1) Seleucus, who had Syria and Babylon, from whom came the SELECUCIDAE, famous in history; (2) Lysimachus, who had Asia Minor; (3) Ptolemy, son of Lagus, who had Egypt; and (4) Cassander, who had Greece and the neighboring countries. These held dominion towards the four winds of heaven. Cassander had the western parts, Lysimachus had the northern regions, Ptolemy possessed the southern countries, and Seleucus had the eastern provinces."
Daniel 8:9: "And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land."
Adam Clarke: "OUT OF ONE OF THEM CAME FORTH A LITTLE HORN. Some think that Antiochus Epiphanies is meant. Toward the pheasant land. Judea, so called in Psalm 106:24; Jeremiah 3:19; Daniel 11:6, 41."
It's with this verse that Adam Clarke loses his insight on this passage. To his credit, he does point out that "SOME THINK that Antiochus Epiphanies is meant." Evidently, he didn't necessarily agree. As to the comment about the "pheasant land," we will examine that later.
Daniel 8:10: "And it waxed great, even to the host of haven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them."
Adam Clarke: "THE HOST OF HEAVEN. The Jewish hierarchy. THE STARS, the priests and Levites. The powers or HOST OF HEAVEN are probably intended by our Lord (Matthew 24:29), to signify the whole Jewish hierarchy."
Here again, Adam Clarke goes wide of the mark. Rather than being the "whole Jewish hierarchy" when it is speaking of the HOST OF HEAVEN, it is speaking of all the Lost Tribes of Israel. That is the main reason the "little Horn" of Daniel 8:9 cannot be Antiochus Epiphanies. This vision of Daniel is much greater, and doesn't even compare with the incident with him and the Maccabees over the desecration of the Temple.
Daniel 8:11: "Yea, he magnified HIMSELF even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily SACRIFICE was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was give HIM against the daily SACRIFICE by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and anther said unto that certain SAINT which spake, How long SHALL be the vision concerning the daily SACRIFICE, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed."
Adam Clarke: "UNTO TWO THOUSAND AND THREE HUNDRED DAYS. Though literally it is 2,300 evenings and morning, yet it would appear that the prophetic day should be understood here, as in other parts of this prophet, and must signify so many years. If we date these years from the vision of the he-goat (Alexander's invading Asia) this was 334 B.C.; and 2,300 years from that time will reach to 1966 A.D."
While Adam Clarke isn't getting the whole picture, we must give him credit where credit is due. At least, in his purview, he understood Daniel's days to mean prophetic years, not literal days. Many Judeo-Christian clergy and laity alike are still making that same error. When we properly understand the time element, we can see how difficult it is to fit Antiochus Epiphanies into the education. Yet, almost every Bible commentary attempts to do this, and being in the majority doesn't necessarily make it right.
The "Little Horn" of Daniel 8:9 is Mohammed
The Identity author William V. Fowler was aware that Mohammed was the "little horn" of Daniel 8:9, and said this on page 131 of his book End Time Revelation:
"In his vision Daniel saw that the little horn 'waxed exceedingly great toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. (Verse 9) Arising south of Palestine from beginnings in Arabia, the followers of Mahomet (Mohammed), immediately after his death in 632 A.D., attacked the Persians in the east before entering Palestine and capturing Jerusalem in 637 A.D. Subsequent expansion was rapid, and within a hundred years, the Saracens, as they were called, had acquired an empire extending from India to the Atlantic, including all territories south of (the) Mediterranean and east of Palestine as far as central Asia.
"And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them. (Verse 10) As we have seen, the Prince of the host is to be identified with Jesus Christ, so the stars must be the children of Yahweh.
"This prophecy accurately describes the attitude of the Moslems to the Christian communities that remained within their territories. During the ten-year rule of Omar, the second caliph (634-644 A.D.), four thousand churches were destroyed, and the Christians were humiliated. As a sign of the degradation they were made to wear clothes of less honorable color, and instead of horses they were made to ride on asses, and while on the streets to give way of bow down before the meanest of people.
"'He magnified himself even to the prince of the host.' As we have seen, the Prince of the host is Jesus Christ, and this is confirmed by the interpretation which calls Him 'the Prince of Princes,' a title that can only be given to Christ. ALTHOUGH MOSLEMS CLAIM TO WORSHIP THE SAME GOD AS CHRISTIANS, THE KORAN...SAYS THAT THEY ARE INFIDELS WHO SAY THAT CHRIST IS GOD. Jesus is said to be no more than a servant who was favored with a gift of prophecy, while the MOSLEM CREED DECLARED A BELIEF IN GOD AND IN MAHOMET NEXT AFTER GOD, AS SUPERIOR TO JESUS CHRIST. The Moslems have clearly magnified themselves against Jesus
Christ, the Prince of the Host.
"THE TIME OF THIS KING'S APPEARANCE WAS TO BE DURING THE CHRISTIAN ERA 'when the transgressors are come to the full.' This prophecy means the transgressions within the Roman church which was predicted of the little horn in chapter 7. Since horns, in prophecy signify kingdoms rather than individual kings, 'the king of fierce countenance' probably meant Mahomet and his successors who were called Caliphs. Mahomet gave his followers instructions to propagate his religion by the sword.
"Understanding "Dark Sentences' (verse 23), doubtless refers to the mysteries of the Koran. 'And his power shall be mighty, but not his own power.' (Verse 24) As we saw in the case of Alexander the Great, this expression indicates that his own children would not inherit his power and, in fact, the first Caliphs were elected rulers.
"The last prediction that Daniel makes about the king of fierce countenance is that 'he shall be broken without hand.' (Verse 25) Although many Arab empires, including the vast Ottoman empire, have inexplicably collapsed, this prophecy may still have its ultimate fulfillment at the Second Advent...because the sanctuary, or THE TEMPLE SIGHT AT JERUSALEM, IS STILL DEFILED BY A MOSLEM MOSQUE, KNOWN AS THE DOME OF THE ROCK.
"Probably THE MOST IMPORTANT PROPHECY OF THIS CHAPTER IS THE TIME PERIOD, 2,300 DAYS (or years) given in verse 14. This prophecy is a future event. It terminates with the climax of the cleansing of the sanctuary, (Verse 14), with which the end of this present world order begins and gives way to the New Order of the ages, the Kingdom of Yahweh..."
