PDA

View Full Version : The Biblical Argument for the Rebuilding of Babylon *Merged*



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

BlessedAssurance
August 15th, 2010, 07:11 AM
:scratch After wading through the textwall, I still don't 'get' your point.

Jeremiah was NOT a false prophet.

james46888
August 15th, 2010, 08:34 AM
Jeremiah was NOT a false prophet.



Agreed, which is why after talking about what a hypothetical false prophet might do, I then said, "Now, I am not saying the same is true of Jeremiah," and back in 'post 1' I said, "...although as a Christian I of course don't doubt Jeremiah was a true prophet, isn't a possible problem with this type of prophecy" (you probably got lost in the "text wall" and missed those). I'll try to "summarise" as best I can:


I do not believe Jeremiah is a false prophet. However, if taken literally, it's clear that what was predicted in Jer 50-51 does not fit the details of what happened in 539 BC. Therefore, as I am sure you know, some people explain this by arguing that Jeremiah was speaking of what happened in 539 BC but that he was just using hyperbolic language, whereas others argue that he was not speaking about a past fall of Babylon (at least not primarily) but, rather, was dealing with the destruction of a future Babylon during the tribulation. Personally I favour the latter view, but my problem is that Jeremiah doesn't say anywhere in the text that he is dealing with a different Babylon to the one around in his day. Since Babylon was the big power of the time, it's only natural I expect that his contempararies would have felt he was predicting what was going to happen to the Babylon of his day. Now, although Jeremiah did not live to see Babylon fall in 539, let's imagine he did: When Babylon fell but was not destroyed in the way he predicted, we can imagine that some would have came to him and, using Deut 18 as their basis, argued that he should be punished for getting his prophecy wrong. Jeremiah would, I guess, answer them by noting that he was speaking of a future Babylon, not the one of his own day. However since he nowhere says in the text of Jer 50-51 that he was dealing with a future Babylon, then I guess his contemporaries would feel this was a mighty convenient way of explaining away a failed prophecy. Now, again, I do not feel Jeremiah got it wrong, but there almost seems to be a loophole in Deut 18 that a real false prophet - one who really was predicting that 539 B.C Babylon would be completely destroyed - could exploit by simply saying he actually had a future Babylon in mind all along. Hope this makes sense now.

kjlistrom
August 15th, 2010, 11:36 PM
I see your point. God didn't leave it to just one prophet or I'm sure that they would have done just that. By the time Christ came they were accused of killing the prophets that God had sent them.

1Th 2:15
Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

james46888
August 19th, 2010, 02:21 PM
I see your point. God didn't leave it to just one prophet or I'm sure that they would have done just that.

Hmm....depends which other prophets you have in mind. Zechariah, for example, wrote after Jeremiah died and mentioned Babylon, thus showing he believed in a rebuilt Babylon (as did John in Rev 17-18) but this doesn't prove Jeremiah did though, and thus IMO it doesn't resolve the "problem scenario" I outlined

cris
November 11th, 2010, 03:47 PM
In revelation 17 + 18 the Bible mentions Babylon the great. I've read it, heard it preached two ways. This was old Babylon that has already been destroyed, and also have heard that Babylon the great, is described at the United States, so the United States is mentioned in scriputures. Does anyone have some solid concrete feedback on this?

GOD bless you all!

Wally
November 11th, 2010, 03:54 PM
Did you not read your Bible?

Babylon is that great City that rules over men. There is a spiritual aspect, a political one, and an economic one. It is the seat of Power the AC uses and eventually makes such a name for itself, God pours out a particular wrath upon it.

It sits on seven hills and has been traditionally connected to Rome.

There are other speculations but they are not Bible based. The US is not mentioned in scriptures. Those that have tried, stretch Scripture beyond breaking.


[13]No liberal left wing political agendas, pacifism, socialism, libertarianism, fascism, scientism, Tax Dodging, Anti-American Conspiracies, Anti-War Propaganda, or that the United States is Israel or Mystery Babylon. No "Financial Fear and panic, store ammo and cans" threads stressing America is going down the tubes and Jesus is leaving us stranded. No plotting to overthrow the American government. No Conspiracy theories such as FEMA camps....Practice your faith through prayer trusting God always providing our needs and never forsaking us.

ekassa1
November 11th, 2010, 03:55 PM
first of all, babylon the great is a city that rules over the earth. so it cannot be a country. my opinion is that it is New York City due to its economic prominence and the United Nations headquarters located there. The United Nations Security Council seems to be shaping into the beast government, but thats a whole other discussion.

SaintTexas
November 11th, 2010, 04:16 PM
We are in this portion of God's Word right now and got cut short....right here. I attend a Calvary Chapel and our pastor uses the inductive method to teach, which never comes in with presumptions on the text. When we finish, I would be happy to put up the link to it next Monday. He has done an excellent job, a very literal teacher, uses the Bible to comment on itself. Since we started, there has only been one thing that I am not sure I agree with in interpretation (do not touch the oil and wine he likens to medicinal attributes for those at this time speaking of the Lord's great grace and mercy: I tend to think of these as luxuries and while most perish, these are left for the rich and the powerful---I like his interpretation better than mine because I love how the Lord is merciful and is so gracious), and we are in Revelation 17. We took 3 weeks just on chapter 1. What a journey it's been!

A Halley's Bible Handbook could be useful here as well. There is too much information to attempt posting, plus it's such a great resource that I would just encourage you to pick one up on the cheap on half.com or used off Amazon. Ironside's expository commentary on Revelation also does an excellent and thoroughly detailed job with the history of Babylon all the way back to the tower of Babel in Genesis.

logosone
November 11th, 2010, 05:18 PM
Well, I'm not sure what i believe about this :thinking

Teachers who are saying this is inerrant and the literal future outskirts of Baghdad?

uh, I'm just not convinced that's what it means at all :nope

Tall Timbers
November 11th, 2010, 05:30 PM
Babylon being NYC is wild speculation. Rome is less speculative. Scripture points to Babylon being the literal Babylon in Iraq. Physical Babylon should be rebuilt and become the Political, Economic and Religious capital of the world during Tribulation. "Footsteps of the Messiah", by Arnold Fruchtenbaum covers this topic pretty well.