 |
|
|
God and Adam looked exactly alike.
-- Kenneth Copeland, The Authority of the Believer IV; Tape #01-0304
|
|
| |
An Apologetic on Babylon the great of Revelation.
Posted on Sunday, November 12 @ 11:11:57 PST by kalos |
|
twospirits submitted: " In Don Preston's article, May 11,06, titled Babylon the great of Revelation, Don concludes that Babylon must refer to Jerusalem because only Jerusalem killed Old Testament prophets. He quotes, "--and prophets in Revelation must refer to Old Testament prophets. Rev. 16-6;17-1-6;18-20,24 tell us that Babylon was drunk with the blood of the prophets. This is a critical point! The term "the prophets" appears 88 times in the New Testament. The overwhelmingly normal usage of the term refers to Old Testament prophets."
He also quotes in this article; "Everyone agrees that the book of Revelation predicts the fall of Babylon, what they do not agree upon is the identity of Babylon. Some say it is Rome, Roman Catholicism, a modern day worldwide church, or apostate Christianity as a whole. One thing is certain, the interpretation of Revelation and thus much of the Bible, hinges upon who Babylon is or was.
"In Revelation the coming of Christ, the New Creation, judgement and resurrection are associated with the fall of Babylon. To mistakenly identify Babylon is to incorrectly interpret these issues. Whatever one makes Babylon to be these issues are inextricably linked with her fall!" (End of quote).
We agree that the interpretation of Revelation and thus much of the Bible hinges upon who Babylon is or was. So is Babylon Jerusalem as Don Preston teaches?
Don's arguement is rather weak because for one example, Rev. 18-20 evidently refers to New Testament apostles "and prophets." It reads, "Rejoice over her (thou) heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets*; for God hath avenged you on her." And Revelation 11 speaks of the two witnesses "as prophets," which is evidently in the New Testament era. Besides other gifts Paul speaks of "prophets" in 1 Cor. 12-27-28. Then explains in detail these gifts which includes "prophets" in 1 Cor. 12-29 to 14-40 given the New Testament church. We read in Ephe. 4-11-12, "And he gave some apostles; and some, prophets; and some evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." This clearly speaks here of the New Testament church and the gifts given to it by the Holy Spirit. So to argue that these are only Old Testament prophets seen in Revelation is quite implausible.
Furthermore, to identify "Mystery Babylon" of Revelation with Jerusalem is also implausible as shall be seen. For Jerusalem does not fit with the description given in Revelation chapter 17 as the "city on seven hills or mountains." It is seen there that these seven hill/mountains represent "kingdoms." And Jerusalem did not "come out" of the Roman Empire. Yet the little horn of Daniel, which is identified with Revelation's Babylon, is said to "come out" or from the Roman Empire. That final kingdom being the beast seen in Revelation. Also this "Mystery Babylon" called a "woman" is seen as a whore in Revelation chapter 17. The term "whoredom" and "fornication" identifies corrupted Christians (Rev. 2-14,20,22). So it simply does not fit to identify Babylon with Jerusalem, but it certainly fits with the apostate church prophecied to come in scripture.
Going to Rev. 17-5, the word translated "Mystery" there is incorrect. The verse reads; "And upon her forehead (see Rev. 13-1) a name written, Mystery; Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the abominations of the earth." The Greek word is "musterion" and simply means "a secret". It occurs in the Septuagint only 9 times; of the king's secret which had gone from him (Dan. 2-18,19,27,28,29,30,47 (twice) and Dan. 4-9).
Continuing in Rev. 11-8-9a, all critical texts read; "And their dead body*(sing.) on the street of the great city, which is called spiritually Sodom, and Egypt, where their* Lord also, was crucified. And the peoples (lit., some of the peoples) and tribes and tongues and nations, look upon their corpse*(sing.) three days and a half, (Rev. 11-9b)"and do not suffer their corpses* (plural) to be put into a tomb."
Here in verse 8 we see these two witnesses "as one", "their dead body" rather than "bodies" as being two individuals. Which is also given this way in the first part of verse 9, where they "look upon their corpse." The verse literally reads, "their dead body on the street of the great city." It does not "name" the "great city", but makes clear it is figurative. This city is named figuratively as "sodom and Egypt," to indicate its spiritual standing. Like Sodom seen in Genesis chapters 18-19 and 2 Peter 2-6. And like Egypt seen in Exo. 1-1-15.
Now we ask, if this "great city" be "Jerusalem", why did John not write; "--the great city Jerusalem that has become as Sodom and Egypt." The following words of John's verse continues to indicate that this is not Jerusalem. "---where their* Lord also, was crucified." The translators of scripture changed the word "their" to "our" in their translation of this word. The critical texts and the G.L.T.Tr. A WH. and R.V. properly reads (Greek) "auton" translated "their" instead of "hemon" to mean "our." The proper translation is "where their Lord also, was crucified," not literally but "spiritually" as the text tells us concerning these witnesses and the city on which they stood.
