Steve_S

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.

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.

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).

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.

I'm going to split this off into a separate prayer request thread for you. Praying.

This is getting far too personal. Please remember the Terms of Service. Further violations in this thread will result in removal from it.

BB and Roar removed from thread for getting personal.

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?

Please debate the subject and not the person. This point forward, doing so in this thread will see you removed from it.

Please be civil to one another. Any further attacks will result in the poster being removed from this thread.

No need to namecall. If you believe someone is out of line, please report it.

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.

Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a loud voice, saying, "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and has become a dwelling place of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a cage for every unclean and hated bird! Whatever Babylon is, it is an actual place. If is the current Jerusalem being thrown down at the end of the current age and just prior to the Millennial reign, then we have to believe that it is going to be a physical place going forward. Birds can't live in metaphors. Is there, in the midst of the reconstituted canaan that has Israel dwelling there in peace and safety, going to be a literal city of ruins that is inhabited by demons?

This is with regards to a very specific thing, not actual physical lineage: Eze 16:36 Thus says the Lord GOD: "Because your filthiness was poured out and your nakedness uncovered in your harlotry with your lovers, and with all your abominable idols, and because of the blood of your children which you gave to them, Eze 16:37 surely, therefore, I will gather all your lovers with whom you took pleasure, all those you loved, and all those you hated; I will gather them from all around against you and will uncover your nakedness to them, that they may see all your nakedness. They participated in child sacrifice, which is one of the things that caused God to order them to do away with the Amorites in the first place. God told Abraham that they had to tarry in Egypt specifically until the iniquity of the Amorites was complete or had come to full fruition. Gen 15:16 But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." But, since we are on Ezekiel 16 and it is being used as a proof text as part of an argument to show that Jerusalem will be destroyed forever, this is the question I have, what does this mean? Eze 16:59 For thus says the Lord GOD: "I will deal with you as you have done, who despised the oath by breaking the covenant. Eze 16:60 "Nevertheless I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. Eze 16:61 Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed, when you receive your older and your younger sisters; for I will give them to you for daughters, but not because of My covenant with you. Eze 16:62 And I will establish My covenant with you. Then you shall know that I am the LORD, Eze 16:63 that you may remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth anymore because of your shame, when I provide you an atonement for all you have done," says the Lord GOD.' " So the physical Jerusalem that exists now, this doesn't apply?

I generally take all passages literally unless there is a specific reason contextually not to. That's just the principle of biblical study that I follow. I do understand others follow different ones than that. Rather than quoting your entire post piece by piece (which would lead to far too long a post if you take the response to it into account), I will just respond in totality to it here. As noted above, I take prophecy (and everything else in the scriptures) literally unless obvious contextualized metaphor is being used. There are several good arguments that the the babylon of Revelation is different than the literal babylon of old, so to speak. I do tend to think that it may be a restored babylon or possibly representative of the seat of power of the man of sin (maybe rome, I don't know). The real problem with making it Jerusalem is that it requires spiritualization of incredibly massive swaths of prophecy from the old testament. One could follow that line of reasoning to the conclusion that Babylon itself never existed and that all references to Babylon have always been about Jerusalem (this would actually be required to maintain any consistency in exposition on Babylon itself, but I will digress on that point). The real issue here is that every single old testament prophecy regarding Babylon reads as if it is actually speaking of physical babylon, all of them. Compare them in a vacuum, compare them to each other, compare them to every other single reference to Babylon in the entire Bible outside of Revelation 17-18 and that maintains a striking consistency). However one goes about it, always seems to consistently be Babylon. It is only when one interposes the Jerusalem theory for Revelation 17-18 that anyone would have any reason to read it differently. That is my massive, basically unassailable problem with it. I admit I may be wrong to be sure, but I'd much rather stand on a hill of literalism as opposed to spiritualism in biblical exposition, but that's the lens through which I view the scriptures in general, a literal one. I see now reason to separate out prophecy from any other sort of study with regards to that. I think it's easily demonstrated that God is a specific in His word, and especially in his prophecies. There are massive holes in the Jerusalem theory from a position of specificity. It requires reading large passages in a general way, rather than exploring the specific minutiae. This, in my experience (e.g. the fact that Jerusalem is mentioned as being a daughter and a sister of harlotry in one of the key passages used to prove she is the mother of all harlotry!!!!!).