Fowler made a prediction of 1978, but we believe Howard B. Rand has a somewhat better handle on some of the numbers. Rand also identifies the "little horn" of Daniel 8:9 as Mohammed. From Rand's book Study in Daniel, segments from pages 200-209:
"EASTERN LITTLE HORN. Following all this, Daniel was shown in vision a little horn which arose out of one of the four division of the Grecian Empire. There has been considerable confusion among prophet students concerning the identification of this little horn. Some have pointed to the acts of Antiochus Epiphanies as being a fulfillment but, though he did profane the Temple and persecute the Jews, his army was conquered by Judas in 165 B.C., whereupon the sanctuary was cleansed and the worship restored. In trying to make the proper identification of this little horn, it should be carefully noted that Daniel was not informed as to WHEN the little horn would arise; he was only told that it would come up in the territory of one of the four divisions of the Grecian Empire.
The vision of the little horn was as follows:
"And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land. And it waxed great, even to (against) the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and magnified himself even to (against) the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down. And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered." (Daniel 8:9-12)
"Let us compare translations so that we may have as clear a picture of this vision as possible. Moffett translates this as follows:
"From one of these emerged a small horn which grew to a great size in the direction of the south, the east, and the fair land of Palestine. It swelled high as the starry host; indeed, it flung some of the stars on high down to the ground and trampled upon them. It even magnified itself to match the demolishing the place of the sanctuary. Thus was the daily sacrifice profanely treated, the true religion was beaten down, and the horn prospered in its career.'
"Ferrar Fenton renders it:
"And from one of them came out a Single Horn, which became splendidly great against the exalted itself to fight with the Heavens! And threw down some of its Army, and some of the Stars, and trod on them! It even stood up against the Commander of That Army! And took from him the Perpetual Offerings, and threw down his Holy Dwelling! And an army was given to it against the Perpetual, for wrongdoing, and it threw down Truth to the ground; yet it was active and prospered...
"...All those who have tried to confine the activity of the little horn seen by Daniel in his vision to the few years during which Antiochus Epiphanies was active have completely overlooked the significance of the chronological factors involved and have also failed to note the instructions given Daniel that the events related to the 'far future.'...
"LITTLE HORN IDENTIFIED. The little horn seen by Daniel in his vision, therefore, depicted the rise of the power of Mohammedanism, and this identification is further confirmed by the fact that the little horn was to rise out of the territory of one of the four subdivisions of the Grecian Empire. Mohammedanism did arise in the Eastern Empire of Rome prior to the fall of Constantinople and extended its conquests to the south (Egypt and norther Africa), and toward the east (into Arabia and eastward to Persis), and toward the land of Palestine, which came under the full domination of the Ottoman Empire. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 A.D., brought the Eastern Roman Empire to an end and completed the establishment of the Empire of the Ottomans.
"SANCTUARY DEMOLISHED. During the 2,300 years from the time the Edict was issued sending Ezra back to Jerusalem, the Temple was built and later destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. Mohammed's flight dates from 622 A.D., the beginning of the Hegira or Mohammedan Era. In 634 A.D., Omar came to power and with an army of fanatics began building his Empire. Jerusalem was taken in 637 A.D., and the Mosque of Omar was built upon the Temple sight, thus fully establishing the 'abomination that maketh desolate,' fulfilling the prophecy as rendered in Moffett's translation: 'Deprived him of the daily sacrifice, demolishing the place of his sanctuary.
PERIOD OF GREAT FURY. History reveals the extent of the destroying power of this scourge for the followers of Mohammed did prosper and destroy many people in their ravages and the conquests of Christian peoples:
"Othman had established himself as chief in the north of Asia Minor. He invaded Nicomedia and founded the Ottoman Empire in 1299 A.D. By 1353 A.D., the Ottomans were established in Europe...The city of Constantinople was besieged and captured in 1453 A.D. this ended the Greek Empire when this eastern seat of Imperial Rome was taken by the Ottomans...All Asia Minor had been subjected by the Caliphs and now the eastern seat of Imperial Rome was infested by Mohammed II on the 6th day of March 1453 A.D., and fell to him on May 29th of that same year. With the fall of the Eastern Empire, which the Saracens could only torment, but not destroy, begins the period of great fury and bloodshed as the Ottomans established themselves in Europe and Africa.
"Daniel saw all this in his vision as he witnessed the power and aggressiveness of the little horn which, like the little horn seen in the first vision, was also emblematical of an ecclesiastical-political power. In the first vision it was the Papacy that rose to power, but now the little horn represented Mohammedanism and the line of the Caliphs. Full and unrestrained aggression was assigned to the leaders of the Mohammedans whose understanding of dark sentences refers to the type of revelation their leaders secured and the inspiration he received..."
In order to avoid confusion, we will discontinue quoting Rand any further. If we will take a good look around us, we can see this thing concerning Mohammadanism is not completely dead. It would seem the Almighty is using the antichrist "Jews" to fight against the antichrist Moslems, and the other way around. It would also appear it is time for us to step aside and let them annihilate each other.
Daniel chapter 8 is one of the main passages Futurists use in their attempt to prove a forthcoming so-called super-duper-pooper colossal "antichrist." With what we have studied so far, it would be very difficult to fit such a personage into Daniel's prophecies, yet they continue to try. Some examples: Commentary On The Whole Bible, by Jamieson, Fausett & Brown says on page 751:
"He (Antiochus Epiphanies) is the forerunner of the final antichrist, standing in the same relating to the first advent of Christ that Antichrist does to His second coming. The sins In Israel which gave rise to the Greek Antichrist were that some Jews adopted Hellenic customs...erecting theaters, and regarding all religions alike, sacrificing to Yahweh, but at the same time sending money sacrifices to Hercules. Such shall be the state of the world when ripe for Antichrist. At vs. 9 and vs. 23 the description passes from the literal Antiochus to features which, though partially attributed to him, hold good in their fullest sense only of his antitype, the New Testament Antichrist."
