PDA

View Full Version : Babylon Under Construction?



Literalist-Luke
Sep 4th 2008, 11:47 PM
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o82/bartolete/BurjDubaitower.jpg

Dubai (AFP) - The world’s tallest building just got taller — the Burj Dubai tower in the booming Gulf emirate of Dubai has now reached a height of 688 metres (2,257 feet) and is still growing, developers Emaar said on Tuesday.

Read more (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/news/worlds-tallest-tower-heads-for-the-clouds/2008/09/03/1220121319925.html).

Literalist-Luke
Sep 4th 2008, 11:50 PM
http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/timezig1.jpg


http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/08/25/ziggurat-dubai-carbon-neutral-pyramid-will-house-1-million/

Can anybody say "Tower of Babel, Part Two?"

Feast your eyes on our oil dollars hard at work............

markedward
Sep 5th 2008, 12:29 AM
It's a big tower. So, where's the "Babylon-esque" quality to it?

The Sears Tower, the CN Tower, KVLY-TV Mast were, respectively, the tallest structures in the world in their own times. Just because someone builds a bigger-structure doesn't make it Babylon. At one point the Empire State Building was phenomenally tall: it was nearly twice as tall as the previous tallest building. But people weren't pointing fingers and saying "Babylon" then. (And if anyone was, they were wrong...)

And the second one, the ziggurat? For one, it's not the "Tower of Babel Part 2." If anything, the first building you posted would have been the "Second Tower of Babel," since it aims to be the tallest man-made structure, which is, as the Bible says, the reason mankind tried to make the Tower. This is just... a ziggurat that can allegedly house a million people (no one said "comfortably" yet). Again - Tower of Babel = Tallest Structure, Dubai Ziggurat = Pyramid/City.

And as someone on that website mentioned (I feel this is a good point), the Ziggurat will house 1,000,000 people. The whole country doesn't even have 3,000,000 people. Who's going to move-in to fill the city? And once that happens, what about expansion? It's "the greatest real estate glut in human history." (Besides, I would hate to be one of the 900,000 people who got stuck without any sunlight.)

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 12:45 AM
I have been arguing since before I joined this forum that Muslims are the vehicle through which the Antichrist is going to initially appear. (The Mahdi) If that's true then the Babylon of Revelation 18 would need to be in Islamic territory, meaning that some world class city that could be seen at some point in the future as the focus of the world's economy would have to be in existence there. Until recenty, no city anywhere in the entire Middle East could remotely make such a claim. But now, with the explosion of state of the art construction going on in Dubai, we have a city that is fighting hard and fast to become just such a city.

I'm not suggesting that, by golly, this is Babylon. I would actually tend to take a more literal interpretation, that the actual city of Babylon is going to be built back up to an even greater glorty than in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. But the work in Dubai is certainly interesting in view of an Islamic antichrist.....

markedward
Sep 5th 2008, 01:01 AM
I'm not suggesting that, by golly, this is Babylon.I'm sorry, I was a little confused when the title of the thread says "Babylon Under Construction" then links to a bunch of photos of buildings under construction.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 01:13 AM
I'm sorry, I was a little confused when the title of the thread says "Babylon Under Construction" then links to a bunch of photos of buildings under construction.Well, I am suggesting the possibility, don't get me wrong.

Joe King
Sep 5th 2008, 03:00 AM
Look at the EU building if you want to see the Tower of Babel part 2

RevLogos
Sep 5th 2008, 04:24 AM
LL,

I saw an article about the Dubai Tower yesterday and very nearly posted something about it (I was going to use Roelof's news thread). The funny thing is, this bit of news just felt important to me from an end-times perspective, but I couldn't pinpoint why. Are there any eschatological references to anything we could map to tall buildings?

I agree with you fully on Islam. The UAE is an interesting case, being Muslim but very westernized. But it sits right across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran. Surrounded by radicalism, I just can't see how they will survive.

markedward
Sep 5th 2008, 05:00 AM
Are there any eschatological references to anything we could map to tall buildings?This is precisely what a person shouldn't do when it comes to Scripture.

You have found something, deemed it important, and hence try to find a point in Scripture to read this something into. Eisegesis. Rather, you should read Scripture, see what it deems as important, and wait to see what lines up with that. Exegesis.

