lee_merrill

Hi David,

I will have to make my response tomorrow, but continuing our discussion from over in the EoG forum...

Assuming you don't mind, I will copy from your post from over there.

David speaking, now:

Isaiah 13 describes a defeat that never took place. In Isaiah 13 the prophet describes a multitude of nations coming against Babylon. It is during the day of the LORD, elsewhere described in the prophetic literature as the last days. The day of the LORD comes and with fierce anger to lay the land desolate. At the time this was written the Medes were the biggest threat to Babylon and the writer incorrectly puts them as the tools of God's wrath against Babylon.

During this desolation of Babylon the stars of heaven will not give their light and the moon shall not reflect light (Isaiah 13:10). During this time God will punish the world for its evil and the heavens shall be shaken and the earth shall be removed from its place. All that will be found will be thrust through (this never happened either) and every man would return to his own land (13:14,15). This did not happen either. The children of this time period will be dashed against the stones and the women raped (13:16). and the Medes will come upon them and they would dash the young men to pieces and they would not spare children (13:17,18). This never happened. The Persians damned up the river running through the city of Babylon and moved through the empty channel, opened the gates from within and invaded the city. The city fell virtually without a fight. All the mayhem and plunder foretold did not happen. Babylon did NOT become as Sodom and Gomorrah. In fact, it continued on for several centuries into the common era before people gradually abandoned it and it became almost desolate. Even to this day there is a mosque on the ruins of ancient Babylon and there are workers who toil on a daily basis on the ruins, hoping to recover artifacts and rebuilding homes for people to live in. Isaiah 13:20 incorrectly says, "It shall never be inhabited" which is false, the claims of many Christian prophecy buffs notwithstanding.

The creatures prophesied to live there do, in fact, NOT live there.

In Jeremaih 25 we see a prophecy that Babylon would come from the north and invade all the countries and utterly destroy them and make them perpetual desolations (this never happened either). There were a few thousand deportees taken away to Babylon and in typical Oriental hyperbole the whole land was declared to be "desolate" although it is known that the majority of the people who did not populate Jerusalem continued to live in the land. Outside of scripture, in secular history, there is no record whatsoever the whole land from Galilee to Juda and Edom lay desolate for 70 years. In Jeremaih 25:12 the prophet incorrectly prophesies that at the END of the 70 years God would PUNISH Babylon and he would make it a perpetual desolation. When? At the END of the 70 years. Folks, that did NOT happen. Babylon continued on as a prized city in the Persian empire and existed until well into the common era. Finally, as all ancient cities usually do, it crumbled away into insignificance. Jeremaih goes on to name many cities that will drink of the wrath of God, in the time of the end among those are:

1. Egypt and its Pharaoh
2. The land of Uz
3. The Philistines
4. Ashkelon
5. Azzah
6. Ekron
7. Ashdod
8. Edom
9. Moab
10. Ammon
11. Tyrus
12. Zidon
13. Dedan
14. Tema
15. Buz
16. all the kings of Arabia
17. all the kings of the mingled people in the desert
18. all the kings of Zimri
19. all the kings of Elam
20. all the kings of Medes
21. all the kings of the north
22. all the kingdoms of the world
23. king of Sheshach

They would rise no more (vs. 27-31). This wholsale slaughter never happened. It was meant to occur during the day of the Lord. The day of the Lord never happened.

In Jeremiah 52 it is prophesied that the land of Babylon shall be emptied. This has never happened. The land of Babylon, modern Iraq, has never been destitute of people. The prophesied slaughter of the Chaldeans never happened. Persia conquered Babylon but never wreaked the havoc that the prophet declared would happen at the hand of the Medes. There was never this mass exodus of Israel and Judah out of the midst of Babylon. The description of the destruction in verses 20-26 never happened. Babylon was taken by the Persians and remained a well populated city until well into the common era. Eventually the city of Babylon became virtually desolate but never completely so but the land itself, the country of Babylon, NEVER became desolate. Babylon was never "rolled down from the rocks" and it never became a "burnt mountain" except in Christian apologetics. Verse 26 if false as there are buildings in modern Babylon, including a beautiful mosque.