As can be seen in Heb. 6-4-6, "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit,---If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify* (spiritually) to themselves the Son of God afresh* (again), and put (Christ) to an open shame" (to public disgrace).
And this is the meaning of Rev. 11-8:"And their dead body* on the street of the great city (a great city), which is called spiritually Sodom, and Egypt, where their* Lord also, was crucified." Crucified spiritually by those who had fallen away (the fallen away prophecied), by those who had partook of the Holy Spirit; in this city spiritually called Sodom and Egypt. V.9, "And the peoples (lit. some of the peoples) and tribes and tongues and nations, (in this city) look upon their corpse* three days and a half, and do not suffer their corpses* to be put into a tomb."
We see in Rev. 11-1-2 further evidence that John begins to indicate this very fact to us. That "Jerusalem" is "not the city" being spoken of here in this chapter and in Revelation. "And there was given to me a reed like a measuring rod; and (the angel) said Rise, and measure the temple (Naos) of God, and the alter, and those who worship therein. But the court that is without the temple (Naos) cast without, and measure it not; because it is given up to the Gentiles; and the holy city shall they thread underfoot forty and two months."
We see here that John was to measure, figuratively speaking, the Naos (temple) of God, but not its outer precincts. The problem that arises here is that the partial and full preterists see this verse as being the temple in Jerusalem before its fall. For they believe that the book of Revelation was written several years prior to the fall of Jerusalem (mid 60's), and not in 90-95 A.D. as most scholars and Christians hold to. But the problem with the preterist approach is even if we were to agree with the mid 60's writing of Revelation, where the temple mentioned here is the Jerusalem temple prior to its fall, why is it called "the Naos of God."? At that time God no longer seen the temple in Jerusalem, nor the city as "holy," for he had rejected it. When the Jewish nation rejected his Son, Jesus Christ their Messiah shortly before his crucifixion and many years prior to Jerusalem's fall. This is seen in Matt. 23-37-39 and Luke 19-41-44. "---Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" (Matt. 23-38). "---because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation" (Luke 19-44).
If this were the temple in Jerusalem that John writes here, it would not be called "the Naos of God." No, it is written this way to indicate to us that this "Naos of God" considered "holy" here is not the temple in the city of Jerusalem. This can be seen in the words of the following verse; "---and the holy city shall they thread underfoot forty and two months." We see here "the city" is considered "holy" as is also the Naos (temple) of God that resides in it. Therefore, this cannot be Jerusalem and its temple, for God had rejected it it at the time of Christ's crucifixion nearly 40 years prior to Jerusalem's fall.
Again we note that John did not write in this verse, "and the holy city of Jerusalem" shall they thread underfoot--." No, Rev. 11-1-2,8-9 that speaks of the Naos (temple) of God and the holy city is not the temple and city of Jerusalem being spoken of here. It is another temple in another city to exist when the prophecy would come to its fulfillment with the two witnesses accompanying that prophecy.
The literal Greek in Rev. 17-18 is; "Kai (and) h (the) gunh (woman) hn (whom) eideo (thou sawest), estin (is) j (the) poliv h (city) megalh (great) j (which) ecousa (has a) basileian (kingdom) epi (over) twn (the) basilewn (kings) thv (of the) gjhv (earth)." So the literal translation reads; "And the woman whom thou sawest is the city great, which has a kingdom* (religious and political-Rev. chap. 13, beast of the sea and earth) over (dominating over) the kings of the earth."
History shows us that it was not Jerusalem who dominated over the kings of the known world at that time, but rather it was Rome. Rome was the dominent power not the Jewish nation. Jerusalem and the nation were "subjects" of Rome and under Rome's dominion. And she certainly was not "worshipped" by the world, or known world at that time.
Rev. 17-18 tells us who "Mystery Babylon" is, and it is not Jerusalem. It is the beast of the sea, the political beast kingdom to come. Which is also the beast of the earth, the religious beast kingdom, the "woman" who rides upon the beast of the sea. For she gives all authority unto the beast of the sea she rides. To indicate she is "a part" of the beast kingdom's makeup. And this "Mystery Babylon kingdom" is called "the woman" the "great city" which has "a kingdom" who dominates "over the kings of the earth."
There is much more that can be said concerning this issue but space and time will not permit. So in closing regarding this issue and the many other issues concerning eschatology, we have a website that you can visit if you wish as to these important issues. We give an in-depth study on these issues letting scripture speak the final word. Our address is; http://www.twospiritshendora.com. We also have a blog set up if you wish to present your comments.
God bless, Twospirits."
|
| |
|
|
Average Score: 5
Votes: 1
 |
|
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: An Apologetic on Babylon the great of Revelation. (Score: 1)
 by chrisliv on Sunday, November 12 @ 13:47:34 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Well,
It seems obvious to me that there is no "mystery" involved if Rome is being called an updated form of "Babylon". That's more of a "natural".
Re 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
It also seems obvious, to me, that Revelation notes the spiritual inscription "Mystery Babylon..." at "her forehead" as glaring scarcasm to denote the golden mitre and inscription on the forehead of the High Priest as he entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, in which the inscription at his forehead was actually "Holiness Unto The LORD".