The Bible Knowledge Commentary says, vol. 1, page 1359:
"There is no question among expositors that Antiochus is in view in this prophecy. What was prophesied was fulfilled literally through him. However, the prophecy looks beyond Antiochus to a future person (the Antichrist) of whom Antiochus only a foreshadowing. This coming one is said to 'stand against the Prince of princes.' (Verse 25) This can be none other than the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the prophecy must go beyond Antiochus and look forward to the coming of one whose ministry will parallel that of Antiochus."
The Believer's Bible Commentary, by William MacDonald, says on page 1084:
"...The explanation of the vision begins in verses 19-22, but at verse 23 we seem to see beyond Antiochus Epiphanies to his future counterpart; a king with fierce features who will ruthlessly persecuted the holy people in the Tribulation Period."
These references are wrong on both accounts, for Daniel 8 speaks neither of Antiochus or a so-called future "antichrist." While these commentaries err on this passage, sometimes they do extraordinarily well on other passages.
The problem of misapplying the "little horn" of both Daniel 7 :8 and 8:9 to Antiochus Epiphanies originated with the Maccabees themselves. Their disastrous mistake in interpreting Daniel was figuring his prophecy in literal days rather than in prophetic year-days. Many today are making that same error, including some in Israel Identity.
Inasmuch as it was three and one half years from the time that Antiochus profaned the Temple until it was cleansed, the Maccabees thought they had their man. Many still go through all kinds of mathematical gymnastics to reconcile both Daniel chapters 7 and 8 in order to make Antiochus fit. Once one comes to realize that the "little horn" of Daniel is Mohammed, all difficulties disappear. After all, Antiochus Epiphanies was ly a small, insignificant pip-squeak in comparison to Mohammed. While Antiochus Epiphanies dealt harshly with the few Jews, Mohammed's Moslem religion grievously affected all of the tribes of Israel, and continues today.
Should one check with some sources, one will find they go to excess to make all kinds of explanations and show all kinds of charts in an attempt to prove that Antiochus Epiphanies was the "little horn" of both Daniel chapters 7 and 8. Don't be misled. They will try to place all the importance on Judah, who they falsely think are "Jews," while forgetting the rest of Israel. Don't be deceived by such people, as most of them, like the Judeo-Christian preachers of today, usually don't know the difference between a "Jew" and an Israelite.
Now as we attempt to show you the significance of Daniel's prophecy of 1335 days (verse 12:12), and what is called, in Luke 21:24, "the time of the Gentiles," of which both were fulfilled in 1917. But, however, we need to explain how we came to that realization.
In an Identity meeting at Detroit where Sheldon Emry, E. Raymond Capt and Paul Johnson, a former Mormon form Red Oak, Iowa, were guest speakers. Paul addressed Matthew 24 in one of his messages. We learned through the years much from him.
Near that time, in conversing with one of my regular customers at my place of business, he seemed amazed at some of the various subject we were able to refer to. He being a Jehovah's Witness, thought we were ripe to become a proselyte. After receiving two books through the mail which he evidently had them sent to me. Scanning one book, I saw several items which caught my eye, giving me cause to read it. Much of the book was just plain bull-crap, but the subject that interested me was "the times of the gentiles." It was beginning to dawn on me that the area of Jerusalem was also under the "seven times punishment." Upon mentioning that to Paul, he couldn't comprehend how that area could be subject to that punishment, as the "Jews" and other people occupying Jerusalem were not true Israelites, which you may concur. Most of us are familiar with how the Tribes didn't all go into captivity at the same time, and therefore, didn't come out from under the seven times punishment period at the same time.
That Jehovah Witnesses' book, Babylon The Great Has Fallen!, had some things correct on pages 179-180:
"But in a symbolic or prophetic year, the number of days is fixed at the unchanging number of 360, and each day thereof stands for a whole year. 'A day for a year, a day for a year.' (Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:6)
"In the prophetic book of Revelation a thousand two hundred and sixty days are spoken of as being equal to a 'time and times and half a time,' or three and a half times. (Revelation 12:6, 14) If we divide three and a half (3.5) into a thousand two hundred and sixty days, it give us three hundred an sixty (36) day s to a 'time.'
"Accordingly, a symbolic or prophetic 'time' would Scripturally equal three hundred an sixty (360) years. If, now, three and half symbolic 'times' amounted to 1,260 symbolic days, that is to say, 1,260 years, then twice three and a half (or seven) symbolic 'times' would be twice 1,260 years, that is to say, 2,520 years. Thus the 'seven times' that are mentioned in Daniel 4:16, 23, 25, 32 in connection with the tree dream would stand for two thousand five hundred and twenty literal years...In the fulfillment of the greater prophetic meaning, the 'seven times' of 2,520 years began to count when Jehovah God let go the world domination as represented by his typical kingdom on earth ...by count, then, those Gentile Times, those 'appointed times of the (non-Israel) nations'...would end 2,520 years... about...1914."
They're three years off on their arithmetic, but one can see what is meant by the "times of the Gentiles," as for 2,520 years Judea was ruled by foreign powers. Then, something interesting happened in 1917, when Jerusalem was delivered to the British. After "seven times" it again came under the authority of King George VI, a bona fide descendant of David. King George VI lived until 1952; long enough to decree that the "Jews" and Palestinians would have to settle their differences by blood. There is no evidence that Queen Elizabeth has ever countermanded that decree, so it is still in effect, and the "Jews" and Palestinians are still Lawfully under that King in Yahweh's sight. Therefore, that unlawful United Nations' recognition of Israeli in 1948 is null and void. They still have the earmark of a vagabond, with no legitimate place to call home.
Documentation on King George VI's decision concerning Palestine is found in Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Herschel Shanks, chapter by Harry Thomas Frank, page 8:
"His Majesty's Foreign Office had somewhat irresponsibly decided that since the problem of Palestine could not be solved by reason they would withdraw, leaving the two sides to decide by reason they would withdraw, leaving the two sides to decide the issue by blood."
So that is where we are today. As a second witness to Daniel 12:12, in 1917, an Egyptian coin that year was inscribed 1335 in Arabic. Thus we have two types of people occupying Palestine today, squatters and trespassers.