Verse 28 is false as it was the Persians who conquered Babylon and not the Medes. The author of Daniel tries to salvage Jeremiah by making the conquering of Babylon a joint venture of Persia and the Medes but this is an invention oif Daniel and kept alive by the pens of Christian historians. Among all the recorded history found in Persia and ancient Babylon, there is no record of a united Medo-Persian empire. The LAND of Babylon (vers 28-29) never has been desolate, to this day, unless we are fighting phantoms and not real people. Jeremiah 25:31 contradicts Daniel in that the king of Babylon was killed the same night the city fell. Verse 37 is incorrect in that Babylon has not become the dwelling place of dragons. The sea has not yet come up over Babylon (vs. 42) and it is not an astonishment unto the nations. The next verse even refers to Babylon as a dry land, so it is contradictory even between verses 42 and 43, unless you want to make it all one big metaphor.

Verses 62-64 of Jeremiah 51 is simply not true. It is NOT desolate, even unto this day.

There is more that could be said about the other nations, such as Edom, Egypt, the Caananites, the Assyrians, and the so-called Roman Empire. Many of the verses must be cast aside as only those verses that were "fulfilled" are accepted and used by prophecy buffs. If one were to examine all the prophecies given unto these nations one would find many failed prophecies. But that is the nature of the apologist, to seize on the few "successful" prophecies and ignore the rest.

- David Mooney

lee_merrill

Hi David,

Are the first 13 verses of Isaiah 13 talking about Babylon, though? This is a world-wide judgment, and then in verse 14 or 15, the actual focus become Babylon, so we may conclude that world will become like Babylon, and will also be judged severely (see Rev. 18). And yes, Babylon fell virtually without a fight, does that mean this army did not plunder or kill anyone?

Daniel 5:30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain…

Jeremiah 50:39 So desert creatures and hyenas will live there, and there the owl will dwell. It will never again be inhabited or lived in from generation to generation.

No desert creatures? No owls? That would be surprising. "Owls start from the scanty thickets and the foul jackal skulks through the furrows." ("Discoveries Among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon"). Maybe no hyenas are there today, but I'm not even sure we have to insist that this list of creatures will live there forever, the "forever" part is that it will not inhabited or lived in.

On what basis do we know this, may I ask?

Arguing from silence in archaeology is not very dependable, though!

But this is only a failure if God said he would make it a desolation immediately. And cities do crumble! But let's see if it can be rebuilt, this can be tried, at any time. Let us remember Saddam's latest attempt to do this, and whether he succeeded.

"Fall to rise no more" would most likely mean a punishment of death, but not for every person in those nations, I would expect. And did Babylon not conquer an empire? Would that not fulfill this prophecy?

And if it is shown that it happened, then we will hear that it was postdated. It seems that like the man in the handcuffs, whatever he says will be used against him.

As I have heard, the city of Babylon is now a large swamp.

"A large part of the old city buried under a deep bed of silt remains to be found, and the Babylon of Hammurabi, of which only the slenderest traces have been detected, now lies beneath the water table." (Encyclopedia Brittanica)

Didn't we just hear in the other thread that Persia conquered Media, and there were Medes in the army that conquered Babylon? And again, we are arguing from silence in archaeology, a risky venture. Not even silence! There is an account of this, that you disagree with.

Never! But how can you know this, is there a continuous archaeological record of the occupation of Babylon? And it's occupied today? I should be able to view their civic center web site, and buy a ticket to Babylon, and tour the city?

I'm not sure what you mean here, though…

Jeremiah 25:31 "The tumult will resound to the ends of the earth, for the Lord will bring charges against the nations; he will bring judgment on all mankind and put the wicked to the sword," declares the Lord.

This seems consistent with Belshazzar being put to the sword when the city fell.

Well, does the word mean dragons? That is what needs to be shown, that the KJV is correct in this translation.

If it's underwater, "sea" could mean that, and that's pretty astonishing.

Isaiah 14:23 "I will turn her into a place for owls and into swampland."

Jeremiah 51:42-43 The sea will rise over Babylon; its roaring waves will cover her. Her towns will be desolate, a dry and desert land, a land where no one lives, through which no man travels.

