Jump to content

Steve_S

Servant
  • Posts

    5,208
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Steve_S

  1. What's confusing about this though is that you say that He doesn't completely destroy it until after He returns, if I'm not mistaken? I may have misunderstood. Could you clarify?
  2. Let's please remember to keep it civil. People are removed from threads because of getting personal.
  3. So the claim is that the angel saying this is Jesus? It, however, says what it says though. Approaching it with a predetermined outcome in mind requires it to be interpreted differently than what the text actual says. That is my primary issue with this theory overall. It starts with mystery and ends with confusion, rather than start with what is specifically known and going from there. The end outcome of starting with what is actually *known* with specifics and in concrete sequences makes it nearly impossible to definitively identify Babylon as any specific entity. The impossible thing with all of this is that the majority of passages being posted says Babylon repeatedly, both old testament and new. Again, I draw your attention to Revelation 19. Rev 19:1-15 After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, "Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God! (2) For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her." (3) Again they said, "Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!" (4) And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying, "Amen! Alleluia!" (5) Then a voice came from the throne, saying, "Praise our God, all you His servants and those who fear Him, both small and great!" (6) And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, "Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! (7) Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready." (8) And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. (9) Then he said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!' " And he said to me, "These are the true sayings of God." (10) And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (11) Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. (12) His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. (13) He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (14) And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. (15) Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. (16) And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. (17) Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, "Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, (18) that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great." (19) And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. If one reads that as an actual passage, just reads it how it is written, there is simply no escaping that Babylon is already a smoking, destroyed ruin when this happens. The more complicated the Jerusalem theory gets (and it is past the point of complicated), the less one can just read the bible and believe what it specifically says.
  4. Let's please remember to keep it civil. Getting personal is what results in people being banned from threads and them getting closed.
  5. Let's please remember to keep it civil. Things are trending towards getting personal.
  6. Revelation 19 disagrees with this. The smoke of Babylon is rising before the final battle: Rev 19:1 After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, "Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God! Rev 19:2 For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her." Rev 19:3 Again they said, "Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!" Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Rev 19:20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. So that leaves two options. Babylon (or whatever city it represents) is entirely destroyed before this and this is a commemoration of that fact: I admit that it doesn't totally read that way. Option two, Babylon has already been destroyed by a military attack of some sort and receives a final supernatural judgment as Jesus returns: The final part of the verses you posted above cannot be relegated to only Babylon (or whatever city it represents, even if it's Jerusalem) because there are no islands there (or real mountains to my knowledge). It seems that whatever the case, Babylon is a smoking Ruin as Jesus is still in heaven prior to His return. That is inescapable with a plain reading of Revelation 19.
  7. That's fair enough of course, however, I still want to narrow it down. I certainly expect that you will inspect it in a further post. However, the question, is do they apply specifically to Jerusalem. Other nations, etc., is fine, but I wish to get at the root. Are they about Jerusalem specifically?
  8. Absolutely it is gone (I don't know by how long, though). Why would God need to be physically present to destroy something? Who was responsible for the destruction of Sodom? Two angels carried out the destruction, but Who was judging it? I think Babylon is definitely destroyed towards the end, but it certainly does not seem to be the final act.
  9. This is what is confusing me. I may be taking it incorrectly, but it seems that you are making an argument that old testament prophecies regarding Babylon apply to Jerusalem, as well as the prophecies in Revelation 17-18. Before we go forward and I spend a lot of time answering your other posts, my primary question is: Are you asserting that the prophecies (that we have discussed thus far) in the old testament that pertain to Babylon are in fact in regard to Jerusalem at the time of the end? This is incredibly important to the conversation.
  10. I do not have a problem with viewing Zechariah 12 as a localized event. The prophet is fairly specific in regards to the situation at hand. I however, do think, that at this point in the prophecy, the Babylon mentioned in Revelation, whatever it is, is probably already gone. As one moves into Revelation 19, it very much so seems that Babylon is long gone when Christ returns as the rider on the white horse. There are no chapter/verse divisions in Revelation as you know. John's letter would've went straight from 18 into 19 and shortly thereafter, to here: Rev 19:2 For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her." Rev 19:3 Again they said, "Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!" Babylon seems, very much to be a smoking ruin at this point, judged by God.
