At http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/mar2014/billg39.htm we were told that Ancient Babylon could not be the Babylon of Revelation, because "Iraq has no deepwater seaport!!! "  Well, first of all, neither did ancient Babylon, and it did not need one to be known throughout the known world for its water trade.  I'll explain in another post why it was known for its water-trade, and it had nothing to do with how deep the water was.  But also, this information is wrong because there are 3 ports near Basra (part of ancient Babylonia, though different from the CITY of Babylon), and one is indeed a "deepwater" seaport.  No, there's not in the ancient city limits of Babylon, but Ancient Babylon is deserted.  Yes, someone would have to rebuild a seaport, but so what?  They'd have to rebuild the entire city of Babylon for that matter.  Before Babylon could become rich in trade, it would need to start with some people.  After that, you could add a seaport, an airport, trucking, and a whole host of modern day shipping methods.  The lack of a seaport is no where near as much of an issue as the lack of people there.  But that does not mean that at some future date there will not be both people and a seaport, airport, etc.

But even by today's standards, airfreight, trains and trucking are a modern extension of sea-fairing shipping.  You can ship things by ship to Basra and by truck to Babylon.  No one reading Revelation would have understood any form of shipping other than waterways back when it was written, but we can see today how planes, trains and trucks can be included in a modern day interpretation of how Babylon becomes rich.

I also find the logic self-defeating. Because the post attacked  "Literalists" for concluding that ancient Babylon is "Babylon", yet used a supra-literal interpretation to "prove" this.  In other words, we cannot interpret the text to include shipping by truck from the nearest seaport as legit, because the text literally says by water, but we can ignore the literal name of the city!!!!!  Go figure.

Now in my personal opinion, I think we need to not be closed minded to the idea that Babylon is....well...."Babylon".  And my personal expectation is that the False Messiah will rise from Rome and move his capital to Babylon, and Babylon will become IMPRESSIVELY wealthy because it sprung up out of nowhere - a  city that became rich in trade for one reason and one reason only, and that is because the False Messiah chose to locate htere.

The one city that I would consider IMPRESSIVELY wealthy in any respect in America is Las Vegas.  It too sprung up out of nowhere.  There's nothing around it and no reason for people to go there except for the entertainment value.  Las Vegas stands as a monument to how much America values entertainment.  But it is not impressively wealthy relative to other cities in the world for its trade, but it is impressively wealthy in the sense that most cities were settled for business reasons near waterways (East of Missippii) or train stations (out West) or where there was gold, but Las Vegas breaks the normal mold for America.  But it is not impressively wealthy compared to say Qatar, the richest principality in the world, since it did not EARN its wealth through real trade like the "Babylon" of Revelation is described as doing.

We should be open minded that ancient Babylon COULD be the Babylon of Revelation.  If you're not, you might miss out on recognizing the False Messiah when he rises if you're stuck on the idea it is the USA.  I can believe it COULD be Rome or Brussels, since the EU capital is embracing the idea it is the modern Babylon and bragging about it.

Also, if we are going to be open minded to accept the idea that "Babylon" is a nation, not just a city, then we should at least consider the possibility it could be the nation of Iraq.  After all, "Babylon" was not only the name of a city on the Euphrates, but the general region around it, often called "Babylonia" in English, to distinguish it from the city.  Iraq is modern day "Babylonia", and while the ancient CITY of Babylon is desolate, the ancient region of Babylonia is populated, and gotten rich by oil, and includes Basra, where the ports are that were cited in http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/mar2014/billg39.htm . That post tried to claim Basra was too far away from Babylon to be counted as "Babylon", but it was indeed part of the region known as "Babylonia".  So indeed, modern day "Babylonia" does indeed have a deepwater seaport.

But the USA can be safely ruled out as NOT being Babylon, because Rev 18:13 describes Babylon as being a place where slaves are traded, and the USA outlawed slavery in 1865.  It is repugnant to our national spirit.

Shalom, Joe