Isn't this saying the city is covered and the surrounding towns are desert areas?

References, please?.

I would, of course, disagree…

I hope I have not ignored what you said, though.

Regards,
Lee

John A. Broussard

I haven't really followed all this, but are you saying that if a prophecy seems to be wrong, then it's perhaps a KJV mistranslation.

If that's so, then how can the KJV be inerrant? How can any of the "scriptures" be inerrant then, since we don't have the original documents?

David Mooney

Hi David,

Quote:
David: Isaiah 13 describes a defeat that never took place. … At the time this was written the Medes were the biggest threat to Babylon and the writer incorrectly puts them as the tools of God's wrath against Babylon.

During this desolation of Babylon the stars of heaven will not give their light and the moon shall not reflect light (Isaiah 13:10). During this time God will punish the world for its evil and the heavens shall be shaken and the earth shall be removed from its place.

LEE
Are the first 13 verses of Isaiah 13 talking about Babylon, though? This is a world-wide judgment, and then in verse 14 or 15, the actual focus become Babylon, so we may conclude that world will become like Babylon, and will also be judged severely (see Rev. 18). And yes, Babylon fell virtually without a fight, does that mean this army did not plunder or kill anyone?

DAVID
What I see from reading the text in context is the writer believed the destruction of Babylon would occur in the last days, during the day of the Lord, and not before. The writer thought the fall of Babylon would happen in the final days.

LEE
Daniel 5:30 That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain…

Quote:
The creatures prophesied to live there do, in fact, NOT live there.


Jeremiah 50:39 So desert creatures and hyenas will live there, and there the owl will dwell. It will never again be inhabited or lived in from generation to generation.

No desert creatures? No owls? That would be surprising. "Owls start from the scanty thickets and the foul jackal skulks through the furrows." ("Discoveries Among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon"). Maybe no hyenas are there today, but I'm not even sure we have to insist that this list of creatures will live there forever, the "forever" part is that it will not inhabited or lived in.

DAVID
There are people there today. There is a mosque there as well. When the Gulf War first broke out either Newsweek or another weekly showed a photograph of this mosque. Inside was a Koran written with Sadaam Hussein's blood. I have tried to find this on the Internet but have not been satisfied with the results of my search. I may have to go dig out those back issues and find the eexact copy so you can go to the library and find it in the archives. If you go to Google Images and type in "Babylon mosque
ruins" (without the quotation marks) you may be able to find some pictures.

I found some of a mosque in ruins but it didn't say if it were the same mosque that was in the weekly.

LEE
Quote:
In Jeremiah 25 we see a prophecy that Babylon would come from the north and invade all the countries and utterly destroy them and make them perpetual desolations (this never happened either). There were a few thousand deportees taken away to Babylon and in typical Oriental hyperbole the whole land was declared to be "desolate" although it is known that the majority of the people who did not populate Jerusalem continued to live in the land.

On what basis do we know this, may I ask?

DAVID
Bible Arcaheology has uncovered zero evidence that these places were desolate. I don't know how the art of Biblical Arachaeology works, but they have determined these places were never desolate . Babylon records show only a few thousand deportees and the biblical record agrees there were only a few thousand deported from Jerusalem. Assyria deported the norhtern ten tribes in 721 BC and refilled the land with foreigners, including all of Galilee and Samria and Syria.


LEE
Quote:
Outside of scripture, in secular history, there is no record whatsoever the whole land from Galilee to Judah and Edom lay desolate for 70 years.

Arguing from silence in archaeology is not very dependable, though!

DAVID
To argue that is happened without evidence isn't much better, though, and archaeological digs have never turned up proof of this widespread desolation. The geological record seems to indicate a continuous living in many of these cities and areas.

LEE

Quote:
In Jeremiah 25:12 the prophet incorrectly prophesies that at the END of the 70 years God would PUNISH Babylon and he would make it a perpetual desolation. When? At the END of the 70 years. Folks, that did NOT happen. Babylon continued on as a prized city in the Persian empire and existed until well into the common era. Finally, as all ancient cities usually do, it crumbled away into insignificance.

But this is only a failure if God said he would make it a desolation immediately. And cities do crumble! But let's see if it can be rebuilt, this can be tried, at any time. Let us remember Saddam's latest attempt to do this, and whether he succeeded.

