Babylon is EAST!

[ClubV12]

I keep looking at the map and Babylon is due east of Israel. East is where the wise men came from as well.

I'm not sure I'm buying into this idea of Babylon being the King of the North at any point in history, as it concerns the book of Daniel.

[Gerr]

But Babylon cannot invade from the east because of the desert. It has to come from the north.

[ClubV12]

Maybe...

In Ellen Whites time they referred to the study of Daniel as the "Eastern Question", but I don't know exactly what they meant by that.

History may reveal from which direction and route the Babylonians took Israel captive, and route they used when Israel later returned. I do know it was a several month journey and Daniel was to old so he stayed in Babylon.

[Kevin H]

But Babylon cannot invade from the east because of the desert. It has to come from the north.

That is it exactly. In the Bible the north represents either God or someone in the place of God, a religious focus, and it is the attack route of the Assyrians and Babylonians. When you travel south you eventually turn left and go to Egypt which represents secularism. I believe a modern application is the Religious right vs secularism.

[Kevin H]

The eastern question was a late 1800 up through World War 1 belief that Turkey was going to be the great superpower in the last days.

[ClubV12]

Kevin I don't know that I buy into this concept of the compass direction being based on a direction of attack, as is commonly accepted today.

I'm continuing to look at Daniel just as it is written, North is North and East is east.

The eastern question, Turkey, is still relevant today, nothings changed. Standby to see Turkey come into a burning, smoking, wiped out Israel, unify all the Islamic countries and establish the Islamic HQ, the Caliphate, in Israel.

I don't know anybody from the 1800's noting that Turkey will be some kind of "super power". It won't take much to march into Israel and setup HQ once the destruction of that city is accomplished, by "who ever".

[Ted Oplinger]

The eastern question was a late 1800 up through World War 1 belief that Turkey was going to be the great superpower in the last days.

That was already settled in 1840, when the Ottoman Empire placed its sovereignty under the powers of Europe for protection from a rising power in Egypt the Turkish rulers could not defeat.

By the time WWI rolled around, the Turkish "might" was a faint shadow of its former glory centuries prior, and the Ottoman Empire was found to be a non-factor in that war - the British had already subdued it.

Blessings,

[ClubV12]

Yes Ted, that is the generally accepted concept of why Uriah Smith was "wrong", followed by the the trask talk of his character and the general denigration of his character. Which is completely irrelvant to a discussion of scenarios involving interpretation and prophecy.

Here's the thing, the evidence and counsel from Sister White on Uriahs position is so positive I'm at a loss to explain how it can be ignored! Among other things she said the interest in his book would continue until probation closes.

Prophecy should not be based on "head lines" and what we may or may not see in countries or current events to establish whether the prophecy might be true or not true. IF Uriah was right about Turkey setting up the Caliphate in Israel, it doesn't matter if that looks possible or impossible.

Right now, it just happens to look not only possible, it's a strong contender for "likely". But I'm not basing my understanding of Daniel 11:45 on whether it lines up with todays headlines and current events. I agree with Uriah analysis enough to where I won't discount it. Turkey fits the prophecy of Daniel 11:45. That was true in 1840, in WW1 and it's true now. HOW will it happen? Let the analysis continue...

[Ted Oplinger]

Yes Ted, that is the generally accepted concept of why Uriah Smith was "wrong", followed by the the trask talk of his character and the general denigration of his character. Which is completely irrelvant to a discussion of scenarios involving interpretation and prophecy.

Here's the thing, the evidence and counsel from Sister White on Uriahs position is so positive I'm at a loss to explain how it can be ignored! Among other things she said the interest in his book would continue until probation closes.

Prophecy should not be based on "head lines" and what we may or may not see in countries or current events to establish whether the prophecy might be true or not true. IF Uriah was right about Turkey setting up the Caliphate in Israel, it doesn't matter if that looks possible or impossible.

Right now, it just happens to look not only possible, it's a strong contender for "likely". But I'm not basing my understanding of Daniel 11:45 on whether it lines up with todays headlines and current events. I agree with Uriah analysis enough to where I won't discount it. Turkey fits the prophecy of Daniel 11:45. That was true in 1840, in WW1 and it's true now. HOW will it happen? Let the analysis continue...