In this case, you have seen the Dubai Tower, "felt" that it is related to the end-times, and now are trying to find Scripture that you can fit the Dubai Tower (or similar things) into. It's just not the right way to go about reading Scripture.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 06:27 AM
I saw an article about the Dubai Tower yesterday and very nearly posted something about it (I was going to use Roelof's news thread). The funny thing is, this bit of news just felt important to me from an end-times perspective, but I couldn't pinpoint why. Are there any eschatological references to anything we could map to tall buildings?

I agree with you fully on Islam. The UAE is an interesting case, being Muslim but very westernized. But it sits right across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran. Surrounded by radicalism, I just can't see how they will survive.
This is precisely what a person shouldn't do when it comes to Scripture.

You have found something, deemed it important, and hence try to find a point in Scripture to read this something into. Eisegesis. Rather, you should read Scripture, see what it deems as important, and wait to see what lines up with that. Exegesis.

In this case, you have seen the Dubai Tower, "felt" that it is related to the end-times, and now are trying to find Scripture that you can fit the Dubai Tower (or similar things) into. It's just not the right way to go about reading Scripture.Revelation 18 speaks of a city that is closely associated with the Antichrist and that also is critically important to the world's economy. Assuming that I'm correct that the Antichrist will have Islamic origins, it only makes sense to look for such a city within the borders of an Islamic country. I'm not saying anything about tall buildings in the Bible. You won't find anything about tall buildings being prophecied in the end times.

But it should be pretty obvious that a city like the one in Revelation 18 is probably going to have tall buildings. And if there can be a connection established between such a city and Babel of Genesis 11, then it becomes all the more significant, because the Tower of Babel is the true origin of Islam. Not some bedouin "prophet" in the 7th Century, AD. That was only when Islam was given its name. It had already been around for centuries before that, all the way back to Nimrod.

It is entirely possible that Dubai will have no prophetic significance whatsoever. But is there anything wrong with keeping an eye on it in light of the Islamic connection?

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 06:28 AM
Look at the EU building if you want to see the Tower of Babel part 2The EU is fast becoming Islamic. They have no more to do with the Antichrist than Mars.

Cyberseeker
Sep 5th 2008, 06:57 AM
Breathtaking pics Luke.

Probably nothing to do with prophecy, but the pics are awesome!

On the subject of an Islamic antichrist system, Im inclined to agree but I think their centre of gravity will shift to Europe.

Duane Morse
Sep 5th 2008, 07:30 AM
The OP pic is really impressive.
I get vertigo just looking at it.

I wonder how long the elevator ride is to the top.

Even more, how long to get down in an emergency - like the Twin Towers?

And, how many get 'sea sick' from the swaying at that altitude (after all, the structure can't be that rigid)?


As to the Ziggurat, the traffic in and out of the place must be mind-boggling. You would have to work inside the building, or you would probably have a 10 hour commute each day.
It's pretty, though.

markedward
Sep 5th 2008, 01:39 PM
But it should be pretty obvious that a city like the one in Revelation 18 is probably going to have tall buildings.Why should it be "pretty obvious"? All I see being described is a sinful city. This could be Jerusalem or Rome or New York or Las Vegas or Calcutta or Paris or whatever. Nothing implies that there will be "tall buildings" in Babylon.


And if there can be a connection established between such a city and Babel of Genesis 11, then it becomes all the more significant, because the Tower of Babel is the true origin of Islam.This doesn't have much Biblical foundation, I'd say, considering the Tower of Babel would have been circa... 2500 BC, while Islam came around in the 7th century.


Not some bedouin "prophet" in the 7th Century, AD. That was only when Islam was given its name. It had already been around for centuries before that, all the way back to Nimrod.Now you are most definitely speaking non-Biblically. Bible canon does not connect Nimrod to the building of the Tower of Babel, nor does it connect him to false religions. The moment you start accepting non-canon writings as Scriptural is the moment you're going to have false beliefs about certain things - in this case your eschatology, and history, are being affected.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 03:08 PM
Why should it be "pretty obvious"? All I see being described is a sinful city. This could be Jerusalem or Rome or New York or Las Vegas or Calcutta or Paris or whatever. Nothing implies that there will be "tall buildings" in Babylon. I guess I have to spell it out for you. First of all, each of the cities you mentioned has “tall buildings” (with Jerusalem being the one possible exception). But the most important point in Revelation 18 is that the “kings of the earth”, the “merchants of the earth”, and every sea captain are going to mourn for this city when it’s destroyed. This is a very economically important city when this prophecy is fulfilled. Now, would you please show me one single city anywhere in the entire world that is economically prominent on an international scale, such as this one is described to be, that doesn’t have tall buildings?
This doesn't have much Biblical foundation, I'd say, considering the Tower of Babel would have been circa... 2500 BC, while Islam came around in the 7th century. Yes, I already mentioned that in the previous post. (Not the date 2500 BC, but Muhammad’s life being in the 7th Century. I’m not looking for a “Biblical” foundation here. It’s a historical foundation, as I’ll explain at the end of this post.
Now you are most definitely speaking non-Biblically. Bible canon does not connect Nimrod to the building of the Tower of Babel, nor does it connect him to false religions. The moment you start accepting non-canon writings as Scriptural is the moment you're going to have false beliefs about certain things - in this case your eschatology, and history, are being affected.I’m not depending on any “non-canonical” Spiritual writings. I’m depending on simple history, which I have spent years researching regarding Islam and Muhammad.

