Revelation -- Where is the End?

[RND]

I don't disagree that the legs represent Rome.

Let's hear it for agreement!

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.

That's fine. But I see significant meaning in the imagery of the statue and the beast of Daniel 7.

However I do see some significance in the feet and toes.

But none in the other parts of the statue? What do the feet and toes have that the other parts of the statue don't?

It seems as though you might be stretching the text in a similar fashion to the dispensational stretching of the legs.

Well Mike, you know what they say about opinions right?

[psychohmike]

I never said that the other three parts of the statue didn't mean anything. However I do not believe that the body being broken up over 4 parts is what is significant. Also that the metals used in the illustration are significant. And the fact that they will all be broken and the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.

The Iron and Clay were coexistent. And the Roman empire hasn't existed in some 1600 years. Therefore it cannot be speaking of something beyond that point.

However we are supposed to understand the the interpretation of this passage it had to it must harmonize with history just as the rest of the passage does. The Iron in this passage was never a part of the body that was united as the Roman Empire was before it split into two. And to stretch the legs or look for a revived roman empire has been dismissed as second hand pulp fiction a long time ago.

If you need to rewrite history to fit your view, you may want to re-examine your view.

[RND]

I never said that the other three parts of the statue didn't mean anything.

Mike, I never thought you said this. You simply believe the imagery of Nebuchadnezzar's vision is less significant than I do.

However I do not believe that the body being broken up over 4 parts is what is significant.

You said that!

Also that the metals used in the illustration are significant.

I see this as "extremely significant."

And the fact that they will all be broken and the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.

Amen!

The Iron and Clay were coexistent. And the Roman empire hasn't existed in some 1600 years. Therefore it cannot be speaking of something beyond that point.

This is where you and I would part company. The United States is the one nation that has set-up an "image to the beast" in it's social and political. While I do not agree with a number of things at this web site I do believe that the historical content and understanding presented in regards to Rome and it influence in the world today is fairly well done. Enjoy.

The Covenants of the gods

Hislops book is pretty good too!

The Two Babylons

However we are supposed to understand the the interpretation of this passage it had to it must harmonize with history just as the rest of the passage does. The Iron in this passage was never a part of the body that was united as the Roman Empire was before it split into two. And to stretch the legs or look for a revived roman empire has been dismissed as second hand pulp fiction a long time ago.

God never makes mistakes Mike. Prophecy is just history before in happens! "His Story." Not only does the Roman empire revive, it makes war with the children of God, just like it used too.

If you need to rewrite history to fit your view, you may want to re-examine your view.

Interesting isn't Mike that you haven't shared your view with us, just criticized what other have posted. Maybe you'd be kind enough to tells us what your historical interpretation of both the image in Daniel 2 and in Daniel 7 are. I know I'd be interested to see that.

[psychohmike]

My last post should make it pretty clear what I believe.

I like you believe that the fourth kingdom was Rome. What I don't believe is that there is a gap in the legs. Nor do I believe that the legs are unnaturally long. Nor do I believe that the legs in any way represent a split Roman Empire, i.e. Rome/Constantinople. Once again because the the illustration never portrays the fourth kingdom as having been anything other than two. The Greecian Empire may very well have been split up after Alexander which could be represented by the belly that works it's way into two thighs. However if that was the case, then one can only conclude that it began as a divided kingdom. And that just doesn't fit with any view. The statue is broken up into 4 parts and that is the significance of the illustrations of the four kingdoms.

And it is my contention that Jesus was that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands...That Stone that the builders rejected, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold

And I'm just not convinced that there is an exigetical basis for a gap or a stretch of the legs.

Please...Try and convince me.

[psychohmike]

Still waiting to be convinced...

[RND]

Still waiting to be convinced...

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

[darinhouston]

Still waiting to be convinced...

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

I've never quite agreed with that (otherwise quite funny) quote -- I am curious, though, what a Calvinist would do with it since they think God overcomes our will against our will.

[psychohmike]

Still waiting to be convinced...

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

"No more rhyming...and I mean it!"

[RND]

Mike, you've made your point and I have made mine. You've stating that essentially no matter what I say it won't change your mind. In fact you've been very confusing in that at first you say:

I don't disagree that the legs represent Rome.

and then:

Nor do I believe that the legs in any way represent a split Roman Empire, i.e. Rome/Constantinople.

There are two legs of iron in Nebuchadnezzar's statue. What do they represent to you?

Also, regarding the Greecian Empire you said this:

The Greecian Empire may very well have been split up after Alexander which could be represented by the belly that works it's way into two thighs. However if that was the case, then one can only conclude that it began as a divided kingdom. And that just doesn't fit with any view.

History indeed shows us that after Alexander died he kingdom was split between his four generals. Later that power was concentrated into two branches. But Greece was not initially a "divided" kingdom but quite united under Alexander. That might explain why it is represented by a singular bronze torso (unless you know someone that has a "dual torso!? )

[psychohmike]

History indeed shows us that after Alexander died he kingdom was split between his four generals. Later that power was concentrated into two branches. But Greece was not initially a "divided" kingdom but quite united under Alexander. That might explain why it is represented by a singular bronze torso (unless you know someone that has a "dual torso!? )

Clearly the significance is in the materials and not the body parts. And whether you know it or not you have proven this by this last statement of yours.

"IF" there was any significance to the body parts, and historically we can verify the Greek empire starting out as a unified kingdom that eventually ended up divided, it then logically follows that whatever kingdom was to follow the kingdom of bronze, would have to have started out as "TWO" separate kingdoms and finished the same way.

The legs of iron were never united. However the Roman empire that was represented by the legs of iron was.

You just can't have it both ways.

It is the materials, Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron and Clay that are significant...Not the body parts, other than the statue was a body of a man...in which a normal man will have one head, a chest with two arms, a torso that works it's way into two legs with feet and ten toes.

That Daniel himself places no significance in the details of the statue in this passage like he did later in chapters 7 & 8 regarding the horns on the fourth beast should speak VOLUMES.

Mike