Though I don't agree with the book Testimony In Stone, by J. Bernard Nicklin, Yet his explanation of "the time of the Gentiles" is supportive of this thesis on pages 70, 72, 75, 106, 109, and 129.
On pages 78-80, Nicklin points to the date September 17, 2001 as the beginning of a period of "cleansing." That date is too close to September 11, 2001 to be coincidental. We have already witnessed the exposure of fraud in the money markets, and the age-old secret sexual practices of the Roman Catholic clergy. If Nicklin is correct, we are in for some very starting revelations. Scripture says this cleansing will start first with the House of Yahweh. I, for one, am going to enjoy every minute of it. Moreover, many in Israel Identity have the need of being cleansed of the anti-seedline and universalism doctrines. (Taken, in part, from Watchman's Teaching Letter, by Clifton A. Emahiser, 1012 n> Vine Street, Fostoria, Ohio 44830; (419) 435-2836)


text:
Cracking the Codes of Comedy: On the Anatomy of Jokes, Part 1
By Jeffrey Melton on July 24, 2014
Why did the chicken cross the road?
What is your favorite joke? Do you know why it works for you?
In answering the first question, many people have clear, definite jokes in mind; others may have to run through their memories to choose from several. In either case, most humans enjoy the prospect of having "favorite" jokes, and sharing them. They are far less interested in considering WHY the joke works for them, that tougher second question from above. "Why? Because it's funny as hell. That's why." There could follow a series of insults to the questioner for ruining the whole idea of a joke. Hearing jokes can be funny; talking about why they are funny is not. So it follows that teaching humor, though a very good gig by all teaching measures, is still rather a risky proposition on the whole.
The Humor Code
The study of humor has earned quite a bit of attention in scientific circles in recent years, moving well beyond the more standard interests in the humanities (my comfort zone). Most recently, and most successfully in the marketplace, is the book The Humor Code: A Global Search for What Makes Things Funny (2014) by Peter McGraw and Joel Warner. The book has received quite a bit of publicity and attention from media. For a good overview of the topic and links to some of this popular attention (For example, see: Slate article with links on Studying Humor). It sets up the basic questions that start this post and applies both a journalistic and scientific methodology to seek answers. It is a good read, and often very funny in its own right.
The Science of What Makes Things Funny – watch more funny videos
Peter McGraw has been building the Humor Research Lab at the University of Colorado–Boulder, and has aggressively applied a scientific method to the study of humor. His approach, though not the first, has gained some worthy attention. Teaming up with a journalist is a stroke of geniuses (or common sense, really). Joel Warner helps provide an appealing voice for the study and makes sure the writing succeeds where so many academic books fail: it is readable. The Humor Code should appeal to teachers of humor on the whole. McGraw and Warner frame their study in terms of a romantic quest for scientific understanding of the seemingly inexplicable nature of laughter. It is a worldwide search for the keys to understanding the human sense of humor, that amorphous but essential part of the human experience. That is simply a great idea for the framing of a book, and it is hard not to hate them both for coming up with it.
Let's start with the book's epigraph from E.B. White. It reads:
"Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific mind."
Frogs and Language
McGraw and Warner follow that quote with: "Let's kill some frogs." I should add here that no frogs will die in the process of reading this post. The E.B. White quote has earned formidable commentary on HA! already. See the related posts by Sharon McCoy and Tracy Wuster: Sharon McCoy on Dissecting Jokes and Tracy Wuster on Objects of Humor.
This beginning to the book hits home with any teacher of humor because it captures the dilemma exactly. E. B. White's comment gets plenty of play, as it should. It is a compelling statement that rings true but is a bit disingenuous with the facts in creating its metaphor of killing frogs. White asserts that any dissecting of a joke like a frog kills either party. Who needs dead frogs or dead jokes? Nobody.
My memory of 8th-grade biology is foggy, but I seem to recall that the frogs were quite dead before any of us started hacking away at them. Perhaps I am being defensive, but I don't want to be accused of killing frogs anymore than of killing jokes. I have spent a good, and pleasant, portion of my adult life dissecting jokes and asking others to do so as well. I think they (both the jokes and the students) survive the process. The "thing" does not die on the table, and the process of dissection does not require a scientific mind; rather, it demands only a curious one. A scientific method, however, can be helpful with funding. But I digress.
Trying to get students (or anyone) to begin examining the components of jokes–their structure, form and content; their cultural and historical context; their artistic qualities of language and nonverbal communication–can be worthwhile. It also forces those who try to answer the question the opportunity to assess their own preferences and personality traits that may push them to like one type of joke over another. This process could get rather personal rather fast. And, of course, it is political. Let's take a moment to look at a few examples of a popular and persistent joke: the Light Bulb joke. It is simple framework with seemingly limitless permutations. Here is a link to a website out of England that claims to be a repository for the best "Light Bulb" jokes. http://www.lightbulbjokes.com/directory/t.html. I know it is English because there are so many misspellings (too many u's and not enough z's). I also know it has English authors because the site chooses the following as its favorite light bulb joke:
Q: How many Irishmen does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Five, one to hold the light bulb and the other four to turn the ladder round and round!
That seems a rather odd choice if based solely on the humor implicit in it. That is rather political, eh? It certainly has a social and historical context that must be open to scrutiny, as in any classroom examining humor. This seems to be one of the most popular and oldest versions of this joke, wherein the premise of the punchline depends on stereotypical assumptions and underlying social tensions. Simple jokes have complex backstories. This joke as presented above will not play very well in most American settings, but that is not to say that there are not American versions filled with similar tension and bigotry. The number in the answer is somewhat off-point and generic (presumably, the more people involved in the process, the dumber they are); what matters is that it affirms an assumption from the audience that agrees–or is simply willing to laugh about–the supposed stupidity of the targeted group. Let's back off a bit and choose a version of the same joke above but directed at a more universally disliked group. This version has a more benign historical context:
Q: How many tourists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Six: One to hold the bulb and five to ask for directions.
