Steve_S

7 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

This is the emotion from the Jewish people that is going on, and Isaiah I believe addresses that in the first 2 verses by how the Lord responds to His people.  Verses 3-5 are speaking to the restoration of the land, most expositors take the Zechariah 14 passage and make it a worldwide thing, despite the specifics Zechariah gives.  While I tend to agree with them that this is a global event and not just a regional one, I am not willing to agree that Zechariah states that because he does not.  Perhaps the cleansing of the whole earth is done in stages because the Lord says His kingdom begins the size of a mustard seed, and clearly His reign begins in the land promised to Abraham's seed.

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.

49 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

I understand completely, that is why I held the position myself for my entire life up until a few years ago.  I understand exactly why there is an issue.  What I said before is that there are contradictions, and when that happens only one of the two can be true.  Where my understanding begins and ends on this are specifics regarding the Babylon of Revelation, and that there is only one city that fits all of those areas.

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.

4 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

If all information is not taken into account, then the right conclusion can never be arrived at.  I am also not spiritualizing vast swaths of scripture, the passage begins speaking of comfort for the people, then says speak tenderly to Jerusalem. 

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.

18 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

The first 5 chapters of Isaiah are regarding judgement against Judah and Jerusalem.  In many of the occasions these two are said together in scripture it specifies Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

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:

20 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

In many of the occasions these two are said together in scripture it specifies Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

In many cases, not in this case though. Again, specifics matter. Judah not being mentioned is significant.

24 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

This is what God has in store for her, per Isaiah.

You highlighted verse four here, but I encourage you to read verse 3 carefully:

24 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

3 And I will encamp against you all around,
    and will besiege you with towers
    and I will raise siegeworks against you.

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.

14 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

In Revelation chapter 11 we are told that Jerusalem is overrun and trampled by the gentiles, scripture indicates that the majority of the remnant will flee at that time.

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?"

2 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

Yes.  The entire land is made desolate and then God restores it, with a new landscape.

I'm going to quote the question that I asked you that prompted this answer just for clarity's sake.

Quote

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.

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.

4 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

The city is still there when Jesus returns to the earth.  The beast and the kings do not destroy it, they attack it and set it on fire and assault the people, Jesus is the one who purifies the land with His wrath.

Revelation 11 tells us that the city is split in two, and Zechariah tells us this.

 

Zechariah 14  Behold, a day is coming for the Lord, when the spoil taken from you will be divided in your midst. 2 For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped. Half of the city shall go out into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be cut off from the city. 3 Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations as when he fights on a day of battle. 4 On that day his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives that lies before Jerusalem on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall be split in two from east to west by a very wide valley, so that one half of the Mount shall move northward, and the other half southward. 5 And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord my God will come, and all the holy ones with him.

 

So the question is, half the city goes out into exile, is that half of the city or half of the people?  Because it says the rest (which would have to be the other half of the people)  shall not be cut off from the city.  At the very least, half of the city is still standing.

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?

4 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

Daniel 5:30 That very night Belshazzar the Chaldean king was killed. 31  And Darius the Mede received the kingdom, being about sixty-two years old.

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.

2 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

The very first verse says "comfort, comfort my people", I am not sure how you can remove them from the equation.

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.

7 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

The scripture I posted tell us that the beast, the false prophet, satan, wicked people, and fallen angels all are put into the lake of fire, this becomes their permanent habitation, their dwelling place for eternity.  Everything unclean will be thrown into the lake of fire.

We also know that right now, at this moment, there is no lake of fire here on earth.  The verse tells us that fallen Babylon becomes this habitation that presently does not appear on the planet, but is certainly here at the conclusion of Armageddon.

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.

14 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

Belshazzar was a Chaldean, like his father before him and those before him, the Chaldean kingdom came to an end, Babylon.  As of that night it became the kingdom of Darius the Mede, later shared with the Persians, an entirely separate kingdom.  Their kingdom would later fall to the Greek kingdom, which would later fall to the Roman kingdom.  When Babylon conquered Assyria the Assyrian kingdom was done as well, this is how we have 5 fallen kingdoms.

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!

Please refrain from getting personal any further in this thread. Doing so will result in removal from it.

3 hours ago, wingnut- said:

The argument for a physical Jerusalem comes mostly from one specific chapter in Zechariah.  So the question is, what exactly is Zechariah speaking of?

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?

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

Isaiah begins this in verse 1 though as referencing His people, so in this instance based on context it does not appear to apply to the city itself, but moreso the kingdom.

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.

2 hours ago, wingnut- said:

Yes, it is called the lake of fire, which also is consistent with the Jewish Gehenna, where rubbish is disposed of outside the city.  The next question would be, how do we know that?

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.

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

I don't think we do honestly, 2 years ago I also believed it would be Babylon based on the same literal understanding you are using today.  The difference really comes down to how we view what happened to ancient Babylon and whether or not it can be restored as a kingdom.  Based on what we are told in Daniel 5 I don't believe it is possible for a restored Babylon.  God said their days were numbered, and that very night a Mede took over the kingdom.  I just don't see how that can be undone.  Because of that fact, there must be another explanation.

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.

1 hour ago, worriedwife69 said:

Hello everyone, I was wondering if I could get some prayers for this upcoming week. My husband is due for his 6th chemo treatment which means he is half way through, yay!!  He is feeling very discouraged because for some reason the last chemo was much harder on him than the rest, plus they are adding the other chemo drug that he was suppose to be getting from the beginning but due to some neuropathy he started having after his surgery they held off until they got it under control. So he is very worried about this new drug because it does cause a temporary neuropathy and worried he will feel even worse. He has been saying again that he doesn't want to do chemo so please please pray for him.. Thank you.

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.

18 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

I do the same, the only reason I can think of to not accept something literally is when an obvious contradiction occurs.  In those instances there must be a reason for any apparent contradiction.  

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.*

21 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

The difference is, Jerusalem and her daughters are singled out as being unique harlots, and for being worse than the others.  If the requirement mother of harlots is taken at face value, then it is obvious that Jerusalem qualifies.  When it is changed to mother of all harlotry then no one qualifies, but that is not what the passage says.

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.

26 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

We haven't really gotten into anything at this point, we are still having a difficult time with the title, mother of harlots.  The only other detail mentioned thus far was in regards to the double portion and you did not respond to that, but really we have barely scratched the surface on specifics.

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.

8 hours ago, Equippers said:

it is one thing to say you don't know who someone is

it is another to saying things like "are they of any importance or relevance"

you are being rude.

 

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

3 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

I quoted healing verses, not debate. The others did that.

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.

8 minutes ago, angels4u said:

Could it be that Babylon in Iraq will be the city the Bible talks about in Revelation ? Remember how Sadat Hossain already was trying to rebuild 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.