The fact of the matter is that the concept of “Allah” was not original with Muhammad. The only thing that was original with Muhammad was approaching “Allah” from a monotheistic point of view. Muhammad had an angel appear to him (so he said) and give him certain revelations that he was ordered to pass on. These revelations became the bulk of the Qur’an. When this “angel” appeared to Muhammad, he concluded that there must be only one god, so he went to the Kaaba, his hometown of Mecca’s local “temple” and took out all the gods except the most prominent one, whose name was “El-lah”, the moon god. We know from history that worship of the moon god and the name “El-lah” had been around ever since the Tower of Babel and the time of Nimrod. "El-lah" was considered to be at his holiest stage in the crescent stage. Sound familiar? You won’t find this in the Bible. I’m not claiming it’s in there. But it’s still historical fact, just like the American Revolution that you also won’t find in the Bible. But for those of us who attempt to approach prophecy with an open mind and who consider the possibility that there might be a role for Islam in the end times, the connections between Biblical prophecy and Islam become so clear and obvious that it's quite astonishing that more people don't see it.

So there is indeed a direct connection between Islam and the Tower of Babel.

Now, would you please quit trying to shoot down an idea that you’re not familiar with just because it’s new to you without bothering to research the background behind it first?

RevLogos
Sep 5th 2008, 03:57 PM
While tall buildings are not specifically mentioned in Christian eschatology, they are mentioned in Islamic eschatology.

There is a Hadith where the angel Gabriel questions Muhammad about his religion and signs of the end-times. Part of that Hadith goes like this:


“Now, tell me of the Last Hour,” asked the man.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) replied, “The one asked knows no more of it than the one asking.”

“Then tell me about its signs,” said the man.

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) replied, “That slave women give birth to their mistresses; and that you see barefoot, unclothed, beginning shepherds competing in the construction of tall buildings.”

Then the visitor left, and I waited a long time. Then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) asked me, “Do you know, Umar, who the questioner was?” I replied, “Allah and His Messenger know best.”He said (Allah bless him and give him peace), “It was Jibril [Gabriel]. He came to you to teach you your religion.” [Sahih Muslim]
Commentary on this by Muslim jurists indicate this means Arabs, specifically Bedouin Arabs, probably not true Muslims, will compete to build great cities and tall buildings and take great pride in them, instead of focusing on Allah. This is a “Sign of the Hour” meaning one of many Islamic signs of end-times.

Some people believe Muhammad was given his religion not by the angel Gabriel, but by Lucifer himself. If that were true, one might expect Islamic eschatology to have striking parallels to Christian eschatology – except from the opposite viewpoint, and where Satan wins.

RevLogos
Sep 5th 2008, 04:35 PM
This is precisely what a person shouldn't do when it comes to Scripture.

You have found something, deemed it important, and hence try to find a point in Scripture to read this something into. Eisegesis. Rather, you should read Scripture, see what it deems as important, and wait to see what lines up with that. Exegesis.

In this case, you have seen the Dubai Tower, "felt" that it is related to the end-times, and now are trying to find Scripture that you can fit the Dubai Tower (or similar things) into. It's just not the right way to go about reading Scripture.

I think that forming a hypothesis, then testing that hypothesis against scripture, is not in-and-of-itself a problem. The problem comes in when one decides on some truth, then force fits the truth to scripture. This leads to rationalizing all kinds of man-made doctrines into scripture. It has led to several popularly taught doctrines. This is caused by pride and arrogance, something we all have to be most careful of.