From what I understand and remember - Uriah didn't come out and say Josiah Litch was mistaken; Uriah simply didn't gave much credence to the contribution of Josiah Litch's prophetic interpretation of Revelation's 5th and 6th Trumpets being the landmarks to describe the rise and fall of Islam's hold on the West through the Ottoman Empire (setting the stage to confirm the year-for-a-day rule of prophetic interpretation for the 2300 day prophecy)...as many make the same mistake today.

Furthermore, when talking of Turkey, Uriah didn't speak of the Ottoman Empire - he talked of the nation of Turkey. Current events in the late 1800's meant Uriah had already witnessed the British carve up most of the Ottoman Empire and absorb it into their own, as Egypt and the TransJordan regions were already British "protectorates" in the eyes of the British.

The trash-talking came because people then thought "Turkey" and "the Ottoman Empire" are one and the same. They are NOT, and that is what EGW recognized with Uriah's writing.

A rising Turkey today is not the revival of the Ottoman Empire; the fruit of its efforts would be the start of a new Caliphate. In 1840, the major players within Islam's Ottoman Empire Caliphate were Turkey and Egypt. Today, the rising players in the Middle East are....wait for it...Turkey and Egypt.

As then, each today has a different perspective on how that Caliphate should be. Just like the feet of clay and iron, these also cannot cleave one to another. Islam is not the monolithic religion people in the West think it is. It has deeper fractures (Sunni/Shi'a and fundamentalist/secular) within it than Christendom's Rome/Protestant separation.

Turkey may indeed succeed in its aims to establish a Caliphate HQ'd in Israel...but that triumph would be lost in the disintegration of that Caliphate among the self-serving interests among the rest of the Middle east, and Egypt in particular. Rather than a true Caliphate (like the Ottoman Empire was), it would be more like an EU of the Middle East...and thus really nothing more than a distraction away from what the Beast is doing in His final movements.

Blessings,

[ClubV12]

That is a reasonable view of the prophecy Ted and you make some excellent points.

How long, how tight will the Islamists "cleave together"? It wouldn't have to be long or even perfectly united to fulfill verse 45. I don't know what the reaction of NATO would be in this scenario. It is easy to say NATO (Christians, Mormons, Catholics) would never stand for it! Oh I'm sure they will be furious, but will they actually take any military action? Maybe not, even if they wanted to. At that point the earth could well be engaged in WW3 and NATO has bigger fish to fry than rescue and already smoking and wasted Israel.

I see Daniel 11:45 as little more than a "way mark" on the time table, the last and final sign history is just about to wrap up. Now how the whole "they wondered after the beast" and the rest of the closing events transpire (UP to but not including 12:1) unfolds remains unclear. I'm not convinced those closing events will turn specifically on Israel. In that regard, it remains a red herring to the vast majority of Christians.

Final battle, armegeddon and all that? Follows 12:1, where, when, how that unfolds exactly is the last chapter of the book. Who the players are is not a large concern to me. It's all about what happens BEFORE the door of the Ark is closed that is where we are at now.

[ClubV12]

Uriah not giving much credence to Litch's work reminds of A.G. Daniels comments about the large bible Ellen White held up. He said, he didn't see her do that. He had never talked to anybody that saw her do that. If she did or didn't, it didn't matter to him. He was convinced of her gift from the fruit of her labors, he had no doubt based on that, she was an inspired messenger. I'm sure A.G. Daniels wasn't questioning the large bible incident itself, just moving on from it.

Litch did a good work at an important time, it was valuable to the movement. That was then, this is now, moving on... :)

[joeb]

If you take a look at the Hebrew, according to Strong's once more as I'm definitely no Hebrew scholar, the word most often translated as north is tsaphown. Here's the definition from Strong's:

Quote:

6828 tsaphown tsaw-fone' or tsaphon {tsaw-fone'}; from 6845; properly, hidden, i.e. dark; used only of the north as a quarter (gloomy and unknown):--north(-ern, side, -ward, wind). see HEBREW for 06845

Thus, to come from the north means to come from the dark, or from darkness. Since Babylon in the Bible is synonymous with spiritual darkness does this not fit?