  11. I would have to disagree there. There are currently no cities that fit all of those areas. Jerusalem doesn't come close to precisely fitting the old testament prophecies regarding Babylon. You can point out a lot of vague similarities and even some that are more striking, but the differences at least outweigh them. I don't know if Babylon is going to be reconstituted or if it's some other city. However, I'm fairly certain it's not Jerusalem due to the fact that in almost all the prophecies regarding babylon it seems to be a physical wasteland such that people walk past it and lament it. That simply cannot be the case with Jerusalem. God certainly does things to the land there, physically, but it is not left permanently desolate. To the contrary, it is renewed. The land was left desolate after the Babylonian exile. It was renewed to a degree (one could certainly make a typological argument here and many do) and the old was considered to have been turned into the new. That is how every single scripture reads regarding Jerusalem going into the millennium. Change, yes, even geological changes, but, still the same dirt for all intents and purposes, the same land promised to Abraham. The reason I do not get dogmatic on this to any degree has largely to do with Israel itself. The argument for close to 1800 years was, what is Israel and Jerusalem representative of in the end times. We know it can't be them, because there is no Israel and Jerusalem is just a mostly islamic formerly glorious city, largely fallen into squalor and disrepair. It sat that way for more than a millennium before it was renewed. Very, very few expositors stuck their necks out and said "Israel is coming back and it will be populated by Jews" and most of those didn't come until the post-reformation era of the 18th and 19th centuries. I'm not saying dogmatically that it is going to be Babylon. But you say the only city that fits all those areas is Israel. I disagree with this. The only city that *truly* would fit everything with the knowledge that we have now is Babylon itself. Knowledge will change in the future though, drastically, the closer we get.
  12. Not in regards to this specific passage, but in regard to the actual debate on whether or not Babylon is a stand-in for Jerusalem throughout much of the old testament, broad swaths of scripture are being spiritualized. Applying multiple old testament prophecies that are specifically directed at Babylon into an eschatological narrative regarding Jerusalem is doing just that. It doesn't mean you are wrong, even. However, it means that if you are right, several chapters and hundreds of verses do not mean what they actually say, but mean something else entirely. This is basically what spiritualization of scriptures means. Saying babylon does not mean babylon in Jeremiah 50 is no different than saying that a single day in Genesis does not mean a single day. It's functionally the exact same thing. I know you aren't a preterist, but this is a preterist position and a preterist argument regarding Jerusalem specifically. It's not only preterist I know, but I have rarely encountered it at all outside of the preterist camp. The thing that preterists tend to do is continue to interpret other passages nonliterally until they are reduced down to virtually no literalness at all. Are you contending that only what constituted old testament boundaries of Judah is in view with regards to the punishment in Revelation 17-18 then, or all of Israel? You say: In many cases, not in this case though. Again, specifics matter. Judah not being mentioned is significant. You highlighted verse four here, but I encourage you to read verse 3 carefully: This was fulfilled in history by both the Assyrians under Sennacherib and the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. What armies during the end of the tribulation will be besieging Jerusalem with siege towers and siegeworks? This is why it's important to look at the specifics of these prophecies. This sort of warfare has not been waged for hundreds of years and if you look at Revelation 18, there are no siegeworks: Rev 18:8 Therefore her plagues will come in one day—death and mourning and famine. And she will be utterly burned with fire, for strong is the Lord God who judges her. Again, specifics, important! Is this going to be a prolonged siege or is it coming to happen in one day? Death, mourning, and famine, all in one day. Is it a siege or does it happen in a day? Sieges takes weeks at the least generally, usually several months to years.
  13. Part of the issue I'm having is that there is massive jumping back and forth between passages and contentions being made before previous contentions are settled. I understand that this is warranted to a degree when discussing prophecy, but it is also certainly feasible to just keep it to a few verses of scripture at a time. I much prefer to inspect the minutiae of the scripture before moving on, simply because I believe God is *incredibly specific* with regard to His prophecies (and indeed all of His scriptures). If God is very specific, we should be very specific (this is the outlook I have on all scripture, not just prophecy). If you will recall, this started with your contention that Isaiah 40 was somehow proof that this is a country-wide situation. These are the verses you posted. Isa 40:1 "Comfort, yes, comfort My people!" Says your God. Isa 40:2 "Speak comfort to Jerusalem, and cry out to her, That her warfare is ended, That her iniquity is pardoned; For she has received from the LORD's hand Double for all her sins." Isa 40:3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Prepare the way of the LORD; Make straight in the desert A highway for our God. Isa 40:4 Every valley shall be exalted And every mountain and hill brought low; The crooked places shall be made straight And the rough places smooth; Isa 40:5 The glory of the LORD shall be revealed, And all flesh shall see it together; For the mouth of the LORD has spoken." Firstly, one specific question, just so I understand where you're coming from on this. Is your claim was that this has to be speaking of more than just Jerusalem because of God saying "My people?"
