So if the text in the Bibel would call it Scaffland, what do you think it would be called today? Iraq or Scaffland?
I would expect it to name whatever the place is called at the time the prophecy is supposed to occur, it is after all apparently written by a divine being who knows everything.
Concerning Britain, it is well known people tend to say England when they really mean Great Britain.
Poor analogy as both are still regions, not a city and a region. A closer one would be saying Brussels when you mean the whole of Europe.
That aside, yes people do get things mixed up, how you then use that to explain a prophecy written by a divine being who makes no mistakes is beyond me.
Why didn't it state Babylonia? I don't know tbh, but I googled both on english now and it seems like you are right, The thing is in german both the region and the city is called Babylon or maybe because the city was the foundation of the state and region as a whole,
Not just the English but the original names of the city and the region, unless God was suddenly very fallible when he wrote this one no reason to mix them up exists.
what?
I was answering the question why re-read and changed my mind, because you learn to walk, you learn to read and to write and you learn to build a lego house, you make mistakes and you learn from your mistakes etc. So I don't understand why it seems to be a problem that when I made a mistake I learn to make it better.
No one teaches you to walk (having brought up three kids I can assure you of this), baring impairment we are all able to walk, encouragement from adults helps us, but no one has to tell us how to move our feet and legs, balance and coordination the whole thing.
The same is not true of reading and comprehending a 2,000+ year old text.
Its a biblical prophecy!
Not sure wich, Ezekiel 36:24 maybe?
It was about the Jews starting to go back home, the Aliyah's. They have been everywhere in the world lived there for centuries and suddenly began to go to palestine. A desolate land.
And when the got to the Promised land and were all good boys and girls who would God send to them?
You do realise you mention vague almost as much as the bible mentions Babylon. lol
Honestly, I'm beginning to doubt you are really interested in it.
That the prophecies are vague is in little doubt and has nothing at all to do with my interest in them, to suggest such is a strawman argument.
However if you dislike the term vague how else would you describe the lack of detail contained within them?
I use the word because it fits the nature of them, you seem to not like the word because its a realisation that is uncomfortable for you.
It was about 1991. To me it does! LOL again... vague
But it was the Iraqi's not Kuwaiti's that where ambushed
lol, a decade apart is nothing, I was trying to explain how a prophet jumps from one verse to another sometimes there are centuries between.
The army from far North...from the end of the heavens/skies...? Thats the US Army
OK lets look at both 1991 and 2001 from this standpoint.
The location of the US in relation to Iraq is not 'from the far North' at all, the US is to the west/north/west of of Iraq, the difference in terms of longitude is far greater than the difference in terms of latitude. So no the 'Army from the Far North does not fit'
Could the 'Army from the far North' mean the direction of attack? Well in 1991 the land attack was into Kuwait (so not even Iraq) from Saudi, which would be from the West; in 2001 the land attack was from Kuwait, which would be from the South. So in neither of these cases could this be the direction of the attack.
Now in 1991 Babylon (assuming the odd use of it to mean Iraq) didn't fall at all, in fact (officially) allied troops didn't even enter Iraq, Iraq did fall in 2001. However that still is assuming that you take Babylon (a city that has not existed for 2000 years) and turn in into the region (which was called Babylonia and everyone able to write at the time would have know that) and then turn it into Iraq (via around a dozen different other names for the region).
Given all that, no I don't think either of the Gulf Wars fit in any way at all, however.......
.....the sack of Babylon (the actual city) by Hittites (who came from the North) and the resulting fall of the entire empire fits far better.
Is it beyond possibility that this is a retelling of an actual event as a prophecy (if you know the Bible wasn't actually the word of God) or going out on a limb here the Prophecy was the actual sack of Babylon by the Hittites (you know as it happens to fit a lot better).
I know, that's why I said mine and others, not all.
So if its as precise as you claim why does so much disagreement exist among Christians themselves.
What, you mean a classical way of beeing thaught something? I hate to hear monologues from the typical teacher-like smarta## guy, I prefer much more a gathering of likely minded people to discuss with.
Other explanation of what?
The prophecies.
I've already managed to do it rather easily as you can see, using historic events that match far better than your own.
How about the explinatiuon that the entire book is the work of a person wishing to enforce a set of laws for what they think is the good of society (a bit of supernatural force would have worked well in the time we are talking about) lob in some past events as source material (the people are largely illiterate and if I make it a bit scant on detail they will never know).
Or its simply the ramblings of a bunch of control freaks looking to secure a place of power.
All of the above are as likely as any explanation you have put forward.
I can't imagine anything worse than living in a world in which I question nothing based on the text of a book that can't be supported by a single shred of evidence.
Fortunately for you plenty of people exist who do not share that view, which is exactly why you are able to discuss this with the entire world (and that entire world to you isn't a radius of around 15 miles).