[phkrause]

Club, have you ever read the book, "Tidings Out Of The Northeast" by Marc Alden Swearingen? He has some really good explanations of this issue, and why Babylon does come from the North. If not and you get chance please read it. It just might give you another perspective.

[ClubV12]

Haven't read that one PK, not sure I'll have the time, but thanks for the tip. There are many books with many views for consideration of what it all means. For the bulk of Daniel (11 in particular) I try to stay closely linked with the official position of the Church. Verse 45? The Church has no official position.

I could easily conclude that it doesn't matter from which direction Babylon comes from in the earlier verses. My current approach is to simply read the bible as the typical man on the street of normal intelligence would, ignorant of Greek/Hebrew and with a limited knowledge of ancient history. Having done that, how DOES that line up with our currently well accepted positions on Daniel? Thats where I'm at right now, could change next week.

Doing that leads me to the question, what if, North really is North? Does it change anything? Is it completely out of synch with our official position? So far the answer seems to be seeing it this way may not be catastrohic to our fundamental beliefs or understanding of Daniel to date.

IF I find myself in a position where I stand alone, I shall put my ideas aside and come into harmony with the brethren as far as possible. Of course, finding harmony on Daniel with the brethren has been a bit difficult for a hundred years or so...

OH, and I'm not working alone on these issues. I have several brethren that I consult with and bounce ideas off of. Some with extraordinary biblical education, some just laymen like myself. As well as this forum of course. A multitude of counselors. The search continues.

Thanks for that input on a definiton of North Joeb, I'll chew on that one.

[Gail]

Okay, I'm being a bit simplistic here, but to my thinking:

From the POV of Daniel, who wrote down the prophecy and from his time, Babylon was definitely north from the Promised Land for the reason mentioned by Dr. Gerry.

In our day, I'm thinking you don't want Babylon coming from the East. Why? Because that is where Jesus is going to come in from. Babylon in our day is the conglomerate of the harlot and the daughters. I do believe that all that Babylon entails in the Revelation sense will come down from the North.

[ClubV12]

When I look at the map for Babylon, in Daniels time, it is due east from Israel.

Gerrys comment follows the traditional thinking, the direction an invading army would take. That is also consistent with Roosenberg.

I don't put a lot of emphasis on Jesus coming from the East, and the final battle and where they assemble (Mount of Olives, by the way) and all that as it is post chapter 12 verse 1.

Yes, there is a distinction to be made between spiritual Babylon and literal Babylon. Bear in mind, Daniel 11 is very literal as opposed to some of the other chapters where we have a lot of symbolism. That just doesn't happen in eleven.

When he says ships, he means literally ships. Seas are seas, with water. Armies, Kings, Nations are very real things, or people or Kings as the case may be.

[phkrause]

When I look at the map for Babylon, in Daniels time, it is due east from Israel.

Gerrys comment follows the traditional thinking, the direction an invading army would take. That is also consistent with Roosenberg.

And others as well. What Gerry was eluding to was the fact that any invading armies from the east would have to go north first than come down from there to invade Israel.

[ClubV12]

Most everyone in fact uses the concept of using an invading army route, rather than a simplitic compass reading.

Interesting that the wise men came from the east, from Babylon. Whaddya make of that?

[ClubV12]

Here why this is an important consideration. The bible doesn't say Babylon is the nation that lies to the North. It says trouble CAME from the North. Agreed, Babylon attacked from the North, they CAME from the North in that attack.

Why it's relevant is because it impacts how we see Daniel 11:4 and the "four winds", which are compass points. Compass points from where? From GREECE, not from Israel!

I'm just throwing some ideas around...

[phkrause]

Most everyone in fact uses the concept of using an invading army route, rather than a simplitic compass reading.

I think that's because most invading armies didn't want to go through the desert.

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Interesting that the wise men came from the east, from Babylon. Whaddya make of that?

Here I really don't have any ideas. The only thing I can think of, is that the three wise men did ride camels that don't have any problems with going that way. whereas an army has many foot soldiers. I'd curious as to what Pastor DB has to say about this.

[ClubV12]

Maybe the wise men came from the NORTH? Ha Ha, I dunno, haven't looked at that.

The point is this: A man of average intelligence reads Daniel, looks at the map, see's Babylon is east and goes, Huh? Read it again, the trouble came from the North, it doesn't say that where the trouble lived or originated from.