DAVID
In context, Babylon was to become desolate with the defeat at the hands of the Medes. There is no mention of a several century layover before the city finnally crumbled. There is already a mosque on the ruins of ancient babylon. I hope to find better evidence of this before the weekend is over.

LEE

Quote:
Jeremiah goes on to name many cities that will drink of the wrath of God, in the time of the end among those are:

1. Egypt and its Pharaoh
2. The land of Uz
3. The Philistines
…

They would rise no more (vs. 27-31). This wholesale slaughter never happened. It was meant to occur during the day of the Lord. The day of the Lord never happened.

LEE

"Fall to rise no more" would most likely mean a punishment of death, but not for every person in those nations, I would expect. And did Babylon not conquer an empire? Would that not fulfill this prophecy?

DAVID
Babylon conquered the Assyrian empire, and it itself was conquered by the Persians.

LEE

And if it is shown that it happened, then we will hear that it was postdated. It seems that like the man in the handcuffs, whatever he says will be used against him.

DAVID
Well, a healthy skepticism is not a bad thing. If I saw a writing that was dated in 1959 and described the assinations of John Kennedy, MArtin Luther King and Robert Kennedy I would have a healthy skepticism that the writng was written after the fact. I do not believe in a prophecy simply because some book claims to be written before the fact. The evidence should prove itself but most prophecies of the Bible are either taken out of context or very likely written after the fact. God knows my desire to weigh the evidence but I will not buy into a prophecy just because it makes me feel good to do it.

LEE


Quote:
In Jeremiah 52 it is prophesied that the land of Babylon shall be emptied. This has never happened. <snip similar assertions, I need some evidence!> Eventually the city of Babylon became virtually desolate but never completely so but the land itself, the country of Babylon, NEVER became desolate. Babylon was never "rolled down from the rocks" and it never became a "burnt mountain" except in Christian apologetics. Verse 26 is false as there are buildings in modern Babylon, including a beautiful mosque.

DAVID
The Land of Babylon is modern day Iraq. Iraq has people in it, does it not? The land of Babylon is the country of babylon and it was prophesied to be desolate like the capital city, but that hasn't happened.

LEE

As I have heard, the city of Babylon is now a large swamp.

"A large part of the old city buried under a deep bed of silt remains to be found, and the Babylon of Hammurabi, of which only the slenderest traces have been detected, now lies beneath the water table." (Encyclopedia Brittanica)

DAVID
They do have some buildings there, including that mosque. Google Images may have pictures of Babylon's mosque, but the country of Babylon is Iraq and it has many people in it.


Quote:
Verse 28 is false as it was the Persians who conquered Babylon and not the Medes. ... Among all the recorded history found in Persia and ancient Babylon, there is no record of a united Medo-Persian empire.



Didn't we just hear in the other thread that Persia conquered Media, and there were Medes in the army that conquered Babylon? And again, we are arguing from silence in archaeology, a risky venture. Not even silence! There is an account of this, that you disagree with.


DAVID
Yes, however, just as there were Belgians in the German army didn't make it the German-Belgian army. The Belgians, the Dutch, and the Danish were such a small portion of the German army it wasn't significant enough to be considered a multi-national force. The Medes were conquered by Persian and it is almost certain theyhad some men in their forces but it was never referred to as the Medo-Persian Empire in their writings, no more than Babylon was called the Babylon-Assyrian empire.

LEE

Quote:
The LAND of Babylon (vers 28-29) never has been desolate, to this day, unless we are fighting phantoms and not real people.



Never! But how can you know this, is there a continuous archaeological record of the occupation of Babylon? And it's occupied today? I should be able to view their civic center web site, and buy a ticket to Babylon, and tour the city?

DAVID
You can view the mosque, and the rest of the country such as Baghdad, and other cities that are very much occupied in what was once the land of Babylon. The Biblke predicted the LAND of Babylon would be desolate, not just the capital city.

LEE


Quote:
Jeremiah 25:31 contradicts Daniel in that the king of Babylon was killed the same night the city fell.