In this case the significance of tall buildings comes from Islamic eschatology, not Christian.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 05:07 PM
Some people believe Muhammad was given his religion not by the angel Gabriel, but by Lucifer himself. If that were true, one might expect Islamic eschatology to have striking parallels to Christian eschatology – except from the opposite viewpoint, and where Satan wins.I am one of those people who are convinced that Muhammad was in fact visited by Lucifer or one of the other demons. And in fact, the opposite parallels between Islamic eschotology and Christian escholotology are absolutely stunning.

I have an article that discusses that very thing right here.

quiet dove
Sep 5th 2008, 05:13 PM
The OP pic is really impressive.
I get vertigo just looking at it.

I wonder how long the elevator ride is to the top.

Even more, how long to get down in an emergency - like the Twin Towers?

And, how many get 'sea sick' from the swaying at that altitude (after all, the structure can't be that rigid)?


As to the Ziggurat, the traffic in and out of the place must be mind-boggling. You would have to work inside the building, or you would probably have a 10 hour commute each day.
It's pretty, though.

I know what the elevators would need if I were to make that long ride up and down on them, but I'll let you guess/figure out what it would be. Give a hint, it would require privacy. :lol:

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 05:52 PM
I know what the elevators would need if I were to make that long ride up and down on them, but I'll let you guess/figure out what it would be. Give a hint, it would require privacy. :lol:Nah, this building is so high tech they just use transporters. "Beam me up, Scotty!" http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/VulcanSalute.gif

markedward
Sep 5th 2008, 07:38 PM
I guess I have to spell it out for you. First of all, each of the cities you mentioned has “tall buildings” (with Jerusalem being the one possible exception).I was making a point on the sinfulness of the cities involved, not their structural dimensions.


This is a very economically important city when this prophecy is fulfilled. Now, would you please show me one single city anywhere in the entire world that is economically prominent on an international scale, such as this one is described to be, that doesn’t have tall buildings?Can you show me a single economically prominent city, on an international scale, doesn't have a bank? The fact that you directly acknowledge that many "economically prominent" cities have "tall buildings" outright makes the use of "tall buildings" as an identification for Babylon an extremely moot point. "Babylon is going to have tall buildings because it's a trade city!" Okay... so what? Hundreds of cities with high trade have tall buildings. In which case, the "tall buildings" idea is pointless because it doesn't get you any closer to identifying Babylon.


Now, would you please quit trying to shoot down an idea that you’re not familiar with just because it’s new to you without bothering to research the background behind it first?A) Don't make assumptions about me. For one, you misinterpreted the historical aspect I was "shooting down" (see point B), and secondly, since you don't know me personally, you have absolutely no credibility when it comes to knowing what extents of research I have taken in any subject, so making assumptions about me only means you're claiming to know things you couldn't possibly know.

B) You did appeal to non-Scriptural stories - you specifically said that Islam can be traced back to Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel. You're right in that I haven't researched much of the historical aspect of pre-Islam. I never claimed that I did. But you said that Islam can be traced to Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. The problem is that prior to the Second Temple era, there is no evidence that Nimrod was involved in creating a false religion, nor that he was involved in the Tower of Babel. You're using these two claims as a basis for your history of pre-Islam, when the two claims themselves were fabricated centuries after the time period they are supposedly revealing information about. Meaning, pre-Islam can't be traced to Nimrod is the claims about him are false, or at least fabricated without any historical basis prior to their first appearance.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 5th 2008, 08:06 PM
I was making a point on the sinfulness of the cities involved, not their structural dimensions. You said “Nothing implies that there will be “tall buildings” in Babylon.” That is a point on structural dimension. As I pointed out in Revelation 18, the idea of the last-days Babylon having “tall buildings” is a very reasonable assumption.
Can you show me a single economically prominent city, on an international scale, doesn't have a bank? The fact that you directly acknowledge that many "economically prominent" cities have "tall buildings" outright makes the use of "tall buildings" as an identification for Babylon an extremely moot point. "Babylon is going to have tall buildings because it's a trade city!" Okay... so what? Hundreds of cities with high trade have tall buildings. In which case, the "tall buildings" idea is pointless because it doesn't get you any closer to identifying Babylon.I never said that “tall buildings” alone is the criteria. If that were the case then I’d be joining the crowd who thinks that New York City is Babylon. (Not to mention Chicago, Taipei……) I said (and here I am saying it again) that the possible Islamic connection with the Antichrist makes the Middle East a good area to examine for potential fulfillments of Babylon. Up until recently, there was no city anywhere in the Middle East that could be considered a candidate for a world-class economic power. Now, in Dubai, the massive construction we see going on there has given us a possible candidate. The “tall buildings” is NOT the key. It’s the “tall buildings” in the Middle East that’s the key.
A) Don't make assumptions about me. I’m assuming nothing, all I see is you attacking a potentially legitimate position with hardly anything more to offer than simply that you don’t like it.
For one, you misinterpreted the historical aspect I was "shooting down" (see point B) You didn’t even understand my point at the time you were doing so. Hopefully, you’ve read this post carefully enough that it makes more sense now.
and secondly, since you don't know me personally, you have absolutely no credibility when it comes to knowing what extents of research I have taken in any subject, so making assumptions about me only means you're claiming to know things you couldn't possibly know.I can only base my assumptions on the quality of information that you provide. If you have an objective reason that prevents Dubai from being considered as a candidate for the end-times Babylon, I’m all ears. So far, however, I’ve heard nothing more than that you just don’t like it.
B) You did appeal to non-Scriptural stories - you specifically said that Islam can be traced back to Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel. You're right in that I haven't researched much of the historical aspect of pre-Islam. I never claimed that I did. But you said that Islam can be traced to Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. The problem is that prior to the Second Temple era, there is no evidence that Nimrod was involved in creating a false religion, nor that he was involved in the Tower of Babel. You're using these two claims as a basis for your history of pre-Islam, when the two claims themselves were fabricated centuries after the time period they are supposedly revealing information about. Meaning, pre-Islam can't be traced to Nimrod is the claims about him are false, or at least fabricated without any historical basis prior to their first appearance.From the historian Josephus:

Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his power… Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God; and they built a tower, neither sparing any pains, nor being in any degree negligent about the work: and, by reason of the multitude of hands employed in it, it grew very high, sooner than any one could expect; but the thickness of it was so great, and it was so strongly built, that thereby its great height seemed, upon the view, to be less than it really was. It was built of burnt brick, cemented together with mortar, made of bitumen, that it might not be liable to admit water. When God saw that they acted so madly, he did not resolve to destroy them utterly, since they were not grown wiser by the destruction of the former sinners; but he caused a tumult among them, by producing in them diverse languages, and causing that, through the multitude of those languages, they should not be able to understand one another. The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon, because of the confusion of that language which they readily understood before; for the Hebrews mean by the word Babel, confusion…

And then from Wikipedia:

Hilal (Arabic: هلال‎) or “El-lal” is an Arabic term, particularly associated with the crescent moon, first developed in pre-Islamic Arabia. The very slight crescent moon that is first visible after a new moon. Muslims look for the hilal when determining the beginning and end of Islamic months. In the modern world, Hilal is a representation of the moon in Arabian astrology.

Now, do you have any evidence to the contrary?

markedward
Sep 5th 2008, 08:46 PM
I never said that “tall buildings” alone is the criteria.Neither did I. I simply said it's a meaningless criteria to have. "Babylon will have tall buildings." Okay... there's a hundreds of cities with tall building, so we haven't made any progress. Ergo, it's a meaningless point ("tall building(s)") to have to try to identify Babylon.


If that were the case then I’d be joining the crowd who thinks that New York City is Babylon. (Not to mention Chicago, Taipei……) I said (and here I am saying it again) that the possible Islamic connection with the Antichrist makes the Middle East a good area to examine for potential fulfillments of Babylon. Up until recently, there was no city anywhere in the Middle East that could be considered a candidate for a world-class economic power. Now, in Dubai, the massive construction we see going on there has given us a possible candidate. The “tall buildings” is NOT the key. It’s the “tall buildings” in the Middle East that’s the key.And since there's already a good number of cities with "tall buildings" then, again, it's pointless to use as an identifying criteria.


I’m assuming nothing, all I see is you attacking a potentially legitimate position with hardly anything more to offer than simply that you don’t like it.A) Yes, you did assume. You don't know me, which makes it absolutely impossible for you to know how extensive my own research in any field is unless I directly say so (which I didn't), so you assumed I have done zero research in any of the points of discussion.

B) I'm not "attacking" anything. Me saying "This is stupid, your position doesn't make sense, so it's wrong" is an attack. Me saying "I disagree and these are the reasons I disagree" is a response.


If you have an objective reason that prevents Dubai from being considered as a candidate for the end-times Babylon, I’m all ears. So far, however, I’ve heard nothing more than that you just don’t like it.You claim "you just don't like it" is the sole reason I'm making an objection.