I rarely wade into this topic (but do occasionally). My general problem with the gap theory is that it is basically in an attempt to bring the bible in line with secular scientific theorists who by-in-large, simply put, hate God, hate everything about Him, hate the thought of Him, hate the idea of bowing down to Him (which they will one day 100 percent most definitely do, like it or not), generally hate the idea of even acknowledging the possibility that there is a God. In short, if the world were not pushing cosmic evolution, biological evolution, etc. etc. etc., then this topic would basically never come up.

This was in response to a question - I suppose my main question is, are you claiming that the actual location of where Jerusalem is will change and that the location where it currently sits will remain entirely uninhabited through the millennium? The land will be forever changed, yes. That's not what I'm asking. The land may change, but that geographic area will still exist. Is the claim that that specific geographic area will be uninhabited perpetually? That is what the bible states with specificity with regards to Babylon. Just trying to understand that specific aspect. Also, with regards to Zion, I would have to disagree quite strongly with that. Zion is specifically delineated as the City of David (which still exists, right now). 1Ki_8:1 Now Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel, to King Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD from the City of David, which is Zion. Zion is certainly and obviously interchanged for Jerusalem at times throughout the scriptures, but I see no scriptural impetus for the claim that Zion is some sort of separate entity that has no physical place on earth currently.

The great difficulty with this is that Oholibah is not even mentioned as being the chief harlot between the two mentioned in Ezekiel 23, but Samaria is. Note that it was Samaria that was carried off first, not Judah. Secondly, in the case of egypt, using that reasoning, that would make egypt the mother. I cannot recall any biblical imagery that envisions the a mother as a "worst" or "chief" of something, rather than the progenitor or originator of something. My question is still why Jerusalem is referred to as a daughter of harlorty in Ezekiel 23 if one of them is the "mother" of all harlotry. Consistency is incredibly important in exegesis of things such as this and that is a wild, basically, off the charts, inconsistency. Is there any biblical precedent outside of this very specific case that would prove that it is warranted to take a "mother" as "chief" of something rather than the *originator* of something?

I have indeed read it. Harlotry in the sense that it is being spoken of in that and every other chapter regarding God's relationship with Israel is Idolatry, of course. The issue with bringing Ezekiel 23 into it is that Jerusalem is specified as being a sister not a mother: Eze 23:2 "Son of man, there were two women, The daughters of one mother. Eze 23:4 Their names: Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister; They were Mine, And they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem is Oholibah. Is the claim that Jerusalem is her own daughter? The issue is that if this is all tied together and definitively points to Jerusalem being the "Mother of Harlots" mentioned in Revelation, then it necessarily *has* to all be consistent. This is not consistent.

This is really where it breaks down. Where outside of Revelation is the phrase "mother of harlots" used? I would only be willing to draw that line secondarily, not primarily. I would also probably at least consider making the argument that "mother of harlotry" could well be referring to the tower of babel the first *true* post-flood rebellion against God, and that happened at Babylon. Also, the vast majority of the false gods that Israel engaged in spiritual harlotry with were also babylonian in origin (molech, baal, etc.), again, making Babylon the mother in that case. Jerusalem itself did not birth idolatry. In fact, I think one could make an argument that it was set apart before Israel was there.

I suppose my main question is, are you claiming that the actual location of where Jerusalem is will change and that the location where it currently sits will remain entirely uninhabited through the millennium?

I'd have to strongly disagree with that interpretation. It doesn't specifically say the kingdom of Babylon. It says the "Glory of kingdoms," i.e. the city of Babylon is the glory of the kingdoms which it controls. Pretty much every Masoretic based translation translates it as this or along those lines. The Septuagint is not exactly the same, However: Isa 13:19 And Babylon, which is called glorious by the king of the Chaldeans, shall be as when God overthrew Sodoma, and Gomorrha. There's an obvious difference, but I would point out that the vast majority of the quotes from the old testament by new testament authors are from the Septuagint. The main point, though, is that it's definitively delineated as a city there, or at least absent the kingdom title. It is also compared to Sodom and Gomorrah, which are both cities and kingdoms, but it was the capital that was burned to the ground. The biggest problem with it, though, is that all Israel, parts of Egypt, and much of Assyria were all parts of the babylonian empire. If it is necessary to read this as having a totally future fulfillment in the millennium and it is literal, and involves the kingdom of Babylon, not just Babylon itself, then all of those would necessarily have to be empty, which is, of course, not an option, as all are mentioned as being quite populated. I would also point out that in Jeremiah 50, which we barely dipped our toe into, but is quite deep and broad with regards to this topic, it does not once mention Babylon from an imperial perspective, not explicitly anyway.