Tourists are sooooo stupid. Right? Well, yes. Well, no. But the joke can implicate almost anyone who has been in a unfamiliar place, and the characteristic of a tourist being uniformed and dependent on others and maps for their mobility (unlike Irish above) is not definitive of any single person's identity. Moreover, the condition of being a tourist is temporary so that the insult is much more benign. Yet the form of the joke is the same. The answer implies the same status: stupid. And it is funny. Here is another version with a slightly skewed punchline that offers a more complex context for consideration.
Q: "How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?"
A: "You know that's not very funny."
This joke has a clear political target: humorless feminists who are so politically minded in response to centuries of oppression that they refuse to accept a joke that may mock them, This version of the joke seems to be stopped cold via the interrupting voice that challenges the joke's set-up. That voice provides the joke, a slight twist on the more standard punchline for light bulb jokes more typically provided by the questioner. This is the version of the joke as I remember if when I first heard in in the early 1990s. To my surprise, I found that the "lightbulbjokes" site provides twenty-nine answers to this set-up, the last of which is most closely aligned with my version. The answers on the whole carry a not-too-subtle backlash anger, more along the reactionary "feminazi" attacks popularized among the listeners of the idiotic but sometimes funny Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s. They, it seems, remain popular, and many of them are funny, it seems to me.
I still like the version quoted above, a version I first heard from students majoring in Women's Studies. That statement is intended to give me some street cred for defining this joke as allowable and even funny in the version above. Others may disagree, and students need to explore the variations of opinion.
Why do I think my version is funny and benign but see most of the others as harboring much more anger? Am I right? Am I wrong? Well, how did I get here? The same questions apply to all jokes in one way or another, and such questions are getting some big media attention and that is a good thing for humor and anyone who likes to laugh and think about why.
What is your favorite joke? What makes it funny? What does it say about our culture? What does it say about you? Why a frog?
In case you are interested, here is how to change a lightbulb:
Posted in: Humor in America	| Tagged: E.B. White, humor, Joel Warner, Jokes, Light bulb jokes, Peter McGraw, studying humor, The Humor Code
Cracking the Codes of Comedy: On the Anatomy of Jokes, Part 2 | Humor in America September 2, 2014 at 9:47 am | Reply
[…] Last month I explored the anatomy of jokes by looking simple joke forms, "light-bulb jokes" in particular, in the ongoing context of applying the scientific method to understanding humor. See: Cracking the Codes of Comedy Part 1 […]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


is permitted to operate in 1 state, which does not require ACE to be authorized to operate due either to exemption from such requirements or by state regulations governing the provision of distance/online education.
State authorization or registration to operate is the legal authorization ACE maintains in order to provide postsecondary education in a state in which it is not physically located or in which it is otherwise subject to jurisdiction as determined by the state. Because not all states require institutions to be authorized or registered to operate and the activities that require authorization vary, ACE continuously monitors regulations in all states in which it offers its academic programs and courses.
ACE offers all or a selection of its academic programs in the following SARA participant states (Note: ACE's home state of Indiana, a SARA participant state, is not listed): Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
For a number of reasons, including the facts that ACE delivers all academic program coursework online and does not have a physical presence in the state, ACE is either exempt from or otherwise not required to obtain state authorization in order to offer all or a selection of its distance education programs in the states listed below. Please note: each state has a unique definition of "physical presence" and the list is subject to change based on state regulations.


Kat & Cat Quilts: Honeycomb Quilt is a top!
The Honeycomb quilt is on the design wall and the top is finished. The paper pieced bee in the corner came from this pattern at Badskirt and the over all design is from Elizabeth Hartman at Oh Fransson.
With any luck I can get the back pieced and the whole thing basted today!
Linking to Judy's Design Wall Monday and Hexie Weekend.
Oh! I love it! Thanks for the heads up on the pattern. I invite you to link it to Hexie Weekend to share this delicious quilt top.
It.looks.awesome! Way to go with those Y-seams! :) Looking forward to seeing it all quilted up!
Now this is just way too cute.....loving that Bee!


text:
FCC Exclusives
'The Gentlemen' Review: "An Enjoyable Return To Form"
Ernesto Valenzuela Posted On January 15, 2020
Writer/director Guy Ritchie returns to his roots as a filmmaker in his latest endeavor, The Gentlemen. The film tells the tale of a gangster and his marijuana business along with a myriad of people scheming to take his empire from him. If you're a Guy Ritchie fan, chances are you notice the similarities between this and the film that made him famous: Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels.
Fortunately, The Gentlemen marks a return to form for Ritchie. This goes up to and including the ensemble cast. To name a few, the insanely talented cast features the likes of Matthew McConaughey, Charlie Hunnam, and Colin Farrell. The one who steals the show, though, is Hugh Grant as Fletcher. He is a private investigator type at the heart of the story. Grant's performance is vivid and hilarious. It is worth watching The Gentlemen for Hugh Grant's performance alone. Another part of the ensemble that works so well is Colin Farrell as Coach, a jumpsuit wearing, fast-talking gangster. His role is limited but enjoyable and fun.
In spite of this stacked cast, Ritchie tells this story through the perspective of Grant's character. It is something of an unreliable narrator trope that adds to the craziness of The Gentlemen. The premise centers around Fletcher telling the story to Ray (Hunnam), telling it in the form of a script he wrote based on the experience and story of Mickey Pearson (McConaughey).
From this description, you can see that Ritchie chooses an extremely interesting way to tell this story. The direction is sharp and witty, and the material has some hidden depth. Moreover, The Gentlemen deals with themes of class separation and media representation. But that doesn't work 100% of the time. In fact, the story moves at a very fast pace. Sometimes, too fast to acknowledge these themes. Nevertheless, the quick-witted humor and hilarious storytelling managed to win over myself and the audience I was with.
READ: 'Richard Jewell' Review: "Showcasing Heroism As A Double-Edged Sword"
The unreliable narration and storytelling from Fletcher are what stuck with me the most. Ritchie uses it to the best of his ability. There is some obvious embellishment here and there within Fletcher's telling of the story. There is even some backtracking and change of view as well. It's a creative storytelling technique that works to The Gentlemen's favor. The non-linear format keeps the audience guessing at all times. There is a domino effect to Pearson's decision regarding his criminal empire that ripples into the storylines of the ensemble film.