This is a lie, pure and simple. Sorry to have to say that, but what you've said (the portion I highlighted in blue) is simply not true.

I gave "objective" (is anything truly objective? of course not) reasons by (1) appealing to Scripture (it says nothing about Nimrod in the context of false religions), (2) historical fact (it says nothing about Nimrod in the context of false religions until centuries after he had already died), and (3) using a little bit of logic (the tidbit above about "tall buildings").

I gave three "objective" reasons to why I disagree with you.

Again:

You claim I said: "I don't like it, so it's wrong!"

I said: "I think it's wrong for reason 1 and reason 2 and reason 3."


From the historian Josephus...This precisely proves the point I brought up above.

You're using Josephus. Josephus lived in the first century AD. He lived at least two thousand years after Nimrod was already dead, so you cannot appeal to him as a credible source for linking Nimrod to false religions, let alone Islam.


And then from Wikipedia...

Now, do you have any evidence to the contrary?Again (meaning, I already said this), I never disputed this part of your claims.

I never said "Allah" wasn't derived from "El-lal" or that Muhammed's beliefs were similar to ones found in pre-Islamic Arabia.

What I specifically disputed was your claim that Islam was linked to Nimrod.

RevLogos
Sep 5th 2008, 09:39 PM
All I remember about Nimrod was that Bugs Bunny used to call Elmer Fudd a "little Nimrod".

As a young squirt I had no idea Bugs was referring to a great hunter and founder of Babylon.

Chill guys! ;)

Joe King
Sep 6th 2008, 12:42 AM
The EU is fast becoming Islamic. They have no more to do with the Antichrist than Mars.

Wouldn't that be a false religion waiting for a false messiah?

Literalist-Luke
Sep 6th 2008, 04:00 AM
Wouldn't that be a false religion waiting for a false messiah?It would, but the center of the Antichrist's government is not going to be in the EU. There are innumerable passages throughout the Old Testmament that speak of God's final judgment on the nations, and every single one of them that starts listing specific nations who will be caught in that judgment lists nations that today are part of the Islamic Middle East. That alone would exclude the EU from being the center of power in the Tribulation.

I could certainly see them being part of the Antichrist's final government, but not the leaders of it, as many traditionally have believed over the centuries.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 6th 2008, 04:13 AM
Neither did I. I simply said it's a meaningless criteria to have. "Babylon will have tall buildings." Okay... there's a hundreds of cities with tall building, so we haven't made any progress. Ergo, it's a meaningless point ("tall building(s)") to have to try to identify Babylon. Sorry, but that’s not true. The construction in Dubai makes Dubai a candidate to be the first world-class city in the Middle East. That makes it a candidate to fulfill the final Babylon prophecies. It’s the combination of construction plus the Middle East location. If you take away either of them, then you have no Babylon. They are both essential – construction + Middle East.
And since there's already a good number of cities with "tall buildings" then, again, it's pointless to use as an identifying criteria. If you ignore the Middle East factor, then yes, it is meaningless. I am not ignoring the Middle East factor, however.
A) Yes, you did assume. You don't know me, which makes it absolutely impossible for you to know how extensive my own research in any field is unless I directly say so (which I didn't), so you assumed I have done zero research in any of the points of discussion. So start presenting your research.
I gave "objective" (is anything truly objective? of course not) reasons by (1) appealing to Scripture (it says nothing about Nimrod in the context of false religions)I never claimed direct Scriptural support for the origins of Islam – it’s not in the Bible, at least not with the name “Islam”, anyway.
(2) historical fact (it says nothing about Nimrod in the context of false religions until centuries after he had already died)Do you have any historical evidence that actually contradicts Josephus? If he’s too far down the line for you to accept his narrative, then how close to the events in question does he have to be for you to accept his information as truthful? 100 years? 500 years? What number of years represents too great a separation from the events for us to accept the historical narrative as authentic? And what information do you have that contradicts Josephus’s account?
and (3) using a little bit of logic (the tidbit above about "tall buildings").Your logic was based on ignoring the Middle East factor.
You're using Josephus. Josephus lived in the first century AD. He lived at least two thousand years after Nimrod was already dead, so you cannot appeal to him as a credible source for linking Nimrod to false religions, let alone Islam. Why not? If he’s too far down the line for you to accept his narrative, then how close to the events in question does he have to be for you to accept his information as truthful? 100 years? 500 years? What number of years represents too great a separation from the events for us to accept the historical narrative as authentic? And what information do you have that contradicts Josephus’s account?
Again (meaning, I already said this), I never disputed this part of your claims.

