Why would the references to Antiochus defiling the temple be literal, yet the ones about the Antichrist doing so be figurative - when they are BOTH found in Daniel?

Have you read Ezekiel? Chapters 40 on describe the temple that will be built by the Lord or His people in the Millenium. This is God's inspired account. There is no way a Jewish temple in itself is evil - perhaps what is done in it might be.

Revelation 11:1-2 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

Why would God tell John to measure the Tribulational temple, if there were no literal temple? And you keep making statements about how could that temple be holy? Who said it was - not the Bible. The holy place and holy of holies refer to places within the temple, not necessarily to its state. Obviously when a temple is defiled, it is no more holy. That is why Daniel refers to the Jews cleansing the temple after Antiochus' defiling of it. There is no reference to the temple being cleansed after the Antichrist defiles it - which could indicate the rebuilding of it prior to the return of Christ is not endorsed by God. However, God doesn't have to approve of it to foretell it happening.