Golding as Dry Eye is also a memorable part of the ensemble. Playing the antagonist to Pearson, he tries to throw every possible curveball imaginable to Pearson's plans for his empire. Golding portrays the antagonist excellently. As a sort of character without a moral code, he is ready to steal power wherever he can.
Guy Ritchie's films are practically a subgenre of their own. He meshes different types of story tropes and fast editing to deliver entertaining films, and the same is true here. There are moments where the humor can fall flat, but that is expected when a film is filled to the brim with this much wit. The editing can also be a bit too fast for its own good. Certain cuts in the film can be jarring to the pace of the story. On top of that, there are certain subplots and story beats that don't go anywhere in the larger narrative. Instead of investing and developing the ensemble it already has, The Gentlemen sometimes gets distracted with the fun it is having on these side plots.
Overall, though, The Gentlemen is a fun enough ride. Thanks to its talented ensemble and witty script, the film manages to downplay its pacing issues. It is a sign of a return to form for Guy Ritchie, who made his name with a debut feature in the same genre and vein of The Gentlemen. Despite not exploring the thematic depth that is possible from this screenplay, the film is nonetheless an entertaining enough time at the movies. – Ernesto Valenzuela
Grade – 7/10
The Gentlemen releases in theaters January 24th, 2020, and stars Matthew McConaughey, Charlie Hunnam, Hugh Grant, Colin Farrell, Henry Golding, and Michelle Dockery.
Ernesto Valenzuela
Avid Marvel fan and father of two dogs. Writing about movies and comics since 2017.
'JoJo Rabbit' Director Taika Waititi In Talks To Direct 'Star Wars' Movie
Christian Hubbard January 16, 2020
'Watchmen' Season 2 Not Likely At HBO
Sinestro Will Appear In 'Green Lantern' HBO Max Series
Tyler Hoechlin's New Suit For 'Superman & Lois' Revealed


Tech In Asia, the Singapore-based media and events startup, has closed $6.6 million in fresh funding.
The lead investor is a name that may not be too familiar to regular readers (yet) and that's Hanwha Investment and Securities. The fund is an affiliate of Hanwha, a Korean conglomerate which started out in explosives in 1952 but has since expanded into a range of verticals including (now) a focus on tech in emerging markets.
With $55.5 billion in annual revenue, Hanwha seems on paper your typical gigantic Asian conglomerate, but it has actually ventured into startups prior to this investment having backed Singapore-based fund Golden Gate Ventures as an LP.
TechCrunch understands that Hanwha was keen on this deal because it wants to raise its visibility among Southeast Asia's tech community, and get access to data and deal flow. Backing one of the region's most prominent tech blogs, which also runs events, hiring and data businesses, certainly ticks that box in its book.
Other investors in the round include previous backers Eduardo Saverin — the Facebook co-founder — and his wife, Walden International and East Ventures.
"It is always humbling to meet individuals and organizations who believe in our mission enough to invest in it. We will continue to serve and build Asia's tech ecosystem and keep improving our products to better serve the community," Tech In Asia CEO Willis Wee said in a statement.
Wee declined to add more when we contacted him.
Tech In Asia's most recent raise was a $4 million Series C that closed in June 2015, previous funding prior to that was undisclosed. The site was one of the first to cover tech and startup news across Asia since its inception in 2009. It entered Y Combinator via its TechList database in 2015.
This new round makes it the best capitalized of a range of new media companies that focus on covering startups in Southeast Asia, China and beyond. Others include E27, which last raised $2.2 million last year, and Deal Street Asia, which hasn't publicly announced new investment since the end of 2015.


text:
10 Other Female Comic Book Characters That Need Movie Adaptations
With Wonder Woman a smash hit, Hollywood should look to these other female heroes
June 13, 2017 | 11:30am ET
Comics to Screen is a recurring feature in which Ben Kaye analyzes the constantly evolving leap from comic books to screens of all sizes.
The truth fans have been screaming at Hollywood about for years has finally been proven: female-led superhero movies are wanted, needed, and can be successful. Wonder Woman crashed into theaters with record-setting numbers, becoming the highest-grossing opener for a female director ever. Not only that but critics and fans are loving the movie, which considering how well Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice did at the box office is probably a better gauge of success. For the first time, you can actually hear Marvel fans start to worry about their grasp on cinematic domination.
It's interesting that what you aren't hearing, however, is a lot of cries from men worried about Y chromosomes being removed from their superhero epics. Sure, there was uproar about those women-only screenings of the film, but even that was relatively muted. For years, Hollywood has seemed scared that audience wouldn't respond to a female superhero, that somehow this was a male's marketplace and inserting the "fairer sex" wouldn't garner the same outpouring of adoration (or money) as Iron Man or The Dark Knight. If you listen closely, though, it doesn't sound like anyone's really complaining about a good superhero movie that just so happens to star a woman.
So consider the floodgates opened. Hollywood now understands that female-driven comic book features can be all sorts of successful, so expect more studios to be open to the idea of making them. In fact, a few are already in the offing, with DC Films working on Gotham City Sirens (change that name now, please) and Marvel Studios prepping Captain Marvel. Still, there are plenty of other comic book properties with female leads out there that have long begged for the cinematic treatment — and not all of them come from the Big Two.
In the pages ahead, we'll highlight 10 women-centric comic books that would make excellent movies. For the sake of originality, we'll skip things like Catwoman and Elektra, which have already received failed adaptations, because we all already know those could've been done better. We'll also avoid anything that's actively being developed in one form another; Squirrel Girl will be part of Marvel's New Warriors show on Freeform, and Batgirl is being developed by Joss Whedon, so there's no need to talk to about those properties.
(Read: How Can Wonder Woman Save DC Films After They Committed Suicide Squad?)
Still, that leaves plenty of creative concepts for filmmakers to tap into. From characters we've already seen on screen who deserve their starring role to beloved underground heroines to mutants with ridiculous powers, here's our list of 10 female superheroes that deserve their own movie.
