Seven Major Prophetic Signs Of The Second Coming

[nebula]

Why should we not be ''dogmatic'' when scripture is so crystal clear on the subject?

You lost me on this one -

Since when has prophetic interpretation ever been crystal clear? If it were, how could there be so much division?

[OneLight]

Okay, now Kelley's gone from scripture-twisting to outright lying. Isaiah 13 says that Babylon will be destroyed, never to be rebuilt:

Well, we have a little problem here.

There has been a re-building of Babylon.

http://architecture.about.com/od/themiddle...ig/Iraq-Photos/ <<-- see images

No, not all has been rebuilt, and other than Saddam's palace I don't believe it's ever been re-inhabited. But there are walls, gates and bulidings that have been re-built.

Interesting pictures Nebula, thanks! I wonder if it will ever be inhabited? According to scripture, it will never happen.

[nebula]

However, the re-building that has been done is in the Babylon of Nebuchednezzar, not the city that Isaiah was prophesying against.

Please explain.

I thought there was only one Babylon.

[nebula]

Since when has prophetic interpretation ever been crystal clear? If it were, how could there be so much division?

Because people have itching ears believing what sound nice instead of what scripture says.

In some cases, I would agree.

But as far as prophecy goes, the only ones that have ever gotten it right were prophets themselves to whom the Lord revealed the message (Daniel, Simeon, Anna, etc.).

I'd be suprised if anyone has it "right" yet.

[Fraught]

Okay, now Kelley's gone from scripture-twisting to outright lying. Isaiah 13 says that Babylon will be destroyed, never to be rebuilt:

Well, we have a little problem here.

There has been a re-building of Babylon.

http://architecture.about.com/od/themiddle...ig/Iraq-Photos/ <<-- see images

No, not all has been rebuilt, and other than Saddam's palace I don't believe it's ever been re-inhabited. But there are walls, gates and bulidings that have been re-built.

i brought that up too nebula, but i'm told it's not the same babylon. ?????

[nebula]

Well, I hope someone explains this . . . how there is a Babylon that's different from King Nebchudnezzer's Babylon and all that.

[nebula]

Not a problem with that here!

It's the stuff between Rev. 1:1 and when Jesus returns that things get all screwed up!

[nebula]

Ok - sorry, I missed that.

So that means Nebuchandnezzer's city should have been called "New Babylon", huh?

[givennewname]

Ok - sorry, I missed that.

So that means Nebuchandnezzer's city should have been called "New Babylon", huh?

More to the point, it means King N.'s Babylon doesn't play a role in biblical prophecy at all. See what happens when you make an assumption? An entire doctrine built on faulty data because someone forgot to check their facts.

Why would God Give a prophecy about a Babylon that had already been destroyed before Isaiah and Jeremiah. Isaiah and Jeremiah are prophets, not historians.

[nebula]

Ok - sorry, I missed that.

So that means Nebuchandnezzer's city should have been called "New Babylon", huh?

More to the point, it means King N.'s Babylon doesn't play a role in biblical prophecy at all. See what happens when you make an assumption? An entire doctrine built on faulty data because someone forgot to check their facts.

I wasn't claiming anything. I am simply trying to put together the pieces. So please quit the "high horse" air on me.