Isaiah 21
- Thread starter HeXp£Øi±
- Start date
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
Many bible scholars believe that most of the bible especially the prophetic portions refer to two and three points in history. I've seen some amazing examples of this but i lack the knowledge at this point to give many examples. I do know people that believe the same. However i'm increasingly of the opinion that one does not discount the other.
unclehobart
New Member
Then I apologize. It seemed like you were trying to jackslap me out of the clear blue.HeXp£Øi± said:
Ardsgaine
Active Member
HeXp£Øi± said:
No, actually, I didn't realize how religious you are. I've been away for awhile, and before I left I had been trying to avoid the Real World, so I didn't remember your exact beliefs. I wasn't sure whether you were serious or whether you just thought there were some interesting coincidences, or what. To tell you the truth, I'm still not sure whether you want us to take this as a case of biblical prophecy, or just a neat coincidence.
HeXp£Øi± said:
Well, you overlooked one very big specific: Baghdad isn't Babylon.
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
Apology accepted Unc.
Ards-I don't want anyone to take anything i say as anything. Believe it or not i'm open to discussion and simply enjoy sparking interest in people. I want people to think. As far as Baghdad not being Babylon that is debatable. For the same reason many times in the bible when it speaks of David or Jesse it is in fact clearly referring to Jesus. By Baghdad i believe it's referring to the spiritual center of Persia which has in fact become Baghdad. You really can't get much closer to The true Babylon than Baghdad. It's less than an hours drive.
Ards-I don't want anyone to take anything i say as anything. Believe it or not i'm open to discussion and simply enjoy sparking interest in people. I want people to think. As far as Baghdad not being Babylon that is debatable. For the same reason many times in the bible when it speaks of David or Jesse it is in fact clearly referring to Jesus. By Baghdad i believe it's referring to the spiritual center of Persia which has in fact become Baghdad. You really can't get much closer to The true Babylon than Baghdad. It's less than an hours drive.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
HeXp£Øi± said:
Then you won't mind if I approach this from my own perspective? When I first saw the thread, I wasn't sure where you were going with it. It reminded me of the scene in Life of Brian with the prophets, so I posted that for a bit of humor.
HeXp£Øi± said:
That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say that an interpretation can be stretched to cover current events. I'm sure that biblical scholars were able to make that verse cover all the other times that Babylon/Baghdad has been conquered, beginning with Cyrus the Great. Speaking of which, doesn't it actually mention Cyrus by name? I did a quick Google search and discovered that some scholars believe that there were two authors of the Book of Isaiah, and that one of them was writing during the time of Cyrus and recording what actually happened, rather than prophesizing the future...
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
The capital has moved 55 miles in 4000 years. It's hardly that far of a stretch. It's like saying Los Angeles isn't Anaheim. Like i said, it's debatable. As far as the book of Isaiah goes, i don't think you're going to come up with the answer to that doing a five minute google search.
If the idea ever makes it to the point where a large portion of scholars are beginning to believe this then i'll take a look at it. Otherwise there are just too many theories & bits of misinformation out there to go reading ever single one somebody thinks up. I don't mind your perspective if it's unbiased. You mention this one point that you think Babylon seems to be this big stretch from Baghdad yet you make no comment on the other specifics in my post. Does non of it even strike you as even the slightest but coincidental in a weird way?
If the idea ever makes it to the point where a large portion of scholars are beginning to believe this then i'll take a look at it. Otherwise there are just too many theories & bits of misinformation out there to go reading ever single one somebody thinks up. I don't mind your perspective if it's unbiased. You mention this one point that you think Babylon seems to be this big stretch from Baghdad yet you make no comment on the other specifics in my post. Does non of it even strike you as even the slightest but coincidental in a weird way?
Ardsgaine
Active Member
HeXp£Øi± said:
It's a stretch in the sense that both cities have been conquered multiple times, so why would anyone have reason to think that this is the time that was prophesized.