Pages: 1234567891011
Dafne Keen
Independent Comics
A Reunited Genesis Shines at Madison Square Garden with Nostalgia, Toilet Paper and Hard-Won Emotions: Recap
BTS' Permission to Dance On Stage in Los Angeles Was a Triumphant Evening with the Biggest Act in the World
Ask Dr. Mike: The Big Lie We Tell Ourselves About Substance Abuse
Who Profits From the Posthumous Album Release?


He is Ready to Play. But are You?
Duke Nukem Forever after 14 years of development has finally been released. The game that was considered folk lore to most in the gaming community, has changed games engine more often than the ones underwear and bankrupted its original developer. And from what I've played so far it's been nothing but a disappointment. The only thing it has going for it, is it's the sequel to the Duke Nukem 3D game.
So all the bad points; the engine is on the Unreal engine that bought us Unreal Tournament 2004 so its 7 years old and graphics have come a long way since then and when you are "admiring" yourself in the mirror, it doesn't look much better then then the original.
Having purchased this on the Xbox360 I would like to know if the very poor interaction with the environment and control response is as bad. The interaction with the environment is a little moody, at times it works fine while at other times you have your crosshair in the same place and it won't allow you to do the required action. This includes shooting. If the crosshair isn't red for the enemy, it doesn't matter if you are hitting it or not, you will not do any damage to it. So when the pigcop is jumping at you and normally you would stop that with a point blank shot form the shotgun, more often than not you will somehow miss the thing even with it taking up your entire screen.
Ok let's end on a high note and say all the good things about Duke Nukem Forever. After 14 years the only thing that's changed for Duke is he's older, still the same the macho, misogynistic, wise-cracking character. He's still spouting some great one liners throughout the entire game and having every girl fall to their knees just to please you.
The actual story is a nice change to the current games in the genre using a more classic first person shooter design; but with a game 14 years old what would you expect?
Can I recommend this game to anyone? Well sadly no; this is a game that anyone who has been a fan of Duke Nukem should play but with the new release price tag it's just not worth it. So when you see it in the cheap bin at your local game store that's when you should think about buying it. Till then here's the trailer.


In grilling language, would that be "well done"?
NO. It would be burned to a crisp. Dry. Too tough to chew. Worthy of the trash can.
That's how I have felt in my struggles of late.
Dry. Dehydrated from the only Water that can quench me… Your Living Water, Lord.
Burned to a crisp by the fires of a furnace I have willingly stepped into. Fires of lifestyle choices that have cooked all the nourishment out of me until I am nothing but ashes.
This morning, I rose from the ashes.
This morning, determined words filled my spirit.
I am done… settling for less than the life You have bought for me.
I am done… lying down when I should be — could be — standing up.
I am done… shaping self-indulgence into an art form.
I am done… yet I am only beginning.
This morning I was in a jungle. Covered by undergrowth and overgrowth gone wild.


This 15-inch Shaker style wall cabinet features a vintage white color, which is ideal for any kitchen remodeling in contemporary fashion.
This 15-inch Shaker style wall cabinet features a vintage white color, which is ideal for any kitchen remodeling in contemporary fashion. Designed to keep your countertops clutter-free with overhead storage space, this unit is crafted by Maplevilles, a leading cabinet manufacturer in southern California.
Built from solid birch wood, this wall cabinet is as sturdy as they get. Whether it's the door or face frame that use ¾" solid wood or top, bottom, side walls and bottom base that use ⅝" grade A plywood, the unit boasts impeccable sturdiness throughout. What's more, the stain-resistant veneer and waterborne UV treatment offer a colorfast and anti-moisture surface, making the unit last longer. Designed to pronounce the contemporary and minimalist profile of your kitchen, the unit features a Shaker style single door which is set on the box via adjustable and soft-closing hinges, enabling the door to whisper shut while making it sit flush with the facade. The hinges are hidden from view, reinforcing the clean profile of the unit even further. This wall cabinet also boasts MDF center panel meaning it doesn't warp or crack under unfavorable temperature, helping the unit stay protected for a long time.


Razer chief executive Tan Min-Liang.
Tan Min-Liang's e-payments promise is coming true.
The Singaporean entrepreneur's gaming hardware brand, Razer, announced on Monday (Nov 12) that Razer Pay will be accepted at Nets' unified point-of-sale (POS) terminals when it launches in the first quarter of 2019.
Apart from Nets, brands such as Reebonz, Sistic, SP Group, and WTS Travel are also working with Razer Pay in areas like in-store offline purchases and online payment, the company said.
For instance, SP Group and Sistic customers may be able to make payments directly in the Razer Pay app without scanning a QR code.
In a statement, the 41-year-old Razer co-founder and CEO said he is confident Razer Pay can become the "go-to e-payment provider in Singapore, covering everything from online to offline purchases".
"Since we announced our intention to launch Razer Pay by the first quarter of 2019, we've seen tremendous interest from businesses in Singapore keen to collaborate with us and integrate our e-payment framework," Tan said.
Razer Pay said on Monday that users in Singapore will also have access to existing gaming and digital entertainment offerings, such as Steam Wallet codes, Blizzard balance PINs, and Sony PlayStation PINs.


text:
Source: Rob Go, Cofounder, NextView Ventures
Every time I see blog posts referencing multiples on VC investments, I wonder if writers or readers appreciate how hard it is to generate these kinds of multiples and how multiples should really be calculated.
Obviously, the way to calculate a return multiple is to divide the amount returned from an investment by the dollars invested. If I invested $10M in a company and got back $100M, that's a 10X return. Seems pretty straightforward, right?
The problem arises when multiples are inferred from incomplete data. It's quite rare that anybody but the fund manager actually knows the dollars out and dollars returned by a specific investment. And if you have incomplete data, there are usually a number of things that go into calculating or estimating the return. Here are a few other things to think about.
How to Actually Calculate a Investment Return Multiple
Remember each round of financing further dilutes early investors' money.
Let's say a seed investor put in $1M in a company's first financing round at a $10M post-money valuation. The company ultimately sold for $200M. So, one might infer that the seed investor made $200M/$10M= 20X their money.
Unfortunately, this is almost never the case.
In almost any outcome like this, the company goes on to raise more money, usually at higher prices. As new investors come on board, all existing shareholders of the company will have their ownership stake in the business diluted. This also happens when a company expands their option pool.
