Ancient Babylon (now Iraq)

Isaiah 13:19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms,
The beauty of the Chaldeans’ pride,
Will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
20 It will never be inhabited,
Nor will it be settled from generation to generation;

There are those who say Babylon WILL be rebuilt because of the two 'is fallens' in Scripture; however this is poor exegesis, comparing a symbolic statement against a straightforward statement of prophecy. I believe Revelation indicates this second Babylon is ROME.

After the city of Babylon was taken by the Medes & Persians, the kingdom of Babylon ceased to be indy, with its king Nabodinus becoming a vassal of Cyrus' father Darius. It was not destroyed then, but remained the capital of a province in the Persian Empire.

It was captured by Alexander in 330 BC, and after his death, by the Seleucids, who moved their capital to Seleucia, thus depriving Babylon of any importance. Its population soon declined to zero, and builders hauled off much of its stone for their own projects.

As for its people, many were killed in the Medo-Persian invasion, many more by Alexander, and still more in the almost-incessant wars between the Seleucids & the Ptolemies.

And no one has lived there since. While Saddam stayed more than one night in his palace project, he was still an official resident of Baghdad. However, we know he believes himself to be a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, and was planning to move his capital to Babylon. There's not hardly any plausible explanation left except that the Bushes hate Saddam, and/or certain US interests wish to take control of Iraq's oil.

 

I've read and referenced bible-history-com several times. It's a reasonably good site for research and reference.

 

That's right. It's cerainly not plausible that Bush really desired for the Iraqis to have their own election and to crete their own government. Nope, that could never happen.

 

Perhaps you are forgetting the fact that we didn't go into Iraq to establish a democracy. We went in there because of the WMD's.............

Regards,
BiR

 

By Babtist in Richmond:

"Perhaps you are forgetting the fact that we didn't go into Iraq to establish a democracy. We went in there because of the WMD's............."

Sorry, Bir, but yours is nont an accurate statement of the facts. Yours is the statement used by most people who now object to the war, however.

 

So, you are saying that we DID NOT go into Iraq because of the WMD's? Perhaps you have forgotten the trip SofS Powell made to the United Nations. Perhaps you have forgotten about all the talk of the "smoking gun" being in the form of a "mushroom cloud."

If that is true, then why DID we go into Iraq? Think carefully before you respond.

Regards,
BiR

 

I thought we went in to Iraq because we gave Saddam once last chance to comply to the resolution 1441? or serious consequences would apply.
The French then said that this did not mean war but they made a mistake.

Is that right? The thing with the WMD's does not change that.


john.

 

John

Technically, I think you are correct ...

Unfortunately, since President Clinton had stated that argument about a dozen times, no one took President Bush seriously.

 

Cool.

john.

 

Argh...utter frustration here. Did you go into Iraq to liberate Iraqis (like it has been said) or did you go into Iraq because of wmd's (like it has also been said)? WHAT was the reason? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

We went into Iraq so that the Saudis will end up with 100% control of Arab oil.

We went into Afganistan to get the natural gas and opium flowing.