Right, but Babylon was not destroyed. It wasn't even damaged. The regular people in the city were under Persian rule for probably around three days without even realizing it. In fact, Babylon became an important part of the Persian empire and was basically a second capital. That persisted. Alexander basically took it as his eastern capital and it's actually where he died. I ask this because there's always a lot of debate about what happens to Babylon in Revelation 17-18 (a small snippet of this can be found in the last few pages of this thread). But, nobody ever asks, what happened to the first Babylon. There were prophecies made about it. For example: Isa 13:1 The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw. Isa 13:2 "Lift up a banner on the high mountain, Raise your voice to them; Wave your hand, that they may enter the gates of the nobles. Isa 13:3 I have commanded My sanctified ones; I have also called My mighty ones for My anger—Those who rejoice in My exaltation." Isa 13:4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains, Like that of many people! A tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together! The LORD of hosts musters The army for battle. Isa 13:5 They come from a far country, From the end of heaven—The LORD and His weapons of indignation, To destroy the whole land. Isa 13:6 Wail, for the day of the LORD is at hand! It will come as destruction from the Almighty. Isa 13:7 Therefore all hands will be limp, Every man's heart will melt, Isa 13:8 And they will be afraid. Pangs and sorrows will take hold of them; They will be in pain as a woman in childbirth; They will be amazed at one another; Their faces will be like flames. Isa 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. Isa 13:10 For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; The sun will be darkened in its going forth, And the moon will not cause its light to shine. This is a description from Isaiah of what is going to happen to Babylon. It continues, even. This is a good spot to take a breath, though, because there is just glaringly obvious eschatological imagery. As the prophecy continues, we see there are worldwide events occurring. Isa 13:11 "I will punish the world for its evil, And the wicked for their iniquity; I will halt the arrogance of the proud, And will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. Isa 13:12 I will make a mortal more rare than fine gold, A man more than the golden wedge of Ophir. Isa 13:13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, And the earth will move out of her place, In the wrath of the LORD of hosts And in the day of His fierce anger. Isa 13:14 It shall be as the hunted gazelle, And as a sheep that no man takes up; Every man will turn to his own people, And everyone will flee to his own land. Isa 13:15 Everyone who is found will be thrust through, And everyone who is captured will fall by the sword. Isa 13:16 Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished. Isa 13:17 "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, Who will not regard silver; And as for gold, they will not delight in it. Isa 13:18 Also their bows will dash the young men to pieces, And they will have no pity on the fruit of the womb; Their eye will not spare children. Isa 13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, The beauty of the Chaldeans' pride, Will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. Isa 13:20 It will never be inhabited, Nor will it be settled from generation to generation; Nor will the Arabian pitch tents there, Nor will the shepherds make their sheepfolds there. Isa 13:21 But wild beasts of the desert will lie there, And their houses will be full of owls; Ostriches will dwell there, And wild goats will caper there. Isa 13:22 The hyenas will howl in their citadels, And jackals in their pleasant palaces. Her time is near to come, And her days will not be prolonged." This is obviously literally speaking about Babylon - The "Beauty of the Chadleans' pride. Not really a way that one can make an argument that it is a metaphor for Israel in this context. I post this, because what is specifically mentioned in verse 19 and 20 has not yet happened. Babylon was never destroyed like this. It was still a trading outpost during the Byzantine empire. Over time it died off, but was never destroyed. I highlighted the above statements in red because these have actually been persistently happening there throughout history. Saddam Hussein actually restored a part of Babylon. You can see pictures of the United States military outside of the ruins with actual Arabian shepherds nearby. I'm not specifically sure enough about things like this to be totally dogmatic on it. What I can say is that if this prophecy was intended to be literal, it was not literally fulfilled. Nor was at least part of the prophecy regarding Babylon in Jeremiah 50: Jer 50:35 "A sword is against the Chaldeans," says the LORD, "Against the inhabitants of Babylon, And against her princes and her wise men. Jer 50:36 A sword is against the soothsayers, and they will be fools. A sword is against her mighty men, and they will be dismayed. Jer 50:37 A sword is against their horses, Against their chariots, And against all the mixed peoples who are in her midst; And they will become like women. A sword is against her treasures, and they will be robbed. Jer 50:38 A drought is against her waters, and they will be dried up. For it is the land of carved images, And they are insane with their idols. Jer 50:39 "Therefore the wild desert beasts shall dwell there with the jackals, And the ostriches shall dwell in it. It shall be inhabited no more forever, Nor shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation.

In perusing this thread, one of the biggest things that popped out of me was the underlined part of this statement. My question would be, when did this happen and by whom?

The OP's account was removed at his request and his posts were deleted. Since he was the OP, the thread went when his other posts did.