The four winds, just reading it for what it says, originated from the point where the four winds took place, Greece.

Daniel does not require a theological degree to figure out, it is unsealed, to anybody that wants to explore it. Granted, counsel with other is required!!! The book is not mysterious with all kinds of symbols and double back on verses. Daniel is incredibly literall, no confusion, it's open and understandable.

Whatever you make of verse 36 (a hotly contested transition point) occured, it's history, it's over, move on to verse 37, DO NOT GO BACK in tracing the timeline of history.

So WHERE are we today, using the concept that Daniel is literal, has been fulfilled, is history? Verse 45, it's the only one left.

Don't be fooled by those who try to make Daniel 11 all mystical and symbolic.

I'm still looking at those four winds and the four compass points from there, don't know what to make of that yet. But I bet it will be entirely consistent with the Churches views on Daniel!

[ClubV12]

"And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the seas and the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and no one will help him."

Mediterranean sea on one side, Red Sea on the other, glorius mountain=Mount of Olives, just like it reads. Thats where the New Jerusalem will be placed after the millenium. I think it's also reasonable to suggest thats where the battle of Amegedon will originate. Originate, because of strife, confusion, political problems, power issues. It does not mean that specific location will be where the battle is actually fought. Think of it in the same way Babylon is in the east, but the military invasion came from the North.

The Church has no official position on verse 45.

One thing is clear, the Israelites won't have much say either way as to who sets up HQ. They will have been conquered before they allow ANYBODY into Jerusalem! Who ever that is (Caliphate in my opinion) will make his last stand and none will come to his aid.

Mormons have a serious interest in Israel, they think THEY will be the ones to setup HQ in Israel and rule the world from there! The competition is lining up for a shot at the glorius high mountain.

Verse 45, the final way mark in the timeline of prophecy. Time to sell the house if you haven't already. Time to spend every dime you've got to further the last call.

[Kevin H]

As for the "Eastern Question" and Turkey, it was not finished in the 1840s as in the early 1900s it was being taught in our evangelistic meetings, then World War 1 broke out and it looked like it was fulfilling what we had been teaching. Durring WW1 the preaching got even more intense as before what our evangelists said was going to happen was actually happening. then the war ended and Jesus did not come. Part of the 1919 Bible conference was to come for new understandings of the texts that they were using about Turkey.

[Kevin H]

The North in the Bible represents God or someone in the place of God (antichrist) coming from a more religious perspective. South is Egypt and represents secularism. East represents the Messiah, as was Cyrus coming from the east to deliver the Hebrews from Babylon.

Now there are two levels of Bible Study. First is the immediate context and how God could have fulfilled the prophecies and set up the kingdom back then. Daniel 1-8 tells how the Exile could have been the last days ending with the a second great exodus lead by the messiah. Daniel 9-12(and Ezekiel) tell the story of what could have happened had Jesus been accepted. The second level is how to apply it to us and the last days.

Sadly, we tend to only want to study the Bible on the second level. Many of our applications will be excellent, some pretty good but others pretty poor. We need to improve by taking time to study on the first level. then we will have a stronger foundation for the second.

[ClubV12]

Kevin, do you apply symbols to Daniel 11?

If so, what rules do you follow for applying them? As you noted, "North represents God or someone in the place of God." Every verse in Daniel 11 or just some verses? How do you determine WHICH verses? You give several examples of other symbols for South and East. Continuing that line of reasoning "seas" mean people. What do ships mean? What does King mean? There is no end to the symbols once you open that can of worms.

There is a time and place for dual fulfillment and symbols, following closely defined rules as to when and where they apply. Without those rules, you have "every wind of doctrine blowing" for interpretation. Father Millers rules for interpretation point strongly to a literal interpretation for Daniel 11.

I've looked at Daniel using several different methods, I keep coming back and am convinced a literal interpretation is the ONLY way the Church will EVER find unity on this chapter. Any other method leaves plenty of room for a private interpretation and a wide variety of conclusions, books, articles, maps and theories, it's babylon. Symbols also require a pretty serious knowledge of theology, perfect if your PhD. As Daniel is an "open book", no PhD required, a normal man can read and understand. It is plain enough for a man who "runneth", to read and understand!