Literal Hebrew of the five "daily" passages in Daniel presents grave difficulties for the new view:
Daniel 8:11: the verb is rum, which does not have primary meaning of "takeaway," but "to exalt," "to go on high," "to lift up" (every use in the Old Testament has this meaning implicit in its context).
The key thought in this verse: lifting up, rising up, or exaltation, of the little horn. In the process of its spectacular mushroom growth, with its rise to power it lifts up, takes up, or absorbs HA TAMID.
The law of first mention requires particular attention to this verb used with HA TAMID. This is the "vision" (CHAZON); all subsequent mention of HA TAMID is the "audition" (MAREH).
Other uses of rum in Daniel: chapters 4:37; 5:19, 23; 11:36; all, "exalt."
The verb rum inconsistent with Antiochus' removal of sacrifices from the Jerusalem temple; he did not lift up, take up or exalt them.
Is equally inconsistent with the papacy removing or taking away Christ's ministry; the papacy did not lift up, take up, or exalt it in any way, rather, the opposite.
Perhaps clearest modern translation of rum in this context is to "absorb" or "incorporate." Ellen White uses that word of papacy "incorporating" paganism, paganism "giving place" to it (GC 50, 54).
The word rum used in Leviticus describes priests reaching in and lifting up the fat from the animal carcasses; does not identify Daniel's HA TAMID as the Levitical "daily sacrifices" of the tabernacle or temple.
The word "sanctuary" in vs. 11 is MIQDASH, not the same as QODESH in vs. 14; MIQDASH can refer to Satan's dedicated place (Isa. 16:12; Eze. 28:18; is used derogatorily in Eze. 21:2).
"Sanctuary" in vs. 14 is QODESH; but MIQDASH means "any dedicated place" usually requiring contextual or adjectival designation when used in reference to the Lord's sanctuary. In 2 Chronicles 36:17 is used to make derogatory reference to "their sanctuary," that is, of unfaithful Jews, as Ezekiel likewise refers to Satan's "sanctuary" (MIQDASH, 28:18). In contrast QODESH always refers exclusively to the Lord's sanctuary, with no adjectival designation. Daniel's use of two different nouns in four verses is significant.
The word for "place" unusual; means "base" or "headquarters." Linguistic evidence could support pioneers' view that MIQDASH here is the dedicated place (or temple) of paganism, the city of Rome.
The ordinary word for take away or deprive is ADAH, not used in 8:11 (cf. 5:20; 7:26).
Daniel 8:12: while HA TAMID is "taken up," "truth is cast down," and "a host" joined with HA TAMID is designated as an earthly force-inappropriate to describe removal of Christ's heavenly ministry.
Is employed against HA TAMID be PESHA, literally, "the continual in transgression." Thus the Hebrew identifies HA TAMID as an evil thing; is difficult to apply it to Christ. (No earthly force could take away His High Priestly ministry.)
Pro-Antiochus Epiphanes translators have manipulated the Hebrew be to mean "by reason of transgression" instead of "in transgression."
Daniel 8:13 literally: "How long the vision HA TAMID the desolating iniquity, the giving both sanctuary (QODESH) and host to trampling?"
Places HA TAMID in apposition with "desolating iniquity;" supports J. N. Andrews' idea of "two desolating powers" here.
Why does Daniel now use QODESH instead of MIQDASH as he did in vs. 11? Indicates he means the pioneer view.
Daniel 11:31 literally: "military might shall stand on his part, and they shall disgrace (dishonor) the MIQDASH of military refuge (bastion, haven against military aggression) and shall remove (SUR; not RUM) HA TAMID and shall place the abomination that makes desolate."
Could plausibly be applied to Antiochus' military attack on the Jerusalem temple, but meaningless when applied to Christ's High Priestly ministry which cannot be touched by military force. The verb SUR never used symbolically of taking something from the minds of people as "new view" supporters affirmed in early 1900s.
Verb SUR defines Daniel's use of MIQDASH in 8:11 as the military bastion of HA TAMID; cannot fit the heavenly sanctuary.
Verb SUR appropriate for removal of paganism as a political or military force opposing the papacy; but its "incorporation" spiritually into the papacy is denoted by the verb rum in 8:11. A profound insight into a very important development in European history.
"Sanctuary of strength" (MIQDASH with MAOZ) is a "military fortress," a phrase inappropriate for the heavenly sanctuary; MAOZ as used by Daniel always means a military fortress or political fortification (11:1, 7, 10, 19, 31, 38, 39).
Daniel 12:11: a definite time necessary for removal of HA TAMID militarily or politically, in order to "set up" papacy; recognizing 1290 days as years essential to a true identification of HA TAMID.
The "new view" proponents unable to explain this. See Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary where this admission is prominent (vol. 4, p. 881).
All proponents of the Antiochus view flounder here in hopeless quagmire of confusion; see any non-Adventist commentary.
150 years of Adventist exposition still see 508 A.D. as reasonable application; the revised Daniel and Revelation by Smith supports the date with further evidence unknown in his day.
508 A.D. does not refer to rum activity of the papacy in 8:11 as lifting up or incorporating paganism in the papacy, but to its political, military removal as a hindrance to the temporal supremacy of the papacy. This is pioneers' identification of the "taking away" of 2 Thessalonians 2:6, 7.
The logical extension of the "new view" (Antiochus) is to interpret the 2300, 1290, and 1335 days as literal; or even to ignore 1290 and 1335 days aspect of HA TAMID, thus leaving Daniel to fizzle out in a wilderness of speculation and futility. For example, in God Cares by Mervin Maxwell the Daniel 12 mention of "the daily" is totally omitted, depriving the reader of any understanding of the 1290 and 1335 "days." (This is vivid contemporary evidence of confusion engendered by "new view.")
When Daniel speaks unmistakably of the continual or daily temple services, does not use HA TAMID, but ZEBAH and MINHAH ("the sacrifice and the oblation [to cease]," Daniel 9:27). No linguistic or contextual hint that he intends these terms to be synonymous with HA TAMID. Further, if HA TAMID does refer to temple sacrifices which "ceased" in midst of 70th week, how could it be "taken away" by the little horn centuries later? If he wished to speak in Daniel 8:11, 12, 13; 11:31; and 12:11 of the daily or continual temple services, why should he not be consistent and instead use ZEBAH and MINHAH?