Isaiah 47: is America this present age's Babylon?

[Salty]

Salty

 

That calf was hand graven, with tools, like that Exodus 32:4 verse says. It didn't happen from magic of just throwing gold in the fire. They learned about that kind of calf worship from the Egyptian

 

 

 

Thanks Salty so can we conclude then that Israel is not the mother or originator of false religions then? They obviously learnt that kind of false worship from the Egyptians right?  That would make Israel a daughter of false religion right? 

 

No, of course Israel, God's people, are not the originators of false idols nor false worship of anything. That began in ancient Sumer-Babylon with the one called Sargon, the first king there. False worship was then transferred to the pagan kingdoms of old from there.

 

But what did our Heavenly Father call His people when 'they'... fell away from Him to do that false worship? He associated pagan titles with them, and the idea of spiritual harlotry, just as He did with Jerusalem in the timing of Rev.11:8, so don't expect me to get away from that point in God's Word.

[other one]

It actually started with Nimrod and his wife Semiramis.

[ARGOSY]

The angel said:

Come out of her my peole.

Come out of where?what?

 

jesse.

 

Come out of Western Europe, I refer to it as Papal Europe. Although the Pope isn't the official leader, Europe and the Pope often act as a unit, during the long fight with Islam, during colonialism, during the establishment of the EU.  There has been some unity in divided Europe, and that is the whore "Babylon". The Pope struts around as unofficial emperor of Europe, having the title used by the Roman Caesars of the past: Pontifex Maximus

[other one]

Ok so we have gone through the calf thing and now coming out of her, but did we come to any conclusion as to whether or not the USA is modern Babylon?

[Salty]

It actually started with Nimrod and his wife Semiramis.

 

Research about Sargon and the Babylonian tablets. That's the same tablet source the deceived claim Moses got the Genesis account of the creation, simply because those tablets are older than the OT writings (I do not hold that as being the origin of Moses' creation account.)

 

Those tablets speak of an earlier civilization called Sumer. They mention Sargon arriving there. The Sumerians were a different people, Sargon was of Semitic origin, because his death mask still exists (British Museum). After Sargon arrived, their technology changed, and he introduced the first false worship of the devil. If I recall, the Sumerians called Sargon "son of the dragon" or "son of Bel". I personally believe that was Cain, and ancient Sumer was the actual "land of Nod" mentioned early in Genesis where Cain was cast out to. One of the first date translations by Assyriologists who studied those tablets (like Sayce), put the date that Sargon first arrived among the Sumerians at 3800 B.C. He later changed that date because it didn't fit the theories of the Assyriologists.

 

Bible scholars like Bishop Ussher (17th century) went backwards in the OT from the time of Christ's birth, and determined the time God formed Adam in His Garden at 4004 B.C. So how far from that is 3800 B.C. when Sargon first appeared among the Sumerians? That's only a difference of 204 years. That's one of several reasons why I believe Sargon was in actuality the man Cain.

[other one]

 

It actually started with Nimrod and his wife Semiramis.

 

Research about Sargon and the Babylonian tablets. That's the same tablet source the deceived claim Moses got the Genesis account of the creation, simply because those tablets are older than the OT writings (I do not hold that as being the origin of Moses' creation account.)

 

Those tablets speak of an earlier civilization called Sumer. They mention Sargon arriving there. The Sumerians were a different people, Sargon was of Semitic origin, because his death mask still exists (British Museum). After Sargon arrived, their technology changed, and he introduced the first false worship of the devil. If I recall, the Sumerians called Sargon "son of the dragon" or "son of Bel". I personally believe that was Cain, and ancient Sumer was the actual "land of Nod" mentioned early in Genesis where Cain was cast out to. One of the first date translations by Assyriologists who studied those tablets (like Sayce), put the date that Sargon first arrived among the Sumerians at 3800 B.C. He later changed that date because it didn't fit the theories of the Assyriologists.

