Jump to content

Steve_S

Servant
  • Content Count

    5,068
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,718 Excellent

About Steve_S

  • Rank
    Royal Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Recent Profile Visitors

15,136 profile views
  1. Please refrain from getting personal any further in this thread. Doing so will result in removal from it.
  2. Steve_S

    Al Baghdadi.

    An interesting question. I believe Jesus answers it: Mat 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! Mat 23:38 See! Your house is left to you desolate; Mat 23:39 for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'BLESSED is HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!' " I suppose one could spiritualize this and say it's speaking of the "kingdom of Judah" or some such (as has been done previously), however, I would put out that this is after the triumphal entry and Jesus is literally standing in Jerusalem while saying this. There is no kingdom. It's a simple roman province. My main question here, is how on earth is it possible that this Jersualem, this specific Jerusalem that Jesus is physically standing in and lamenting, will one day, see Him again... if it is destroyed?
  3. Steve_S

    Al Baghdadi.

    It has to if it is being spiritualizied and use to prove something else in another chapter written 700 years later. However, in the specific context, it doesn't say the kingdom, it says the city and there is not one single thing throughout the entire chapter itself, absent trying to wedge it into a different meaning elsewhere in the scriptures, that says otherwise.
  4. Steve_S

    Al Baghdadi.

    You say it's the lake of fire, but that's not written specifically anywhere in the scripture. If the old testament prophecies about Babylon indeed ultimately mean only that this spiritual Babylon, i.e. Jerusalem end up in the lake of fire (with ostriches and such), then we are swiftly reaching an expositional point where words are definitionless and literally almost mean nothing.
  5. Steve_S

    Al Baghdadi.

    What specific part of Revelation 17 or 18 leads you to believe that a kingdom is in view here? Again, is this being read into the text? Revelation specifies a city, nothing else. I see no evidence that there is a reestablished kingdom of Babylon in the classical sense. But, even if it were, that's not a problem. Dan 5:25 "And this is the inscription that was written: MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. Dan 5:26 This is the interpretation of each word. MENE: God has numbered your kingdom, and finished it; Dan 5:27 TEKEL: You have been weighed in the balances, and found wanting; Dan 5:28 PERES: Your kingdom has been divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." Whose kingdom? Belshazzar's. Who was Belshazzar? He was the son of Nabonidus, probably the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar was the son of Nabopolassar, who led a rebellion against the Assyrians. In short, when Babylon fell, Belshazzar's kingdom that he inherited from his father and grandfather was divided and given to the medes and persians and *his* kingdom was finished. You can absolutely, positively make an argument that the ruler of any future babylon will most certainly not be of the line of Nabopolassar. That has nothing to do with the city or any future kingdom under it. The city of Babylon and the area that it had ruled was not at all finished, not for millennia. It continued on for many, many centuries. There is not a single thing in this specific text that would imply anything outside of the fact that the line of kings had fallen. The very next day the "kingdom of babylon" was in the hands of a Mede named Darius. Darius ruled from Babylon as the king of... Babylon. Cyrus ruled from Susa as the king of Persia. That's why it was said that it was divided and given to both the Medes and Persians. Cyrus army conquered it but a Mede ruled over it from within the Persian empire. We know that Darius was the king of a kingdom because of Daniel 6: Dan 6:1 It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom one hundred and twenty satraps, to be over the whole kingdom; Dan 6:2 and over these, three governors, of whom Daniel was one, that the satraps might give account to them, so that the king would suffer no loss. The kingdom of babylon had not went anywhere as an entity, it had simply switched hands. It was the royal line which Belshazzar ended that was finished and he was only the fourth generation in this line (most likely, anyway).
  6. Lets please remember to keep it civil. In a difficult topic like this, sometimes it's best to take a step back and take a breath before posting.
  7. I'm going to split this off into a separate prayer request thread for you. Praying.
  8. This is getting far too personal. Please remember the Terms of Service. Further violations in this thread will result in removal from it.
  9. BB and Roar removed from thread for getting personal.
  10. Steve_S

    Al Baghdadi.

    In reading through your post. I think I must get it out there that we may define literally differently. Of course, there is a necessity to understand that there is metaphor. So for instance, if the scripture says a beast with 7 heads and 10 horns, then one would obviously take that metaphorically, particularly when interpretations are given of that beast. However, if the scripture literally says the word Babylon multiple times through several chapters in reference to a literal physical city that still existed at that time, it is incredibly difficult for me to view it as anything *but that.* Ah, but therein lies another problem. We can say "mother of harlots" rather than mother of all harlots. That once again opens up a number of other possibilities which are far stronger. I see no problem with removing "all" from the title. However, I also see nowhere in the text that requires "unique" harlots or "worse" harlots either. That's the real problem. As you say, the text literally just says "mother of harlots." There is no impetus to read Jerusalem into that. I read back a bit and did find this part (I am often trying to respond to these far faster than I should lol). I'd like to focus on one verse. Isaiah 40:2 Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the Lord's hand double for all her sins. Now, if this is a direct allusion to Jerusalem receiving a double portion in a Revelation 17-18 sense, why is comfort being spoken? Jerusalem would be a smoking ruin with nothing left, yet, it was pardoned?
  11. Please debate the subject and not the person. This point forward, doing so in this thread will see you removed from it.
  12. Please be civil to one another. Any further attacks will result in the poster being removed from this thread.
  13. He was pointing out that this is a prayer thread, just like I am. It's fine to quote bible verses, but she's asking for prayer too. You can make those arguments in threads on theololgy. I'm asking you not to do it here.
  14. Steve_S

    Al Baghdadi.

    The most literal reading is that it is. I won't be dogmatic on it, because there is not a city there right now, well, there is one, but it's mostly buried and the only folks who are around there are shepherds and such. The word "mystery" preceding the name certainly leaves open a wide door for it not being literal. The angel does reveal the mystery, though, just not in specific terms. So, one could take it to mean that any remaining mystery is with regard to the identify of the kings, etc., as opposed to the city itself. A lot of people in the late 80s and early 90s really thought that it was about to be rebuilt fully and that it would play into prophecy. That partial unearthing and restoration that Saddam undertook did serve to prove something though, which is that Babylon was not destroyed to the degree that the bible said it would be, which leaves open possibilities that may have seemed not very likely before. If at some point it does start being actually rebuilt, a lot of folks are going to need to relook at interpretations of Revelation 17-18. I'm not sitting in expectation of that, but I certainly think it's possible.
×
×
  • Create New...