Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The British empire the largest the word has ever seen did'nt figure in the dream then Finn.
If you think ahout the British empire, if was not a strong empire at all. It did not rule Europe for example, which was the centre of the civilized world at the time. They only ruled countries here and there and almost all of those countries were insignificant and remote. The empires desribed in Daniel, were empires which controlled civilized world of those times.
If there is a downfall it's people who worked very closely with all the "cronies" in the mortgage and housing bubble to get us all here now and they point fingers trying extremely hard to place themselves above it all..
If anything represents the utter dismissal of responsibility...
Now those same people have worked their way out of the wood work to come scold us all and tell us how bad Americans are.
You mean , Austrailia, New Zealand, Canada, America, India, Africa, and various other islands throughout the world. They were insignificant? the British empire was truly global unlike the rest of the "empires" you mention which except maybe for the Romans were insignificant by comparison.
You mean , Austrailia, New Zealand, Canada, America, India, Africa, and various other islands throughout the world. They were insignificant? the British empire was truly global unlike the rest of the "empires" you mention which except maybe for the Romans were insignificant by comparison.
Yes, they were insignificant at that time. The center of civilization of that time was Europe. Australia was a prison, New Zealand was a fishing village and America and Canada were....well....not very significant at that time. They were sources of raw materials for the Brits, but not significant civilizations. The Brits took what they could easily claim (almost always without a fight) by sailing around the world and sticking their flag on the beaches.
Does British empire meet the definition of "empire". Yes, definitely, since they ruled many foreign countries and exploited them. So why was it not a part of the statue in the dream? I believe it is for the reasons I have given you. It was not considered a 'major empire' such as Rome, who took what they wanted and crushed all opposition by overwhelming military force. Alexander the Great marched into Persia, which was the existing Empire and the center of civilization at the time, and he crushed the Persian army which had been the strongest up until then. If England was such a powerful empire, why didn't they march into Europe and take what was there and what belonged to France, Holland, Spain, Portugal and Belgium? That's where the real money was. Weren't those countries Empires as well, who had exploited their 'empires' for hundreds of years? Sure they were. Each of them were ruling other countries all over the world. Why didn't they march into Paris and Moscow and seize their gold? Why? Because they couldn't. They lacked the resources and the overwhelming power of the major empires. They had a navy, which was able to sail around the world and claim unclaimed lands. A different kind of empire all together.
But then again, there are people who believe the 'feet of iron and clay' is indeed a reference to British empire followed by US as a superpower. They say the iron and clay, which do not mix are: Iron (hard) = military and clay (soft) = diplomacy. Both US and UK are known to use both methods to reach their goals.
We are talking about old testament book of Daniel, so who is anyone to say they know for sure which empire is represented in the 'feet of iron and clay'. During Daniel's time only one of the empires existed, and then three more came to be later and now the last one is the unproven mystery. The fifth empire is a part of the end-times prophecy in the Revelation so for those who believe in the bible it could not have been the Anglo-American "empire". Instead it has to be an empire which has not yer come to be.
But it is interesting you brought up the British empire. Thanks.
You mean , Austrailia, New Zealand, Canada, America, India, Africa, and various other islands throughout the world. They were insignificant? the British empire was truly global unlike the rest of the "empires" you mention which except maybe for the Romans were insignificant by comparison.
The difference with the British Empire and say, Napolean or Hitler was in the way it was goverened. The other states were tied by manditory trade but not directly controlled. That is why the 13 colonies thought they had a right to tell the Brits not to tax the tea. The Spanish colonies of the time were ruled directly. They eventually broke away but it was a much bloodier fight and has not led to stability because there was nothing in place to become a stable government.
I'd disagree about the Roman Empire. In its time as they knew the world it was absolutely global.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