I'm not sure what you mean here, though…

Jeremiah 25:31 "The tumult will resound to the ends of the earth, for the Lord will bring charges against the nations; he will bring judgment on all mankind and put the wicked to the sword," declares the Lord.

DAVID
I think I mistyped a reference here. I'm going have to go back and read some more and find the refernce again. It iis not Jeremiah 25:31.

LEE

This seems consistent with Belshazzar being put to the sword when the city fell.


Quote:
Verse 37 is incorrect in that Babylon has not become the dwelling place of dragons.



Well, does the word mean dragons? That is what needs to be shown, that the KJV is correct in this translation.

DAVID
I have a Hebrew Bible. I can look it up. I'll let you know.


LEE


Quote:
The sea has not yet come up over Babylon (vs. 42) and it is not an astonishment unto the nations.



If it's underwater, "sea" could mean that, and that's pretty astonishing.

Isaiah 14:23 "I will turn her into a place for owls and into swampland."

DAVID
However, not all of Babylon city proper is desolate or under water. It is slowly being rebuilt. Sadaams defeat will no doubt slow this rebuilding down but it is being rebult, even with the swamplands.

LEE


Quote:
The next verse even refers to Babylon as a dry land, so it is contradictory even between verses 42 and 43, unless you want to make it all one big metaphor.



Jeremiah 51:42-43 The sea will rise over Babylon; its roaring waves will cover her. Her towns will be desolate, a dry and desert land, a land where no one lives, through which no man travels.

Isn't this saying the city is covered and the surrounding towns are desert areas?


DAVID
Her TOWNS refer to the towns in the land of Babylon (Iraq) and it is NOT desolate.


LEE
Quote:
Verses 62-64 of Jeremiah 51 is simply not true. It is NOT desolate, even unto this day.



References, please?.

DAVID
Look at the news reports. Thos Iraqi insurgents are living in what once was teh LAND of Babylon. It is not desolate.


Quote:
There is more that could be said about the other nations, such as Edom, Egypt, the Caananites, the Assyrians, and the so-called Roman Empire. … If one were to examine all the prophecies given unto these nations one would find many failed prophecies.



I would, of course, disagree…


Quote:
But that is the nature of the apologist, to seize on the few "successful" prophecies and ignore the rest.



I hope I have not ignored what you said, though.

Regards,
Lee

DAVID
No, you haven't ignored me. I appreciate that. I will try to find the issue of Newsweek that had the mosque. But try Google images and type in Babylon ruins mosque and see if you can find it.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

No, I'm saying that probably, in this instance, the KJV is incorrect, because modern translations don't translate this word ("tannim") as "dragons," they don't seem to actually know what it meant, so the jury is out on this one, it would seem.

Yes, but oftentimes Scripture changes focus from a person to a future person who will be like them, or from a nation to a future group who will be similar, and also fulfill the prophecy:

Isaiah 8:18 Here am I, and the children the Lord has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the Lord Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion.

Thus I don't think the focus in the first part of Isaiah 13 is specifically on Babylon, but on a group of people like them, and on a judgment like theirs.

I see I didn't fully address your point here, now the prophecy was not that Babylon would completely destroy all these nations, but that God would. So we have to ask which people are meant, for in the next verses we see a promised return after 70 years. I expect this must mean the rebellious Israelites, and rebellious people in the nations around Israel.

And also no evidence that they were continuously inhabited? No evidence is no evidence, in this instance, I would say.

But we do have documentation of Edom disappearing, they were the Idumeans, who were dispersed after the fall of Jerusalem, most of whom, as I have heard, became Jewish, and that is how Edom finally disappeared.

But there is no mention of a time period either way, so isn't either way a possible fulfillment?

I agree! I don't, either, so let's examine the evidence, especially of these "forever" prophecies that can be tested, today.

That's fine, I think the prophecy is saying specifically the city and the surrounding area will never be rebuilt.

Yes, so now we need to know how many Medes were in the Persian army, and that, I don't know.

But we don't call the U.S. "The republic of the twelve English colonies and Mexico," even though New Mexico and surrounding states came from there, and many Hispanic people now live in America as American citizens, and support the country, and hold political office. The title, or lack of one, does not tell us what the country is like.

