Bill Griese (17 Feb 2012)
"60 Reasons Why Iraq Can Not Be Mystery Babylon"



60 Reasons Why Iraq Can Not Be Mystery Babylon

by R.A. Coombes

The A-O Report: http://www.aoreport.com/ao/prophecy-studies-mainmenu-47/82-60-reasons-why-iraq-can-not-be-mb

(Excerpt)

… THE MOST LITERAL OF ALL

#60. A Populated city named Babylon on a Deepwater Port entryway to New York City

Revelation 17:18; & 18: 11-19… Did you know that when ships coming in to the harbor facilities of New York City make their final approach to the Harbor channel shipping lanes…they have to come in from the south… heading due North straight for a spot on Long Island called … BABYLON !!! That is right. The city of Babylon, New York features a tall water tower that ship captains use to navigate directly into the harbor channel. They come within view of Babylon before turning west to head into the ports of New York City.  It is from this vantage point that I believe Revelation 18: 17-19 takes place.

From this vantage point…on the deck of a ship…one could quite easily read the letters of the name Babylon on the city water tower!!! Talk about literal?? Now that is indeed literal. This is something that theorists who promote the Iraq = Babylon idea can’t match, because ancient Babylon is not a deepwater seaport. It's so far away from the ocean that it can not possibly fit the description of Revelation 18: 17-19… in no way. But the USA can… and especially its chief city… a seaport named NYC/Babylon. Also, Babylon on Long Island derived its name because immigrant Jews founded it in 1872. The group’s rabbis chose the name almost prophetically, because they believed it would be home to a new diaspora.

Why would they think this? Because rabbinical opinions had held that ancient Babylon’s power would be moved… Zechariah 5: 5-11… and Isaiah 18:1 tells us what direction it would be moving. Isaiah 18:1 says that the spirit of Babylon would move west of the most outermost boundaries of ancient Babylon’s western-most border, beyond the rivers of Ethiopia and Egypt. [That is what is meant by the KJV term "Ethiopia"] By virtue of Isaiah’s point of observation being from Jerusalem…then the direction of movement was westward from Jerusalem…beyond the most outer of Babylon’s oldest boundaries… meaning… the occultic power that fueled Babylon would move and take up residence elsewhere in the end times.

Thus, scripture itself negates the "Iraq = Babylon" theory. Why will our "expert" scholars not accept the scriptural passages on this? Is it due to Pride? Is it due to ignorance? However, it seems to me that their hypocrisy shows. Clearly, the only logical interpretation from scripture is that it literally cannot be Iraq because the text tells us it moved. Isaiah 18:1-7 and Zechariah 5:5-11.

Early rabbinical writers commented on this well before the time of Christ. They made note that the "mystical woman of Babylon" had moved out of the Babylonian Empire and had been taken westward beyond the ancient boundaries of Babylonia. Those most westward boundaries were considered to be Egypt and Ethiopia. The woman was taken west of those two countries. They noted that the woman would not be found in its old location of Mesopotamia for the fulfillment of the final prophecies, which would be fulfilled at the coming of Messiah.

These rabbinical commentators believed that a future Babylon that was prophesied by Isaiah and Jeremiah would be located west of Egypt and Ethiopia. They believed the woman of Zechariah 5 was headed west of those boundaries and hence out of uttermost regions of Babylonia/Shinar/Chaldea. Yes, they believed she was being taken west of Egypt and Ethiopia in that basket. Why? Note that the observer's vantage point was already in the land of Shinar.

Shinar is yet another term for the ancient nation of Babylonia or Chaldea. Therefore we must pay attention to that scriptural direction and realize that it must be a new nation that carries the old Babylonian character traits. You'll note that the verse is indicating it is a different Shinar than the Chaldean or Babylonian land called Shinar. How do we know that? Isaiah 18:1-2 tells us from the observer's vantage point of Jerusalem that the phrase beyond the rivers of Ethiopia is an ancient idiomatic reference to the farthest borders of Babylon at the time of Cush, father of Nimrod. Nimrod inherited that land from his father and so that Egypt and Ethiopia were the extreme western border of Babylonia or Shinar or Chaldea.

Now, Isaiah is telling us that a future Babylon would exist at the time of the coming of Messiah and it would be located beyond the old Babylonian Empirical boundaries of Egypt and Ethiopia, which was the Cush empire that Nimrod inherited. It too was Shinar. Zechariah is then referencing that the woman is being flown out of Babylonia/Chaldea/Shinar to a new land of Shinar. This confirms what the prophet Isaiah had written earlier concerning a future Babylon being located west of the old Babylon.

There is reportedly a team of archaeological experts preparing to publish the results of many years of work in which they claim to have documentation that the Babylonians occupied North America and Mexico as colonies as early as around 3,000 BC. If this were true then it may further highlight and underscore the reason for these statements made by the prophets and the rabbinical commentaries.

We do know this…that the nation being referred to is none other than … …

America, The Babylon  http://www.americathebabylon.com/index.shtml