The City of Babylon.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Fortunately, Salty, no one here is going to accept the false teaching that Jerusalem is Babylon.  The hermeneutics behind that notion is severely flawed.

 

That's an opinion, granted that. But does it fit Scripture, that's the real question?

 

No, your view doesn't line up with the Bible and I have already shown why a couple of posts ago.

 

It cannot just be a matter of not wanting the Scriptures to point to Jerusalem because of any bias one may have. It must be properly approached from the stance of our Heavenly Father and His son in His Word of Truth.

 

and unfortunately, you failed to live up to that standasrd in your posts.  Your position is week and pretty based on the reference to "the great city."  That is a weak platform and you also fail to take into account the rest of the evidence that pretty much torpedoes your position.

 

I personally am immovable on the matter, for me I 'know' it is about Jerusalem, as per Scripture and not some personal bias.

 

You can choose to remain in your error, but I have provided far more Scripture than you have on the matter.  I have shown that your position doesn't agree with the Word of God and it actually challenges God's integrity.

[Salty]

 

 

Fortunately, Salty, no one here is going to accept the false teaching that Jerusalem is Babylon.  The hermeneutics behind that notion is severely flawed.

 

That's an opinion, granted that. But does it fit Scripture, that's the real question?

 

No, your view doesn't line up with the Bible and I have already shown why a couple of posts ago.

 

It cannot just be a matter of not wanting the Scriptures to point to Jerusalem because of any bias one may have. It must be properly approached from the stance of our Heavenly Father and His son in His Word of Truth.

 

and unfortunately, you failed to live up to that standasrd in your posts.  Your position is week and pretty based on the reference to "the great city."  That is a weak platform and you also fail to take into account the rest of the evidence that pretty much torpedoes your position.

 

I personally am immovable on the matter, for me I 'know' it is about Jerusalem, as per Scripture and not some personal bias.

 

You can choose to remain in your error, but I have provided far more Scripture than you have on the matter.  I have shown that your position doesn't agree with the Word of God and it actually challenges God's integrity.

 

 

Once again, that's just your expressed opinion, which mostly what your post #49 is about.

 

Oh, and the reason why the Euphrates river is used in Rev. as a symbol in relation to Babylon, is because... go checkout your OT histories. I'll not do it for you.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Fortunately, Salty, no one here is going to accept the false teaching that Jerusalem is Babylon.  The hermeneutics behind that notion is severely flawed.

 

That's an opinion, granted that. But does it fit Scripture, that's the real question?

 

No, your view doesn't line up with the Bible and I have already shown why a couple of posts ago.

 

It cannot just be a matter of not wanting the Scriptures to point to Jerusalem because of any bias one may have. It must be properly approached from the stance of our Heavenly Father and His son in His Word of Truth.

 

and unfortunately, you failed to live up to that standasrd in your posts.  Your position is week and pretty based on the reference to "the great city."  That is a weak platform and you also fail to take into account the rest of the evidence that pretty much torpedoes your position.

 

I personally am immovable on the matter, for me I 'know' it is about Jerusalem, as per Scripture and not some personal bias.

 

You can choose to remain in your error, but I have provided far more Scripture than you have on the matter.  I have shown that your position doesn't agree with the Word of God and it actually challenges God's integrity.

 

 

Once again, that's just your expressed opinion, which mostly what your post #49 is about.

 

Oh, and the reason why the Euphrates river is used in Rev. as a symbol in relation to Babylon, is because... go checkout your OT histories. I'll not do it for you.

 

Bottom line here is that you can't actually refute the information in my earlier post.

[Salty]

Bottom line here is that you can't actually refute the information in my earlier post.

 

 

No, the real bottom line is that you cannot refute the Scriptures in my post #46, for you are consistently steering away from them so far.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Bottom line here is that you can't actually refute the information in my earlier post.

 

 

No, the real bottom line is that you cannot refute the Scriptures in my post #46, for you are consistently steering away from them so far.

 

I refuted your position  with Scripture in post #49. 

[Spock]

Time out.....