Well, let's see then! If it hasn't yet become desolate yet, I think it will.

Revelation 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues."

We'll see if they can do this! I shall watch with interest.

Doesn't this type of reference generally mean like "Chicagoland," or "Greater New York," though?

Isaiah 13:19 Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians' pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Regards,
Lee

David Mooney

Hi everyone,
Quote:
Lee: Well, does the word mean dragons?

John: are you saying that if a prophecy seems to be wrong, then it's perhaps a KJV mistranslation.

No, I'm saying that probably, in this instance, the KJV is incorrect, because modern translations don't translate this word ("tannim") as "dragons," they don't seem to actually know what it meant, so the jury is out on this one, it would seem.

Quote:
David: The writer thought the fall of Babylon would happen in the final days.

Yes, but oftentimes Scripture changes focus from a person to a future person who will be like them, or from a nation to a future group who will be similar, and also fulfill the prophecy:

DAVID
Isn't it nice when discussing prophecy you can ignore the surrounding context and arbitrarily declare that the focus suddenly "shifts" to another time many millenia later? What is your criteria for determing that the prophecy shifted in the passages you posted about Babylon? The context shows us the writer thought Babylon would be destroyed at the end of the 70 years and the day of the Lord would begin but that didn't happen. How do decide that the writer just "shifted focus" to a future date in the middle of the prophecy? Is it because the alternative would be a failed prophecy? If the writer is to be taken at his word and the passage read in context I see a failed prophecy. I am not impressed when one can play fast and loose with context and make the writer "shift focus" so the part of the prophecy that did not come to pass can always be put off to a later date. Skeptics are not impressed with this type of exegesis (or eisegesis).

LEE
Isaiah 8:18 Here am I, and the children the Lord has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the Lord Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion.

Thus I don't think the focus in the first part of Isaiah 13 is specifically on Babylon, but on a group of people like them, and on a judgment like theirs.

DAVID
Yes, you think. I take the writer in context and see a prophecy that failed. Any attempt to put the prophecy into two parts-the immediate future and the distant future-just doesn't impress us skeptics. You must do better than that.

Quote:
David: In Jeremiah 25 we see a prophecy that Babylon would come from the north and invade all the countries and utterly destroy them and make them perpetual desolations (this never happened either).

I see I didn't fully address your point here, now the prophecy was not that Babylon would completely destroy all these nations, but that God would. So we have to ask which people are meant, for in the next verses we see a promised return after 70 years. I expect this must mean the rebellious Israelites, and rebellious people in the nations around Israel.

DAVID
In the other prophecies (Isaiah 13, Jeremiah 25 and 52) the destruction of Babylon signaled the day of the Lord, which other prophecies show to be in the last days.


Quote:
David: the whole land was declared to be "desolate" although it is known that the majority of the people who did not populate Jerusalem continued to live in the land.

Lee: On what basis do we know this, may I ask?

David: Bible Archaeology has uncovered zero evidence that these places were desolate.

LEE
And also no evidence that they were continuously inhabited? No evidence is no evidence, in this instance, I would say.

DAVID
The Bible claims they would be perpetually desolate, and since that hasn't happened, I think the skeptics have a point.

Quote:
David: To argue that is happened without evidence isn't much better…

LEE
But we do have documentation of Edom disappearing, they were the Idumeans, who were dispersed after the fall of Jerusalem, most of whom, as I have heard, became Jewish, and that is how Edom finally disappeared.

DAVID
This desolation of Edom was to occur in the last days (the day of the Lord) so it really doesn't impress much. Petra is a tourist site (as is Babylon, for that matter) so Edom is not desolate now. It is frequented by tourists. A portion of the movie with Indiana Jones and his dad (I forget the name of the film) was filmed there. Not a perpetual desolation. Tourists sites cannot be said to be perpetually desolate.


Quote:
David: In context, Babylon was to become desolate with the defeat at the hands of the Medes. There is no mention of a several century layover before the city finally crumbled.

LEE
But there is no mention of a time period either way, so isn't either way a possible fulfillment?

DAVID
Not to me it isn't. I just take the passage for what it says, that the MEDES would destroy Babylon. At the time Media was the biggest threat to Babylon but the Persians conquered them and defeated the Babylonians.