Here's how that plays out for the seed investors.
Let's say this theoretical company raises just one more round of financing. It's a $10M round at a $50M post-money valuation. And as part of the round, the option pool of the company is expanded by an additional 10%. After this round, the company has their $200M exit.
In this example, the flow of the math would be something like this: The seed investor owned 10% after the seed financing. In the next round, the seed investor's ownership is diluted by 30% (20% due the new financing and 10% due to the expanded option pool).
So the seed investor's ownership was actually 7% at exit. Thus, their $1M returns $14M?—?a 14X return. Pretty great, but meaningfully different from 20X.
Another way to look at it is the effective post-money of the investment. At the seed, the investor bought 10% for $1M. But when it was all said and done, the investor actually bought 7% for $1M. It was like they invested in the company at a valuation of $1M / 7% = $14.3M.
But most companies do not have a straight shot to a multi-hundred million dollar exit with just a seed and Series A. Most raise multiple rounds, and dilution happens at each round.
Below is a sample outcome table for a few scenarios.
What this shows is that the investor's multiple dramatically changes depending on how many rounds of financing occur after the initial round and the level of dilution of each round.
I like thinking about this in terms of effective post-money because it creates a more visceral reaction. If this company goes on to raise multiple financing rounds such that new investors and future employees end up with an additional 50%, the seed investor mathematically invested at a $20M post-money valuation. Still good, but not what you think of as seed-stage prices.
This is why celebrating big financings isn't always such a great thing. Apart from the screwed-up incentives that can arise from overcapitalized companies, each time a company raises money, all prior investors get diluted, which increases the effective post-money of all the earlier dollars.
Factor in all the dollars an investor puts into a company?—?not just the initial round.
But one might say that this is precisely why it's important to invest follow-on capital?—?it helps you protect your ownership. This is true, sort of, but leads to another misconception around multiples:
One needs to consider all the dollars someone invests into a company at each round, not just the initial round.
The problem with follow-on financings is that they have a similar effect to future dilution. Each time an investor puts money into a follow-on round, she preserves her ownership, but increases her cost basis and effective post money.
Back to our hypothetical company and angel investor that invested $1M at $10M post. Let's say that company raises just one more subsequent round of financing that is a $10M at $50M post again. But this time, let's assume the seed investor decides to "lean-in" and write a $2M check at this stage. So, what happens is:
The investor bought 10% at the seed
The investor also bought another 4% at the Series A
The investor invested $3M total
The investor's seed dollars got diluted by 30%
So, final ownership is (10% x 70%) + 4% = 11%. Since the investor increased ownership, they basically did "super-pro-rata" in a company they thought was a winner. The company then sells for $200M.
Quick: Is this investment a 10X for the seed investor who initially invested at a $10M post-money valuation?
The answer is NO. The investor made 11% x $200M = $22M. They invested $3M to get there. So it was a 7.3X with an effective post-money of $27M. Pretty good, but not a 10X return.
This effect is even greater if the investor puts capital into multiple future financing rounds, even if they just keep doing their pro-rata share of the round. The example above is simplistic, and I'd argue that 70%+ of $200M exits happen with more future dilution than this.
A Few Takeaways
1) This is why it's really hard to infer investment multiples from incomplete data.
Someone with only a basic understanding of venture math would think that a seed investor who invests $1M at $10M post would generate a 10X or better return in most $200M exits. But these examples show that it doesn't take much to turn a 20X scenario into a <10X scenario. And all of the scenarios above assume the future financings are up or flat to the prior rounds. They don't contemplate what happens if there is a down round or a recap along the way.
2) VCs need bigger exits than you think to drive the 10X returns venture model.
When you see data from VCs that talk about 10X returns and the need of 10X returns to drive the venture model, you are probably thinking that the exit size required to generate that 10X is smaller than it really is. Even the 3–5X scenarios require pretty big exits in most cases.
This is why there is some misaligned incentives between founders who might find an exit in the hundreds of millions to represent life-changing money and investors who want the company to keep pushing for an even bigger outcome.
3) This is why venture returns often decline as funds get bigger.
When a fund is getting started, they usually do much less follow-ons in the beginning (especially initial seed funds). When VCs increase their fund size, the rationale is to have more capital for follow-ons. They also need to invest more in follow-ons to deploy that much capital.
But as more dollars are invested in later-stage rounds, this increases the cost basis and effective post-money of the fund's investment. This often drives down actual fund multiples, even if the investor doesn't make a lot of mistakes by following-on into companies that ultimately fail.
4) The "pile in to your winners" strategy really only makes a big difference in two scenarios.
The first is when the "winners" are really really big, meaning multiple billions of dollars.
The second is when the pile-in happens relatively early. Usually, this happens because the company is under-appreciated. The investor leans in when others don't believe and gets rewarded for it later.
Apart from these situations, I think it's somewhat questionable whether that strategy is worth the risk of piling into the wrong companies and the negative effect of increasing your overall cost basis.
5) This is why the very best VC firms do a combination of three things:
Really focus on power-law outlier companies.
Buy and maintain ownership cost effectively.
Keep fund size to a reasonable level relative to their ownership targets.
While the math may be simple, I think it's very important for VCs, entrepreneurs, and journalists to understand how returns are actually calculated. It took me several years in VC to internalize these considerations and a few more to actually come to grips with its implications?—?but it's dramatically changed the way I see the business and how we've shaped our fund strategy.
Scale Finance LLC (www.scalefinance.com) provides contract CFO services, Controller solutions, and support in raising capital, or executing M&A transactions, to entrepreneurial companies. The firm specializes in cost-effective financial reporting, budgeting & forecasting, implementing controls, complex modeling, business valuations, and other financial management, and provides strategic help for companies raising growth capital or considering M&A/recapitalization opportunities. Most of the firm's clients are growing technology, healthcare, business services, consumer, and industrial companies at various stages of development from start-up to tens of millions in annual revenue. Scale Finance has multiple offices in the Carolinas including Charlotte, Raleigh/Durham, Greensboro, and Wilmington with a team of more than 45 professionals serving more than 130 companies throughout the region.