Steve_S

Praying!

19 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Yes, they were all HUMAN just like us. But there is a way out. I presented just a few of many many God's promises. So either they're NOT promises and we have a contradiction in the word of God or better, a misunderstanding of why people get sick. We are at war. We sin and pay for it if we do not confess, repent and receive God's promise. Do we believe that? Then we have our answer. We can roll over and die, or do something about it.

This is not a place for this discussion. It's a prayer thread. Please understand and remember that prayer threads are not meant for debate or discussion of doctrine, etc. They are for prayer and encouragement, nothing else.

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

This city will be "thrown down", and the understanding of that is in relation to its location, on the Judaean Mountains.  The following is said as a result of the 7th bowl/vial.

Revelation 16:19 The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath. 20 And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found.

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?

2 hours ago, wingnut- said:

We are told who the parents are in the Ezekiel 16 passage, and Egypt is not the answer.

Ezekiel 16:2 “Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations, 3 and say, Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem: Your origin and your birth are of the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.

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?

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

If those passages are to be taken literally, it would appear so.  However, there are specific statements to be considered in all of this regarding Babylon.

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.

12 hours ago, wingnut- said:

I think there is a distinct difference between earthly Jerusalem and Zion, His holy city.  There are quite a few issues with the conventional wisdom in regards to Jerusalem that exists right now.  For one, we know that there are some major earthquakes that occur at the end, and those quakes have a direct impact on that city.  There are also these events that tells us the land will be forever changed.

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.

22 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

The purpose for bringing the Ezekiel 23 passage is two-fold.  One because it speaks to the symbolic link to Egypt as far as the source of Israel's idolatry, and two because it points to the identity of the woman riding the beast in Revelation 17, which is Oholibah, Jerusalem.

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?

7 hours ago, wingnut- said:

I'm guessing you didn't read Ezekiel 16 lol.  Ok, so here is where it speaks about Jerusalem and her daughters in comparison to her sisters and their daughters, it does not say mother of harlots specifically but does include Jerusalem's daughters.

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.

12 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

The symbolic connection to Babylon of Revelation is further on display in Ezekiel 16, where Jerusalem is said to have committed the greatest of abominations, greater than all others, and is also identified as a mother of harlots, as well as the biggest harlot ever.

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.

7 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

It cannot be present day Jerusalem because it is going to be destroyed, and it is not large enough for Ezekiel's temple which is the Millennial temple. 

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?

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

I completely agree this prophecy is yet future, but just to clarify in verse 19 it specifies the kingdom of Babylon, not the city itself.  Why is this important?

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.

26 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

Persian conquest

In 539 BC, the Neo-Babylonian Empire fell to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, with a military engagement known as the Battle of Opis. Babylon's walls were considered impenetrable. The only way into the city was through one of its many gates or through the Euphrates River.

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. 

On 11/8/2019 at 1:30 PM, wingnut- said:

Ancient Babylon is destroyed, so this Babylon of the end times is a symbolic reference relating to what takes place there spiritually.  The religion of that time is going to be the last false religion to exist, the worst to have existed, and when it falls there will never again exist such a thing.  What follows is Jesus' kingdom which will in fact stand forever, but there is a difference between modern day Jerusalem and Zion, His holy city.  Something to consider in confirming this is what Jesus said Himself, in regards to His kingdom, which is where He will rule from on earth.

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.

All who are participating, please remember to keep it civil and discuss this difficult topic in love.

15 hours ago, nzkev said:

It is the centre and the heart Of Christianity And of God I would go as far to say, if you think there is more after salvation you are showing you are not mature at all you're really showing you haven't even taken the first step in Christianity

This is far too personal. Please refrain from such going forward in the thread. Doing so will result in your removal from it.

9 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:

Most of the the stuff corroborates. Especially 'sons of God' and not the later Sethite view championed by Augustine and others. 

The inter-testament period is also very good at highlighting that the Tanak's use of sons of God AKA Psalm 82, Deut 23 and others. The 'modern' or altered translations said the 'sons of God' were the sons of Seth or worse still the sons of Israel. This is incoherent and anyway, Deut 32 mention of the sons of God cannot be 'sons of Israel' as Isarel was not a nation before the Babel scattering.

The Divine Council comprises sons of God.

This is a theological situation, though, not a textual situation. Nobody disputes that Hebrew says Bene Elohim (literally translated into virtually all English translations, accurately - the sons of God). The disputation is in the meaning of it, not whether the actual phrase has been changed in newer Masoretic scrolls.

16 minutes ago, Behold said:

Every single Legalist who lives on Christian Forums to try to create doubt, confusion, and Fear, in the heart of Real Born Again Christians, will always use the Book addressed to the HEBREWS, as their "how to lose it" guide.

