Revelation -- Where is the End?

[Mellontes]

Where'd you come up with this list? Newton? He was a "hstoricist" not a "preterist."

Sir Isaac Newton, Observation Upon the Prophacies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (London: 1732).

http://historicist.com/Newton/title.htm

Who said anything about those scholars who believed in an early date as being preterist? Not me.

[Mellontes]

Also, all of these held the "historicist" view:

John Knox, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, E.B. Elliott, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Alexander Hislop, Ian Paisley, George Whitefield, Ellen G. White, C. H. Spurgeon, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke and Albert Barnes.

How'd that woman get in there?

[SteveF]

Where'd you come up with this list? Newton? He was a "hstoricist" not a "preterist."

Sir Isaac Newton, Observation Upon the Prophacies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John (London: 1732).

http://historicist.com/Newton/title.htm

Hey RND, I think the point Mellontes was making was the date Revelation was writen. I actually went to the website you linked and correct me if I'm wrong (I only did a quick scan of the article) but it looks like Newton was arguing for an early date.

http://historicist.com/Newton/p2c1.htm

When SDA was founded, it's my understanding, the Historist position was by far the most common. Therefore it makes sense that SDA would have adopted this approach as well. It seems there are some reasonable arguments to be made for the Historist view. I'm just not sold yet.

[psychohmike]

Well, if you won't go that far at least you'd be kind enough to give us your opinion of what the "two legs of iron" of the statue in Daniel 2 are.

Hello...it is the statue of a man. How silly would it have been to have a man with one leg?

The statue would have also had...
two ears,
two nipples,
two eyes,
two nostrils,
two cheeks,
24 ribs...Oooohhh...That sounds like the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles.

Sounds to me like someone is reading in.

[mtymousie]

Well, if you won't go that far at least you'd be kind enough to give us your opinion of what the "two legs of iron" of the statue in Daniel 2 are.

Hello...it is the statue of a man. How silly would it have been to have a man with one leg?

The statue would have also had...
two ears,
two nipples,
two eyes,
two nostrils,
two cheeks,
24 ribs...Oooohhh...That sounds like the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles.

Sounds to me like someone is reading in.

One of my first thoughts when reading RND's "question" was to ask him his opinion of what the two arms of silver represented since it was apparently so important to his particular doctrine. I decided to just let the obvious be the obvious. I do appreciate you pointing it out though, Mike.

preteristmouse

[RND]

Well, if you won't go that far at least you'd be kind enough to give us your opinion of what the "two legs of iron" of the statue in Daniel 2 are.

Hello...it is the statue of a man. How silly would it have been to have a man with one leg?

The statue would have also had...
two ears,
two nipples,
two eyes,
two nostrils,
two cheeks,
24 ribs...Oooohhh...That sounds like the twelve tribes and the twelve apostles.

Sounds to me like someone is reading in.

Mike, Daniel 2 tells us exactly what the various symbols of the statue represented.

Dan 2:32 This image's head [was] of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, 33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.

The suggestion of the different metals symbolized the progressive inferiority of the subsequent kingdoms that would follow. Now while I certainly agree that a man cannot stand on one leg very long and thus a man stands on two legs Daniel gives us the meaning of the kingdoms represented in the feet mixed with clay and the ten toes. Feet are connected at the end of legs so there is some obvious connection between "two legs" and the feet mixed with clay.

Dan 2:41 And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. 42 And [as] the toes of the feet [were] part of iron, and part of clay, [so] the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. 43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. 44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, [but] it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

In fact, I would love nothing more than to take all the credit for this understanding of these images but unfortunately this understanding is as old, if not older, than the Reformation itself.

Click on the image:



The fact is however that there is not one explanation for what these two legs represent that makes as much sense as Rome and Constantinople.

[RND]

One of my first thoughts when reading RND's "question" was to ask him his opinion of what the two arms of silver represented since it was apparently so important to his particular doctrine.

The arms are connected to the chest, they are assumed to be separate from reading the text.

Dan 2:32 This image's head [was] of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, 33 His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay

Collective. Breast and arms of silver. Not separated.

I decided to just let the obvious be the obvious. I do appreciate you pointing it out though, Mike.

I'd say you missed the obvious, but what do I know. Not much apparently.

[psychohmike]

Hey RND...What do you do about this.

You say that the legs of iron represent the Roman Empire that at a point in time became a divided kingdom.

Consider also that the third kingdom was composed of the belly and the thighs.

By your definition the seperation would have had to take place during the third kingdom. And then those two thighs would have then become the two legs of iron.

The two legs were never one that then seperated into two.

Pmike

[RND]

Hey RND...What do you do about this.

You say that the legs of iron represent the Roman Empire that at a point in time became a divided kingdom.

Consider also that the third kingdom was composed of the belly and the thighs.

By your definition the seperation would have had to take place during the third kingdom. And then those two thighs would have then become the two legs of iron.

The two legs were never one that then seperated into two.

Pmike

Mike, actually I don't have much to say about that other than the fact that Greece was represented by the bronze in the statue that Daniel saw. I'm certain you are aware that Greece for many thousands of years prior to Daniel's prophecy was known for ushering in the Bronze Age. Virtually every great Bible scholar has correctly surmised that it was Greece than conquered Medio-Persia and Greece was in turn conquered by pagan Rome. Historically, I doubt there is much to challenge on these points.

But maybe you'd be willing to consider that the belly, being a single body part, represents the monolithic government of Greece and the thighs, two separate body parts as you correctly noted, represent a similar division of power that we see in pagan Rome. The Greek Empire was built upon the remains of the Persian Empire and began with a single leader, Alexander the Great (the belly?). After Alexander's untimely death at age 32 his generals carved out kingdoms of their own. From the resulting wars between these four generals, two major powers that were later conquered by pagan Rome emerged. Those two powers were Ptolemaic Egypt and Seleucid Syria. Later, as I already mentioned, those two iron legs represented Rome and Constantinople.

Hope that answers your challenge.

[psychohmike]

I don't disagree that the legs represent Rome. However I do disagree that there is really much significance other than it just happens to be the part of the statue assigned to the fourth kingdom. However I do see some significance in the feet and toes. It seems as though you might be stretching the text in a similar fashion to the dispensational stretching of the legs.