I just want to thank you two for this exchange. Rarely do I laugh out loud while reading something. This is one of those times. Thanks fellows.

Ok, you may continue.

[Marilyn C]

Hi all,

 

I have so enjoyed reading all the comments. It has been an exciting debate. I have had to refrain myself from commenting earlier as I have been preparing for my hubby`s 60th, which we had last night with a great gathering. But I`m here now excited to bring more of God`s word to the discussion.

 

Good points kwikphilly, & Spock as usual giving as much as he gets in humour & hugs. Salty...well you certainly have some strong views but as yet the discussion is not over. And inchrist & shiloh357 well thought out biblical points & it`s so good to hear those as there is so much confusion on these threads where people seemed to be `tossed to and fro.`  

 

It`s probably late at night over your way (USA & UK) so I`ve plenty of time to write.

[Marilyn C]

Hi Salty,

 

I would like to answer in detail your points of #46 (though I do believe shiloh357 had excellent points)

 

1. The Book of Daniel does involve Jerusalem in a fallen worship state (as you said) but does not say it is Babylon. It does show in Dan. 11 that the  `despicable` king, is the king of the North & that is where his domain is till the end when he goes to Jerusalem.

 

2. You were pointing out `the great city,` phrase had to be only Jerusalem. Well God`s word says different -

 

`Now the great city  (Jerusalem Rev. 11: 8) was divided into three parts, & the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath.` (Rev. 16: 19)

 

Thus we see 2 distinct `great cities` - Jerusalem & Babylon.l

 

 

3. Now concerning God being `married` to Israel / Jerusalem, well He was, but is now `divorced` from it, that is why He remarries the `wife.` (Rev.19: 7)

 

`And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away & given her a writ of divorce....`  (Jer. 3: 8  & Isa. 50: 1)

 

 

4. False king & true king - very true.

 

 

5. Yes the pseudo-Christ does set himself up in Jerusalem`s temple but only after his centre, Babylon has been destroyed. Remember when Christ comes to the Mount of Olives He goes across the valley of Jehoshaphat & enters the temple by the eastern gate. How could He go there if it was all demolished, burned & thrown into the sea as God`s word tells us of Babylon - the Babylon city in Iraq. (Just as Shiloh 357 explained so well to you.)

 

And finally I am very pleased to be able to come on this forum & let people have a detailed look at God`s word & not just be `tossed to & fro,` by opinions, speculations & conjecture.

[Marilyn C]

Hi Spock,

 

I`m very pleased you picked up on the `sea` point in regards to Babylon. I so love God`s word, as you can tell & I love to see that God has every detail explained to us & has not left us to speculate etc. I`ll give a bit of interesting background first.

 

The city of Babylon from Revelation 18 would seem to indicate that it will be a trading port, a centre for world shipping. This was not so in ancient times. The rivers Euphrates & Tigris are navigable by ocean - going ships through the Shat Al Arab as far as Basra.

 

An American space shuttle was photographing the earth through a wide - angle lens in the early `90`s. The series was shown on National Television in Australia. One in particular was fascinating & illuminating in the light of the above. Peter Feud from the `Australian` newspaper said -

 

`The Iraq Government claimed it had a secret weapon against Iran; speculation centred on Exocet Missiles or poison gas. However satellite images suggest that the weapon is a massive piece of hydrological engineering east of Basra. Iraq has built a huge water-barrier 50 kilometres long by 10 kilometres wide, & it is still growing. The Karkheh & Karun Rivers have been diverted & the salt lakes drained into the system.`

 

I believe this will eventually provide a navigable canal all the way to Babylon.  This is something else we can watch for - the canal & the rebuilding of Babylon.

 

 

Now as regards the word `sea,` in Rev. 18: 17, 19 & 21 the Greek word is `Thalassa,` which means `sea, lake, pool.` Thus this very wide water way to Babylon fits this description.

[Salty]

Time out.....

I just want to thank you two for this exchange. Rarely do I laugh out loud while reading something. This is one of those times. Thanks fellows.

Ok, you may continue.

 

It is laughable, isn't it?