 

Bible scholars like Bishop Ussher (17th century) went backwards in the OT from the time of Christ's birth, and determined the time God formed Adam in His Garden at 4004 B.C. So how far from that is 3800 B.C. when Sargon first appeared among the Sumerians? That's only a difference of 204 years. That's one of several reasons why I believe Sargon was in actuality the man Cain.

 

Well, the flood happened around 2345BC and everyone died except Noah and his boys.....    Since everyone died except Noah and the Boys, then it had to come through one of those four.     So if it did in fact come from Cain, it had to come through Noah's family, most likely Ham.

 

I had not gone beyond the Flood for the start.  Nimrod was the grandson of Ham.  Though it's hard to put a date on that time precisely.   People of those two generations were still living a long time.   IF we are going beyond the Flood for the beginnings of Babylon, we'll get into a lot of speculation, and reading sources that may or may not have anything to do with full reality.   However I'd be open to speculation, and taking it back to Cain would fit in some other really dark studies I have been through....   I had not considered those as a beginning of Babylon.

 

Personally though if we are going past the Flood, I'd think better that it started with Azazel or his first son with Adam's daughter.

[Salty]

 

 

It actually started with Nimrod and his wife Semiramis.

 

Research about Sargon and the Babylonian tablets. That's the same tablet source the deceived claim Moses got the Genesis account of the creation, simply because those tablets are older than the OT writings (I do not hold that as being the origin of Moses' creation account.)

 

Those tablets speak of an earlier civilization called Sumer. They mention Sargon arriving there. The Sumerians were a different people, Sargon was of Semitic origin, because his death mask still exists (British Museum). After Sargon arrived, their technology changed, and he introduced the first false worship of the devil. If I recall, the Sumerians called Sargon "son of the dragon" or "son of Bel". I personally believe that was Cain, and ancient Sumer was the actual "land of Nod" mentioned early in Genesis where Cain was cast out to. One of the first date translations by Assyriologists who studied those tablets (like Sayce), put the date that Sargon first arrived among the Sumerians at 3800 B.C. He later changed that date because it didn't fit the theories of the Assyriologists.

 

Bible scholars like Bishop Ussher (17th century) went backwards in the OT from the time of Christ's birth, and determined the time God formed Adam in His Garden at 4004 B.C. So how far from that is 3800 B.C. when Sargon first appeared among the Sumerians? That's only a difference of 204 years. That's one of several reasons why I believe Sargon was in actuality the man Cain.

 

Well, the flood happened around 2345BC and everyone died except Noah and his boys.....    Since everyone died except Noah and the Boys, then it had to come through one of those four.     So if it did in fact come from Cain, it had to come through Noah's family, most likely Ham.

 

I had not gone beyond the Flood for the start.  Nimrod was the grandson of Ham.  Though it's hard to put a date on that time precisely.   People of those two generations were still living a long time.   IF we are going beyond the Flood for the beginnings of Babylon, we'll get into a lot of speculation, and reading sources that may or may not have anything to do with full reality.   However I'd be open to speculation, and taking it back to Cain would fit in some other really dark studies I have been through....   I had not considered those as a beginning of Babylon.

 

Personally though if we are going past the Flood, I'd think better that it started with Azazel or his first son with Adam's daughter.

 

 

The fact that the Babylonian Tablets include the oldest 'written' account of the creation (though a messed up version), and an account of an ancient Sumerian civilization back to 3800 B.C. (per the Assyriologists) reveals an historical connection of that area on both sides of the flood. Just because there was a flood doesn't mean there's no ancient references to times before the flood.

[other one]

 

The fact that the Babylonian Tablets include the oldest 'written' account of the creation (though a messed up version), and an account of an ancient Sumerian civilization back to 3800 B.C. (per the Assyriologists) reveals an historical connection of that area on both sides of the flood. Just because there was a flood doesn't mean there's no ancient references to times before the flood.

 

I do believe the core stories of mythology happened before the flood, so I would agree with you there about ancient history.....   I just had not run any information back past the flood concerning Babylon.   We might consider that the time table in the Bible and the ones in the Sumerian tablets do not line up...     so I would personally doubt the 3800 B.C dating.....    but as I said that would be speculation....   I tend to lean more toward the Bible in those things.      It may be that the Sumerian tablets actually were written prior to the flood, or were written about the times before the flood by those in the days of nimrod; and that leaves an opening that the dates to match.....    just abject thoughts on my part though.