Quote:
David: I do not believe in a prophecy simply because some book claims to be written before the fact.

LEE
I agree! I don't, either, so let's examine the evidence, especially of these "forever" prophecies that can be tested, today.

Quote:
David: … but the country of Babylon is Iraq and it has many people in it.

LEE
That's fine, I think the prophecy is saying specifically the city and the surrounding area will never be rebuilt.

DAVID
It says the LAND of Babylon and her towns shall be desolate.

Quote:
David: … however, just as there were Belgians in the German army didn't make it the German-Belgian army.

LEE
Yes, so now we need to know how many Medes were in the Persian army, and that, I don't know.

DAVID
Heroditus reports a contingent of Medes and some Assyrians in her army. I know that historians consider the amount to be insignificant and since prophecy must ultimately be verified by history, it doesn't look to impressive.

Quote:
David: … it was never referred to as the Medo-Persian Empire in their writings.

LEE
But we don't call the U.S. "The republic of the twelve English colonies and Mexico," even though New Mexico and surrounding states came from there, and many Hispanic people now live in America as American citizens, and support the country, and hold political office. The title, or lack of one, does not tell us what the country is like.

DAVID
The Persians defeated the Medes. They were never called the Medo-Persian army in their own writngs. The Medes were swallowed up by the Persian empire. All secular histories never refer to them as the Medo-Persian empire because they know it is false. If Germany defeated Poland they did not become the German-Polish Reich. Poland was absorbed into the Reich and was never referred to as the German-Polish Reich. Same when they defeated France. They did not become the German-French Reich.

Quote:
David: … The Bible predicted the LAND of Babylon would be desolate, not just the capital city.

LEE
Well, let's see then! If it hasn't yet become desolate yet, I think it will.

DAVID
Sure, I predict that it will one day be desolate too.

LEE
Revelation 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues."


Quote:
David: Sadaams defeat will no doubt slow this rebuilding down but it is being rebuilt, even with the swamplands.

LEE
We'll see if they can do this! I shall watch with interest.

DAVID
Go to Google images and type in Babylon ruins. There are tourists there and American soldiers who are photgraphed there. Some buildings are still standing. There is even a palace of Sadaam Hussein photgraphed on the ruins. The mosque of bin al-Fadha'al is there, but I wasn't able to find a picture of that. There is a tourist page for Babylon. It is a significantly visted site to render "desolate" false.

Quote:
Lee: Isn't this saying the city is covered and the surrounding towns are desert areas?

David: Her TOWNS refer to the towns in the land of Babylon (Iraq) and it is NOT desolate.

LEE
Doesn't this type of reference generally mean like "Chicagoland," or "Greater New York," though?

DAVID
Not according to the Hebrew word for land. The word for land could refer to either the whole earth, a country, or the visible land from horizon to horizon. I think it's stretching to render "the land of Babylon" and "all her towns" as just the capitol city. That doesn't seem to fit here.

Isaiah 13:19 Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians' pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Regards,
Lee

DAVID
Thanks for your response. Good to see a fellow North Carolinean here.

John A. Broussard

I'm looking for some rule where I can decide that a statement in the KJV is incorrect. For that matter, I'd like to find out how to tell when a statement in the ancient biblical documents (which were copies of copies of copies) were incorrect.

You see, I have acquaintances who believe the KJV is literally and totally correct. Need ammo.

David Mooney

Lee,

what do you think of Jesus' claim in Matthew 12:40 that he would be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights? Yet we know Jesus died the day before the sabbath (Friday) and was risen from the dead the morning after the sabbath (Sunday morning). If Jesus died on Friday afternoon and was risen from the dead on Sunday morning, then how could he have been in the heart of the earth three days and three NIGHTS?

John A. Broussard

I think Lee's answer would be that it's a mistranslation. Two in the Greek text is often confused with three.

David Mooney

That's a good one. It's like when the synoptics claim Jesus was crucified during the third hour of the day and John claims that during the sixth hour Pilate delivered Jesus to be crucified the apologists claim a copyist error. The poor ole copyist is blamed for a lot of the problems in textual difficulties.