The post attached to this was far, far too much of an attack to leave up, so I removed it. Please refrain from saying such things going forward.

10 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

Take a look at the Dead Sea scrolls and see how MUCH we edited out of scripture. It is all there for you to see.

Could you give some examples that are more than grammatical and that have a reasonable amount of agreement. Pretty much the entire book of Isaiah has been found there and was almost word-for-word exact. I don't know of any full New Testament books and there are debates as to whether there are even any fragments.

Most of the old testament books found there are fragmented as well and so great care needs to be taken in order to say for sure that something has changed from them.

4 hours ago, Justin Adams said:

The Ethiopian Jews were/are very dark...

Sarah was a Chaldean (or at least came from Chaldea), but I doubt she was "very white" nonetheless (but I can't be dogmatic on that, nobody can - so she could've been).

4 hours ago, Tzephanyahu said:

But again, I don't think the skin tone of the Patriarchs is a revealing, provable or  beneficial for us to define.  It can only lead to a contention with others.

Agreed for sure.

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

In fact the people that exist throughout the earth, in 2019, came from the sons of Noah. In no sense then can the descendants of Magog, Meshech, Tubal, Gomer and Togarmah be limited to a region but instead their descendants and the descendants of the grandchildren of Noah populated the entire earth. 

Interesting take. I do have a question though. You say these must represent the whole earth and *not* geographic locations. In Ezekiel 27, in the lament for tyre, we see that Tyre traded with:

Eze 27:13  Javan, Tubal, and Meshech were your traders. They bartered human lives and vessels of bronze for your merchandise. 
Eze 27:14  Those from the house of Togarmah traded for your wares with horses, steeds, and mules. 

If these are unidentifiable as geographic locations and only represent people, is this saying that Tyre literally traded with the entire world?

1 hour ago, Diaste said:

I looked into the migrations of these people groups after the flood. Not all the historians agree about times and dates or even the regions these groups dominated.

Persia, Libya, and Ethiopia being mentioned are obviously nations with geographic boundaries, then and now. The original Hebrew for Libya and Ethiopia is Kush and Put. If these are not geographic locations, in fact, that presents some strange issues for the rest of scripture. Does the location of Libya change generationally as people migrate? Or somewhere like Egpyt? In short, if this principle is applied here, it would seem that it would necessarily have to be applied across the board scripturally. In other words, either these names mean specific places or they do not.

5 minutes ago, Sower said:

From;     "ProgressiveChristianity.org

The 8 Points of Progressive Christianity

 

By calling ourselves progressive Christians, we mean we are Christians who…

1.  Believe that following the path and teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life;

2.  Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey;

3.  Seek community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to:

• Conventional Christians and questioning skeptics,

• Believers and agnostics,

• Women and men,

• Those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,

• Those of all classes and abilities;

4.  Know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe;

5.  Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes;

6.  Strive for peace and justice among all people;

7.  Strive to protect and restore the integrity of our Earth;

8.  Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion, and selfless love.

Basically a combination of atheism, eastern mysticism, paganism, and western ecumenicism all bundled into one package and stamped with Christianity.

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

There is only one battle, Gog Magog of Ezekiel 38-39 is one in the same as Armageddon, and if you look at Rev 16:16 you will see this. There is another Gog war after the thousand years which does not pertain here.

I rarely will just look at a single verse. Probably best to look at the whole passage.

Rev 16:12  Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared. 
Rev 16:13  And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. 
Rev 16:14  For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. 
Rev 16:15  "Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame." 
Rev 16:16  And they gathered them together to the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon. 

The main problem I have with the idea that these battles are one in the same is that the players do not seem to be the same.

Eze 38:2  "Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophesy against him, 
Eze 38:3  and say, 'Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I am against you, O Gog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal. 
Eze 38:4  I will turn you around, put hooks into your jaws, and lead you out, with all your army, horses, and horsemen, all splendidly clothed, a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords. 
Eze 38:5  Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya are with them, all of them with shield and helmet; 
Eze 38:6  Gomer and all its troops; the house of Togarmah from the far north and all its troops—many people are with you. 

Here specific players are mentioned. It is hardly the "whole word." If Russia is in view as Rosh or Magog, that would be the most powerful country involved. If not, then the most powerful country would be Turkey followed by Persia. This does not seem to possibly be the same group when given a plain literal reading.

There are many other reasons to think this, of course, it's just that this probably highlights it the fastest.

47 minutes ago, BeauJangles said:

Thanks for the correction on the story of Esther. She must have had some kind of important significance to have her place in the written Word. 

She brought to the King's attention that Haman was attempting a holocaust of all Jews in the Persian Empire, her and Mordecai included. It was indeed important significance, to the utmost.