HeXp£Øi± said:
No, and I'm not a bible scholar, so I probably won't ever come up with the answer. The reason that it was first suggested, though, is because the later books make mention of events that happened in a period shortly after Isaiah's death, and so it's conceivable that they were added by someone who lived after him. Alternatively, you can believe that God gave him foreknowledge of those events. Either way, though, the events were in that time period, not this one.
HeXp£Øi± said:
Bible scholars tend to believe in God, and the evidence for two Isaiah's is that Isaiah couldn't have had foreknowledge of those events. That's evidence that people who believe in God won't accept.
HeXp£Øi± said:
It's not biased. It's based on empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
HeXp£Øi± said:
Okay...
Like whirlwinds sweeping through the southland: This doesn't necessarily mean that the invaders come from the the southland, it can be interpreted to mean that they traveled like the whirlwinds that typically sweep through the southlands.
An invader comes out of the desert: Where else is he going to come from to get to Babylon?
From a land of terror: To a civilized country, the land of any more barbaric culture could be described as a "land of terror." I'm sure that this line got a lot of mileage when the Mongols sacked Baghdad and slaughtered two million people. It doesn't seem to fit the US, though, unless you think that we live in a land of terror.
Land between two waters: Media lies between the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf.
The traitor betrays, the looter loots: That's pretty typical of any conquered city. You're always going to have collaborators and looters.
Get up, you officers, oil the shields: I didn't get the comparison to Skippy. Otherwise, it's just the typical sort of exhortation that you would give to a city about to go into battle.
Elam, attack! Media, lay siege! (Some verses, 'Surround the city'.): that's what happens when people lay seige to a city. What about the specific references to Elam and Media? Cyrus the Great came from Media...
All the images of its gods lie shattered on the ground: That's what would happen when people of one religion invaded another city, they would destroy the religious idols of the unbelievers. We're just carrying on an ancient tradition in Baghdad.
So addressing specifics, I don't see anything in the verse that applies uniquely to the current situation. I think there's good reason to think that the verse refers to the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great.
HeXp£Øi±
Well-Known Member
They don't.
In fact i have seen scholars show in a logical manner just how some of these prophesies may have been fulfilled at more than one time in history.
I'm not a bible scholar either so i'm not going to know to what 'events' you may be referring to. Are you speaking to something specific or some general comments you read somewhere?
I'm going to cut that one short because it's simply not true. Every first rate school in the nation or world for that matter has bible scholars and more often then not they are secular.
Great! Then we're on the same page.
Whirlwinds describes how they came from the south. It doesn't say, they came from the south, but may have came from the north or east as well. Picture a whirlwind, Chirning winds that stir up dust. This is the armies appearence as it comes from the south.
What kind of a question is that? Armies can come from any direction. The south route to Baghdad wasn't our preferred route either it was turkey from the north. Even east from Jordan would have been more preferable in my opinion.
Land of terror also means one that causes terror or is terrifying. Which is the truth. Just ask the Iraqi army.
land between two seas(which i actually didn't include in the original post)
True media, but isn't it interesting that it just happens to fit the US as well.
.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
HeXp£Øi± said:
To them that may prove the economy of God's Word, but to me it just proves that texts, particularly religious and poetic texts which cultivate vagueness as a virture, can be interpreted in multiple ways.
HeXp£Øi± said:
I don't have any statistics, so I won't push that one. It was a supposition.
As for the rest, I don't think there's any point in pursuing it. I'm not saying that the text doesn't have coincidences with the current war, and I don't think you are saying that it uniquely prophesizes the current war, so there's not really a debate. The real debate would be on the possibility of prophesy itself, and that would come down to a debate on the existence of God. I've never won one of those debates, and I've learned better than to become involved in them.
For the record, I'll just state that my guess, based on the scant info I have, is that the text was written contemporaneously with the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great, and does not prophesize a future event. Any parallels between the text and later events are just coincidences.
Here's that site I went to, btw. You might find it interesting. It rejects the claim that there were two authors for the Book of Isaiah, and it's not written by an atheist. It just has some historical background on the history of the book.
