Easily Debunking Antiochus as being the Little Horn

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. Dan.8:9

 

"The little horn cannot apply to Antiochus, but must signify the
Roman power, because, This little horn, in comparison with the preceding kingdoms, Media and Persia, waxed "exceeding great." 

 

There is in the prophecy a regularly increasing gradation of power: great, very great, exceeding great. Applying the little horn to Antiochus, the following result is presented: 

 1. "Great," 

 Persia. True. 

2. "Very great," 

Grecia. True. 

3. "Exceeding great," 

Antiochus. Nonsense.

The Persian empire is simply called "great," though it ruled "from India even unto Ethiopia, over an hundred and twenty and seven provinces." (Esther 1:1).

 

Grecia, still more extensive and powerful, is called "very great." 

 

Then comes the power in question, which is called "exceeding great." Was Antiochus great in comparison with Alexander, who conquered the world? or with the Romans, who conquered vastly more than all of Alexander's dominions?? 

The kingdom of Antiochus was only a portion of the empire ruled by
the goat. 

Q:  Is a part more than the whole? 

 

Of the relation between Antiochus and the Romans, the Religious Encyclopedia says: "Finding his resources exhausted, he [Antiochus] resolved to go into Persia to levy tributes and collect large sums which he had agreed to pay to the Romans."
Can any king be said to have waxed exceeding great, when he left his kingdom no larger than he found it? 

 

But Sir Isaac Newton testifies that Antiochus did not enlarge his dominions. He made some temporary conquests in Egypt, but immediately relinquished them when the Romans took the part of Ptolemy and commanded him to give them up." Uriah Smith