  14. I'm going to quote the question that I asked you that prompted this answer just for clarity's sake. There are multiple passages regarding the destruction of babylon that seem to not have been fulfilled with regards to total destruction. A few of those chapters are Isaiah 13, Isaiah 47, Jeremiah 50, and Jeremiah 51 (there are certainly more and I have no problem with others being mentioned or pointed out to be sure). I'm going to post the opening sentence from each of these chapters. Expositors from all spectrums would argue that these are some of the seminal chapters dealing with Babylon. Isa 13:1 The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw. Isa 47:1 "Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; Sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called Tender and delicate. Jer 50:1 The word that the LORD spoke against Babylon and against the land of the Chaldeans by Jeremiah the prophet. Jer 51:1 Thus says the LORD: "Behold, I will raise up against Babylon, Against those who dwell in Leb Kamai, A destroying wind. It hope it is not difficult to see why someone earnestly searching the scriptures and just taking the words therein to have literal meanings (that are discernible outside of usually easily identifiable metaphorical contexts) may have trouble believing how on earth these chapters could actually, strangely, and without any contextual indication, be speaking of Jerusalem and not Babylon. As I said before, words just stop having meaning if we start exchanging "Jerusalem" for Babylon in all of these contexts. Not only do words stop having meaning, but interpretations become chaotic and things stop making sense.
  15. I'm entirely befuddled by this interpretation. Is the city destroyed by the forces arrayed against or or not? Do they take the city, or not?
  16. Nobody disputes he was a Chaldean. He was necessarily Chaldean. I'm more asking for specifics that say what is actually being posited, not that refer to him as what he is. I do not dispute that the kingdom of Chaldea ended either, at least his line. The question has nothing to do with that at all. It has to do with the city of babylon. I'm at a loss how to draw a direct line from "the city of babylon will be destroyed" to "Belshazzar the chaldean king was killed." The very first rebellion at Babylon did not involve only chaldeans, it involved the entire world's population at the time. That is significant and cannot be understated for the purposes of this discussion.
  17. It doesn't remove them from from the equation. The context specifies Jerusalem. He is speaking to His people in Jerusalem. If you are going to extend the context to *everywhere* his people are, then that goes out past Jerusalem and Judah even, anywhere Jews are living would have to be in view. If I say "come, meet my family," then I could be talking about my family in total. If i say "come, meet my family, we will go to Toledo," then obviously I would be speaking only of my family in toledo. This is how the actual chapter reads if you just read it without attempting to wedge it into a broad eschatological narrative. That is the main problem with spiritualizing vast swaths of scripture to fit a presupposition. Eventually you have to start making the text say things it just doesn't say and this is one of those cases.
  18. I'm still confused a bit by your interpretation then. Are you claiming that the passages in Isaiah and Jeremiah (that have not come to pass yet with regards to Babylon) are specifically in reference to this future "destruction of Jerusalem." This should be answered in simple terms. If that is the case there are massive problems with this, because the descriptions of the desolation are obviously of a physical place that temporally exists. You also have the problem that the destruction is directly compared to sodom, which was destroyed and left desolate here on earth, not cast immediately into the lake of fire.
  19. Where does it specify "Chaldean kingdom" with regards to this in Daniel 5? What it specifically says, as I point outed, is "your" kingdom" and Daniel is directly speaking to Belshazzar himself. It requires making assumptions that are simply not present in the text to take it even back to Nabopolassar. It requires assumptions that are found nowhere in the scriptures to take it back before that to some "chaldean kingdom." Babylon was part of assyria before this point in time!
  20. Please refrain from getting personal any further in this thread. Doing so will result in removal from it.
  21. 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?
×
×
  • Create New...