[Salty]

 

Salty

 

No, of course Israel, God's people, are not the originators of false idols nor false worship of anything. That began in ancient Sumer-Babylon with the one called Sargon, the first king there. False worship was then transferred to the pagan kingdoms of old from there.

 

But what did our Heavenly Father call His people when 'they'... fell away from Him to do that false worship? He associated pagan titles with them, and the idea of spiritual harlotry, just as He did with Jerusalem in the timing of Rev.11:8, so don't expect me to get away from that point in God's Word.

 

 

So if Israel is not the originators of false idol worship, then they clearly cant be the mother of whores? A mother gives birth not so? 

 

But its clear your position then is different in the concept of the word "mother" ... the concept then must be understood in the following example:- I am going to have the "mother" of ALL BBQ's this weekend or I'm going to the "mother" of ALL concerts or I'm going to watch the "mother" of all games.

 

Now if I am to take that concept and apply it to Israel as the Mother of all false worship, then Israel will need to be placed or expand on its history of false worship, like burning babies to a false god and Sexual acts to a false god....Can you really see Israel doing that in the future? After all it needs to be the "mother" of all false worship...burning babies and sexual acts and expand on that. 

 

 

That "mother" idea is another symbol being used in Revelation by our Lord Jesus. When the coming Antichrist sets up false idol worship there at Jerusalem specifically, the very place where our Heavenly Father has chosen to put His Name there, forever, then that "abomination of desolation" event there will symbolically make Jerusalem, the "mother" idea, symbolically becoming the Babylon of old and everything false it once represented.

[Salty]

Christ's Revelation about Jerusalem 'symbolically' as the "great city", "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, ...", the "woman" of Rev.17 &18, is easy enough if one pays attention to it as written:

 

Rev.17

17 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

² With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

³ So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

⁴ And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

⁵ And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

⁶ And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

 

The name "BABYLON" is given within... that 5th verse as a SYMBOLIC title. It's not teaching a geography lesson.

 

That symbolic "woman" (a city) is upon a scarlet colored beast? sits upon "many waters"? and has "seven heads and ten horns"?

 

Rev.18

⁷ How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

 

Then per this Rev.18 verse that symbolic "woman" that represents a city, says she sits a queen? and is not a widow?

 

Where did these symbols originate from? Mostly from The Old Testament Books.

 

Rev.17

⁶ And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

 

And that "woman" (city) is "drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus"? That's a direct link to what Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees, and to Jerusalem, in Matt.23.

 

Rev.17

¹⁸ And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

 

And that "woman" is the "great city", which reigns over the kings of the earth? What kings of the earth were mentioned in Rev.17 just prior to this? The ten kings of verse 12, the "ten horns"!

 

Let's see, the woman sits a queen, says she's not a widow, meaning... she is MARRIED! to a KING! what king?

 

What city in God's Word speaks of being married???

 

Rev.21

² And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

 

Rev.21

⁹ And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

¹⁰ And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

 

 

Oh, so the city of Jerusalem on earth for the end, when it goes into false abominations of idol worship when the Antichrist sets himself up there in the temple as God, demanding all to worship him as God, and as a king there, MARRYING Jerusalem, is NOT God's Holy City New Jerusalem that will come down out of Heaven later??? Right! Yes!, Yes!, Yes!

 

That's why that "woman" (a city) says she sits a queen in the last days, and is no widow. It's because her husband, the pseudo-Christ, is coming to sit there as king in place of Jesus Christ The True KING. There's going to be a FALSE MARRIAGE to the Jerusalem on earth in the last days, and The LORD will not approve!

 

Do you really think our Lord Jesus is going to let those one's He called "vipers" in Matt.23 to FAKE the True BRIDE of Christ, The New Jerusalem with a sad replacement of the Jerusalem on earth fallen away from Him to marry the Antichrist?? No way!