I never said "Allah" wasn't derived from "El-lal" or that Muhammed's beliefs were similar to ones found in pre-Islamic Arabia.

What I specifically disputed was your claim that Islam was linked to Nimrod.OK, then let’s put Nimrod aside, because that is really not essential to the Babylon discussion anyway. The main point is that Islam can be traced all the way back to Babel in Genesis 11 (regardless of Nimrod was involved – I say he was, but that’s not essential.)

Saved7
Sep 8th 2008, 03:43 AM
I have been arguing since before I joined this forum that Muslims are the vehicle through which the Antichrist is going to initially appear. (The Mahdi) If that's true then the Babylon of Revelation 18 would need to be in Islamic territory, meaning that some world class city that could be seen at some point in the future as the focus of the world's economy would have to be in existence there. Until recenty, no city anywhere in the entire Middle East could remotely make such a claim. But now, with the explosion of state of the art construction going on in Dubai, we have a city that is fighting hard and fast to become just such a city.

I'm not suggesting that, by golly, this is Babylon. I would actually tend to take a more literal interpretation, that the actual city of Babylon is going to be built back up to an even greater glorty than in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. But the work in Dubai is certainly interesting in view of an Islamic antichrist.....

AC coming out of Islam would not surprise me in the least, looking at the pride of those who call themselves muslim, and the just the idea of a muslim country trying to outdo the world....talk about pride.
Lucifer got awful puffed up with pride, or shall I call him satan?

Roelof
Sep 8th 2008, 01:17 PM
Look at the EU building if you want to see the Tower of Babel part 2

I agree with Joe King, look at the EU parlement:

LAST DAYS – THE REVIVED BABYLON (part 1 & 2)
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=134966&page=37

(post 544 and 545)

wombat
Sep 10th 2008, 04:20 AM
Are there any eschatological references to anything we could map to tall buildings?
Hi, Revolvr! Here's an interesting quote for you. Jeremiah 51:53 says, "'Though Babylon reaches as high as the heavens, and though she increases her strength immeasurably, I will send enemies to plunder her,' says the Lord."

Lady Ashanti
Sep 10th 2008, 05:04 AM
I do not believe the "Babylon" spoken of in scripture is a literal place but a cultural one. A place which has taken on the society, views, and culture of the original Babylon, just like the "whore" is not an actual woman. It is all figurative..."Mystery Babylon"...

Lady Ashanti
Sep 10th 2008, 05:07 AM
[/quote]
I could certainly see them being part of the Antichrist's final government, but not the leaders of it, as many traditionally have believed over the centuries.[/quote]

Exactly!!!

Literalist-Luke
Sep 10th 2008, 07:27 AM
I do not believe the "Babylon" spoken of in scripture is a literal place but a cultural one. A place which has taken on the society, views, and culture of the original Babylon, just like the "whore" is not an actual woman. It is all figurative..."Mystery Babylon"...That would present some problem with the fulfillment of Revelation 18. The people of the world see smoke rising from this location, it says that sea captains are able to see her burning, which means that this place is visible from the sea (which would fit perfectly with Dubai, come to think of it), plus there are prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah that are yet to be fulfilled that speak of this place being desolate and the "haunt of jackals". How can such prophecies be speaking of a culture and not a specific location?

Lady Ashanti
Sep 10th 2008, 11:19 AM
That would present some problem with the fulfillment of Revelation 18. The people of the world see smoke rising from this location, it says that sea captains are able to see her burning, which means that this place is visible from the sea (which would fit perfectly with Dubai, come to think of it), plus there are prophecies in Isaiah and Jeremiah that are yet to be fulfilled that speak of this place being desolate and the "haunt of jackals". How can such prophecies be speaking of a culture and not a specific location?

Oh, what I mean is I believe it is a literal place but not the same Babylon of old, I believe the place will have the same "spirit" [culture, sins, etc], as the Babylon of old.

Literalist-Luke
Sep 10th 2008, 03:32 PM
I do not believe the "Babylon" spoken of in scripture is a literal place.
I believe it is a literal place.So which one is it? http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w40/litluke/twitch.gif

kaiuu
Jan 22nd 2013, 01:42 AM
this is an old post, but I think is important to make this comment. for what Ive investigating. I think is clear that they are building Dubain in image of the old babylon, as a 'modern' Babylon.

