QUOTE(daysofnoah @ May 24 2007, 02:09 PM) [snapback]113365[/snapback]
QUOTE(excubitor @ May 23 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]113363[/snapback]
This Babylon is not the Babylon of Revelation because Rev 18 describes Babylon as a great trading city with a huge seaport with ships coming from all over the world to trade. Babylon is hundreds of miles from the sea and is on the Euphrates river. Only flat bottomed barges can navigate the Euphrates river.
So Babylon will never be a major world trading centre.
Nice pictures though
This is a good point though I worry you are being too dismissive. Iraq to the south and east of Babylon is largely flat, marshy swampland that is subject to flooding even in a relatively arid climate. There could be earthquakes, tsunamis, meteors etc. that change the terrain quite drastically. (Is not all of this very much described as occurring during the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord?) Could Babylon become a port city? If we delve into the prophetic meaning of the sea, one could argue that this actually makes a lot of sense. Remember Satan will loose all signs and lying wonders. He's going to pull out all the stops. Think Dubai is impressive? Haha, we haven't seen anything yet.
Plus if you compare Revelation 17-18 with Isaiah 13-14 and Jeremiah 50-51 the links are striking. (Throw in Zechariah 5 too.) For example notice the repetition of scarlet, purple, golden cup, and many nations. All are set during the Day of the Lord, and in Isaiah and Jeremiah literal Babylon is clearly being described. Babylon has never been destroyed as described in these chapters. Cyrus took Babylon without a battle.
Those who argue that the coming antichrist is from Rome and that his Beast kingdom is Western Europe are making an argument that, in my opinion, is at best incomplete and at worse borderline silly. There are far too many passages that have to be twisted or flat out ignored to support this view. Don't misunderstand. I'm not saying the EU and the Vatican are not involved. I think it is obvious that they are. But these WEU-Rome centered views are only part of a much bigger picture - in my opinion. The bottom line to me is that Biblically it is quite clear that Babylon has a destiny that remains unfulfilled. The plain, clear meaning of the texts listed above (and others) indicate as much. The Beast of Rev. 13 is Rome plus Greece, Persia, and Babylon. The Eastern Leg of the Roman Empire outlasted the Western leg by a thousand years. The 'head' with the fatal wound in Rev. 13:3 is Assyria, because the other six empires simply fizzled out, but were never 'killed.' The Antichrist is described as the Assyrian in several places.
So, the fact that Babylon is not a port city does present a challenge - for now. Could the repetition of 'Fallen, Fallen' allude to the fact that both Rome and Babylon will be destroyed? Very possibly - and not necessarily at the same time either.
Chuck Misler might know whether there are any plans to build a massive port in the middle of the desert in Iraq.
Of course your idea is preposterous, surely you can see that. The idea of building a canal to take ocean going ships hundreds of miles into the desert is erroneus. At the moment the world is struggling to figure out a way to finance a widening of the Panama canal to allow the enormous ships to traverse it. Now there is a good reason for widening the canal but absolutely no reason to turn the Euphrates river into a massive canal.
Even if there was a massive earth shaking event which caused the Persian gulf to extend for hundreds of miles stopping just at Babylons door it still would not make sense for this to become a huge world centre for trading sea port. Why would massive container ships sail hundreds of miles into the middle of Iraq to deliver thousands of containers of consumer goods.
Chuck Misler's ideas simply amount to fantasy and to give Chuck's secret bible spy network something to do as they hobnob with their retiring army pals. The truth is that Babylon of today is little more than a theme park for Sadam to foster his Nebuchadnezzar fantasies. Its probably just out of the way enough for the Americans to place their installations where they are not going to be bombed by the madmen congregating in Baghdad.
I'm all for taking the Bible literally but in this case a literal reading of the text discounts Babylon of old being Mystery Babylon. Just think about how John would have perceived and recorded his vision. If the prophecy was about New York, how could the prophecy say so when New York had not even been built yet? In fact the entire continent of America was unknown. How could the Bible describe a place which did not even exist yet? And if it did actually use the name New York there would be no mystery about it would there? In fact the same holds true with the name Babylon. If it actually was Babylon then there would be no mystery. All would be obvious. The fact that it is a mystery means that there is a certain amount of deduction, insight and revelation in determining which city Mystery Babylon is.
Clearly the imagery of Babylon and the Revelation account helps us to identify the mysterious end-time city.
Babylon of the ancient world was the hub of the known world. Situated in the junction of the Tigris and Euphrates river it was an ideal place for trade. To the north they could trade up the river to Syria and beyond and could act as a staging post with the cities of Sumer to the south. Babylon became filthy rich and luxuriant as a result.
So in the end times we are looking for a city which has the same spirit and characteristics of that original city which is a major hub of world trade and a centrepoint for culture, society and influence over the cities of the world. Clearly New York fits this model like no other city on earth.
I recently posted some of my observation as to how closely New York resembles Mystery Babylon along with some ideas as to how end time events may transpire. Here is a link
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?a...st&p=112843 which you might find worthwhile reading