Actually Mike that's an odd statement in the fact that though Gold makes an excellent adornment and is significant of great wealth it is virtually useless in making weaponry. So if that's the case not only do the body parts represent things, the metals represent things as well.psychohmike wrote: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.
In other words, the metals/body parts are not mutually exclusive....they compliment each other.
Exactly! Now you're getting it! Rome's downfall began when she separated into to "legs," east/west division of power. Rome/Constantinople."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.
Just as the two thighs represent the final division of power of the Greek empire before it's ultimate destruction, so to the two legs of iron represent the final division of power of Pagan Rome.The legs of iron were never united. However the Roman empire that was represented by the legs of iron was.
The symbolism is both accurate regarding the metals of the Greeks and Romans and their ultimate division of power.
See Mike, this is why I didn't want to try and "convince" you of anything. Your mind is made up. There is no way to convince you that what you belief is myopic.You just can't have it both ways.
Greece was represented by it's bronze works and weaponry and it's final division of power as was Rome. It's unmistakable. And is in fact quite logical. Finally, it has been the main view of historism in the Protestant movement for over 350 years.
The chest with the arms represented the two divisions of power between the Persians and the Medes. Two "arms" joined in power. The torso and legs of bronze represented Greece. One singular power that eventually split into two divisions before being overcome. The legs of iron represented Rome. One singular power that eventually split into two divisions before being overcomeIt 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.
Mike, just the mere mention of them along with the historic facts of their revelation should be considered significant.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.
The argument you make is really odd and seemingly inconsistent with scripture when you consider that Babylon in Daniel 7 was represented by a lion. And it is very true that this was in a way a national symbol was much like the symbol of an eagle is that of the United States.
But what about the bear with three ribs in his mouth? No where in it's history is the bear depicted as the nation symbol of the Medes and Persians. Using your method of deducement the bear can't possibly represent Medio Persia. In fact, try to find any symbolism tying Medio Persia with a the symbol of the bear. You won't find any.
We are told by Daniel that in fact the image itself represented various kingdoms. The fact that each part of the body represented a unique detail in the historic reality of each of these images/kingdoms should not be dismissed.
That's funny, I think. What about the feet? They should be 
)I just simply disagree with it. Remember this Mike, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I tried not to have to convince you of anything. In fact I begged it off. 