None of that makes any sense if it refers to Rome, yet it makes perfect sense if it refers to Jerusalem right before its destruction in 70 AD.
Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: An Apologetic on Babylon the great of Revelation. (Score: 1)
 by EWMI on Sunday, November 12 @ 13:54:52 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | "For Jerusalem does not fit with the description given in Revelation chapter 17 as the "city on seven hills or mountains."
Hmmm, Lets see:
Mount Zion, Mount Ophel, Mount Moriah, Mount Bezetha, Mount Acra, Mount Gareb, and Mount Goath.
Sounds Like Seven To Me |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Mick on Sunday, November 12 @ 14:35:56 PST
- by Duncan on Sunday, November 12 @ 17:44:51 PST
- by jaredcoleman on Sunday, November 12 @ 18:11:48 PST
- by Duncan on Sunday, November 12 @ 20:03:32 PST
- by EWMI on Sunday, November 12 @ 20:23:35 PST
- by ThomasS on Monday, November 13 @ 04:29:37 PST
- by ThomasS on Monday, November 13 @ 01:14:50 PST
- by EWMI on Monday, November 13 @ 01:45:47 PST
- by ThomasS on Monday, November 13 @ 02:19:08 PST
- by EWMI on Monday, November 13 @ 02:29:57 PST
- by ThomasS on Monday, November 13 @ 03:08:17 PST
- by EWMI on Monday, November 13 @ 03:29:05 PST
- by ThomasS on Monday, November 13 @ 03:50:39 PST
- by EWMI on Tuesday, November 14 @ 02:39:50 PST
- by ThomasS on Tuesday, November 14 @ 03:38:53 PST
- by EWMI on Thursday, November 16 @ 13:04:37 PST
Reference For The Seven Hills (Score: 1)
by EWMI on Sunday, November 12 @ 18:42:02 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Those of you looking for the Seven Hills of Jerusalem might find these ref's usefull.
PLEASE let me know what you think.
Once again indebted to Todd of PA!
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1878_russell_parousia/russell_parousia_afterword.html
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/james-timothy_p_02.html
http://askelm.com/prophecy/p000201.htm |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: An Apologetic on Babylon the great of Revelation. (Score: 1)
by ThomasS on Monday, November 13 @ 01:19:58 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | You make a few fine observation, which makes an identification of Babylon the great with Jerusalem difficult.
Yet, there are several problems with your interpretation. "Babylon" is not the apostate church. It is a city!
Furthermore, "the little horn" in the Book of Daniel is NOT identified with Revelation's Babylon. The little horn was Antiochus IV Epiphanes; a Syrian king!
Th. S. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: An Apologetic on Babylon the great of Revelation. (Score: 1)
by Ivan on Monday, November 13 @ 19:28:36 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | | Does Don Preston not rightly point out in his "Who is This Babylon?" that the 7 hills relate to the beast not to the woman? The beast is Rome with its 7 hills, the woman (Babylon=Jerusalem) is associated with Rome until the relationship turns sour (Rev 17:16) culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem. The woman (mystery Babylon) cannot be Rome because Rome did not destroy Rome; it did destroy Jerusalem. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by ThomasS on Tuesday, November 14 @ 00:27:38 PST
- by ThomasS on Tuesday, November 14 @ 00:30:44 PST
- by Ivan on Thursday, November 16 @ 01:07:56 PST
- by ThomasS on Thursday, November 16 @ 01:59:29 PST
Dear TwoSpirits (Score: 1)
by dkpret on Wednesday, November 15 @ 14:57:30 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | I want to thank you for you thoughtful comments. Naturally, I do strongly disagree with them, and find them to be fundamentally flawed, and at odds with the text.
I have spoken with John Anderson of LightHouse World Ministries, the host of a world-wide radio program aired each Sunday night, about having a two hour discussion between you and me. He is very much in favor of airing such a discussion. So, if you would be interested in formally discussing the identity of Babylon of Revelation in a formal radio debate, please respond either here, or send me an email, and we can discuss the logistics.
I very much look forward to hearing back from you asap!
For His Truth and In His Grace,
Don K. Preston |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by mrfullpreterist on Thursday, November 16 @ 10:00:23 PST
- by ThomasS on Thursday, November 16 @ 23:29:09 PST
- by mrfullpreterist on Friday, November 17 @ 07:20:00 PST
Re: An Apologetic on Babylon the great of Revelation. (Score: 1)
by mrfullpreterist on Friday, November 17 @ 07:51:32 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | For those who think "Babylon" is Rome, what do you think of the following articles by Greg Kiser?
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/kiser-greg_p_01.html
and
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/kiser-greg_p_03.htm
Also, What city was it that blood flowed outside of by the space of 1,600 furlongs or stadia (approx. 180-200 miles)? This is the north south length of you know where, which seems to indicate that the city here anyway is Jerusalem.
Thanks,
Rob |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by ThomasS on Monday, November 20 @ 00:05:08 PST
| 
|