There are some pictures that prove this resemblance, first check how Babylon looked like in the past (theorically)

http://www.homepagedaily.com/uploads/20081031/fa38af77-ed27-42e9-ad19-c2bd9b3cdc7a/Hanging_Gardens_of_Babylon-.jpg

now look at how the gardens and citier looks in dubai:

http://www.alumniworldtravel.com/_images/site-pages/header/middle-east-dubaicity.png

and just dubai is still being builded, just check all the weird skycrapers they plan on building

and the Bible says babylon is a city on the sea, just amasing most of the cities in dubai are build over the water, all artificial islands, so maybe the city babylon in the revelations is a city yet doesnt exist?

Vakeros
Jan 22nd 2013, 08:35 PM
What you all seem to forget is that the Beast and Babylon aren't buddies. Babylon rides the Beast, but in the end is destroyed by the ten horns of the Beast. These 10 nations form the power base of the Beast. If the Beast himself is the Mahdi as the thread originator seems to suggest, then Babylon either is too Muslim to accept the Mahdi, or not Muslim at all. Babylon is a real place and will be rich and will be like a rider on the Beast, but will finally be thrown off. This is a power struggle. Two different demonic forces fighting, but Babylon is devoured. I can see a capitalist city-state being Babylon, and so you could see Dubai. Does Dubai have 7 islands which could be likened to 7 hills? The UAE is made of 7 states, but these aren't hills. Is there any country that has 7 mountains in 7 separate regions? For instance Switzerland has 13 cantons originally.

Balabusha
Jan 23rd 2013, 04:48 AM
I do think that people are doing their best at interpreting "Babylon"

We must keep in mind that we are illuminated readers of the bible and not inspired writers of the bible. The interpretations I see coming from these posts do fall in the category of eisegesis, and have no biblical support.
When we find ourselves going off the pages of the bible and going into imagination or outside sources..we are entering a very dangerous place. We can't read the passages of the bible independently from the rest of the bible, based on the daily newspaper..private interpretations will occur.
We don't want to enter an era of "Talmudic Christianity" In Yesteryear the beast was the Catholic Church, then it morphed into Communism and now some "Mahdi" and Islamic forces, this should be a clear red flag that something is dreadfully wrong. Using the same eisegesis I could identify the McDonalds restuarant chain as "Babylon".
The bible is very clear on the identity of Babylon, but first we must clear our minds of paradigms and the pages of the bible will be revealed..

Vakeros
Jan 23rd 2013, 12:49 PM
Actually, I have to disagree with you. We have to use our minds and look at the world around us and see does it fit with what the Bible says. It is right to look at the Catholic church, it is right to look at Communism, and Islam and anything else. The key though is to bring it to the light of scripture. Scripture doesn't exist in a void. It is sent out into the world to achieve God's purpose. Nothing wrong with imagination, but we need to continually be illuminated by the Bible and ask God's Spirit to inspire us. We are no different to the apostles and saints of the past if we have the Spirit of the Living God in us.

Balabusha
Jan 23rd 2013, 06:53 PM
I would agree with you to the point that we should look at these and other institutions in light of the bible in reference to their worldview.
To reference them in prophesy would be meaningless and speculative. This leads to eisegesis.
There is a difference between us and the Apostles in regards to the bible, we are illuminated readers and they are inspired writers.

Vakeros
Jan 23rd 2013, 08:48 PM
I would agree with you to the point that we should look at these and other institutions in light of the bible in reference to their worldview.
To reference them in prophesy would be meaningless and speculative. This leads to eisegesis.
There is a difference between us and the Apostles in regards to the bible, we are illuminated readers and they are inspired writers.
We may not be inspired writers, but we are inspired readers. We have the same Spirit of God in us that was in them. The prophecies of God were written that we would understand them and respond to them. The Jews failed to do so and paid for it. As Christians we must treasure every word of God and see how it applies to us today and for the future, that our witness may be complete. God is the God of yesterday, today and forever.

Balabusha
Jan 23rd 2013, 10:00 PM
Absolutely we are as saved as the Apostles, and the same Spirit that dwelled in them dwells in us.
We should dig in the depth of the bible and interpret the symbolism in light of scripture instead of looking for the symbol itself seperate from the bible.
The mystery Babylon would not be a mystery if it was Babylon. The bible clearly identifies it very quickly in the Old Testament. A picture of Babylon is not relevant as the interpretive authority of the bible. When we go an extra step from the bible we now blurr the line of writer or reader of the bible.