✪ "The Canaanites prayed especially to Baal, their young, vigorous god who was eternally locked in battle with the forces of chaos. He was called the Mightiest of Heroes, the Prince, At times he manifested himself as Hadad, god of storm, thunder, lightning. He is described as rohev aravot, Rider-of-the-Clouds, in the tablets of the Ugarit." Ref-0150, p. 38. "ABR founder David Livingston explains their earlier manifestations in Canaan: Early in Canaanite religion, the male Moon-god, “Yerach,” was the chief god of the pantheon. And the female sun-god, “Shamash,” was his consort. Later, these were changed to Baal and [Ashtoreth]." Henry B. Smith, Jr., Redeeming the Carthaginians?, Ref-0066, Vol. 25 No. 1 Winter 2012, 4-12, p. 9.
✪ "The reference to the temple of El-Berith is puzzling, for verse 4 refers to a temple to Baal-Berith in Shechem. In Canaanite mythology El and Baal were distinct deities. El was the high god who ruled over the divine assembly and imparted authority to the storm god Baal. If this distinction is maintained here, then the city apparently contained a temple for each god and swore allegiance to both." Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Yahweh versus the Canaanite Gods: Polemic in Judges and 1_Samuel_1-7, Ref-0200, Vol. 164 No. 654 April-June 2007, 165:180, p. 173.
✪ "Indeed, Rolleston and Seiss advanced the claim of this present article, that constellations of diverse cultures show basic similarities, implying that humanity once lived at a single site." Jonathan F. Henry, "Origin of the Constellations at Babel", Ref-0785, Volume 12 Number 35 March 2008, 5:20, p. 17.
✪ "Babel [is an] obviously Akkadian word meaning the “door/gate of god”. . . . Despite what has been understood and held as true by so many scholars over the centuries, I am convinced that the biblical author’s emphasis in verse nine was not on the confusion of the languages, but rather on God’s decision to appear “there”. This is the real reason the place was named “the door of God”, because God chose to come down in that specific place (šām) and confound the futile plans of men (Genesis 11:5)! . . . This failure to make the connection between the repetition of “there” (šām) and “Babel” (the door of God) puzzled me until I checked on the Septuagint’s rendering of the passage. The name Babel doesn’t even appear! The 2nd century B.C. translator, obviously the perpetuator of the problem, evidently had no idea that Babel meant “door of God” and translated it as “Synchysis”: quite literally “confusion”. Brenton’s English translation of the Septuagint reads, “On this account its name was called Confusion, because there the Lord confounded the languages of all the earth, and thence the Lord scattered them upon the face of all the earth.”" Mark L. Howard, "Therefore it was called Babel", Ref-0784, 23(3) 2009, 56:57, pp. 56-57. "The Heb. Bāḇel is translated by EVV as Babylon (except Gen. 10:10; 11:9) based on the Gk. Babylōn. These are renderings of the Babylonian bâḇili; pl. bâḇilāni, which in its turn translates the earlier Sumerian name kaʾ-dingir-ra, ‘gate of god’." Ref-1323, pp. 157-159. "AGAIN, whereas Moses wrote an account of the building of the tower, and how from one language men passed into the confusion of many dialects, the author just before mentioned, in his work entitled Of Assyrian History [Cf. Cyril of Alexandria, ibidem, p. 9], bears the like testimony, speaking as follows: [ABYDENUS] ‘But there are some who say that the men who first arose out of the earth, being puffed up by their strength and great stature, and proudly thinking that they were better than the gods, raised a huge tower, where Babylon now stands: and when they were already nearer to heaven, the winds came to the help of the gods, and overthrew their structure upon them, the ruins of which were called Babylon. And being up to that time of one tongue, they received from the gods a confused language; and afterwards war arose between Cronos and Titan.’" Eusebius of Caesarea, Praeparatio Evangelica, book 9, chapter 14 (p. 211). Translated by Tr. E. H. Gifford, (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, ca. 313, 1903) transcribed by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK, 2003. [https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bw9DD8Hgvs_HNDY0OTExM2UtZWU3Yy00MTg3LTg2NjYtNzZiNWMyMzhhNTIx/edit/] accessed 20150112.
✪ "He [Nimrod] also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!" Ref-0026, I,iv 2 "Josephus says of Nimrod: Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah -- a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it were through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny -- seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence upon his own power. He also said he would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for that he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers! (Ant. I: iv: 2)" David P. Livingston, Who was Nimrod?, Weekly Article: Associates for Biblical Research, August 30, 2006 [http://abr.christiananswers.net/articles/article54.html]. "These structures had, with the Babylonians, a special name: ziqqurratu, apparently meaning “peak,” or the highest point of a mountain. This word was applied to the mountain height upon which Utnapishtim, the Babylonian Noah, offered sacrifices on coming forth from the ark (or ship) when the waters of the great Flood had sufficiently subsided." T. G. Pinches, Babel, Tower of, Ref-0008, p. 1:383. "This is not only an attempt to build a mountain in which their god can dwell. It is also an effort to reestablish the Edenic mountain. The correlation between Eden and Jerusalem, the Holy Mountain of God, implies that Eden was also a mountain." Ref-1308, p. 55. "[A rebuilt version of] the tower was severely damaged in the war of 652-648 B.C. but restored again by Nebuchadrezzar II (605-526 B.C.). It was this building, part of which was recovered by Koldewey in 1899, which was described by Herodotus on his visit c. 460 B.C. and is discussed in a cuneiform tablet dated 229 B.C. (Louvre, AO 6555). These enable an approximate picture of the later tower to be given. The base stage measured 90 x 90 m and was 33 m high. Above this were built five platforms, each 6-18 m high but of diminishing area. The whole was crowned by a temple where the god was thought to descend for intercourse with mankind. . . . The ziggurat at Babylon was demolished by Xerxes in 472 B.C., and though Alexander cleared the rubble prior to its restoration this was thwarted by his death. The bricks were subsequently removed by the local inhabitants, and today the site of Etemenanki is a pit (EsSaḥn) as deep as the original construction was high." Ref-1323, pp. 155-157.
✪ "Abydenus says that Nebuchadnezzar thought he descended from Belus (Assyrian), that is from the Assyrian Pul. [Eusebius, Gospel, book 9. c. 41 (456d)] Isaiah states that the Assyrians built Babylon . . . (Isa. 23:13)." Ref-1507, p. 97.
✪ "[J. A. Alexander on vers. 20, 21. “The endless discussions as to the identity of the species of animals here named, however laudable as tending to promote exact lexicography and natural history, have little or no bearing on the interpretation of the passage. Nothing more will be here attempted than to settle one or two points of comparative importance. Many interpreters regard the whole verse as an enumeration of particular animals. This has arisen from the assumption of a perfect parallelism in the clause. It is altogether natural, however, to suppose that the writer would first make use of general expressions, and afterwards descend to particulars. This supposition is confirmed by the etymology and usage of צײם, both which determine it to mean those belonging to or dwelling in the desert. In this sense it is sometimes applied to men (Ps. 72:9; 74:14), but as these are here excluded by the preceding verse, nothing more was needed to restrict it to wild animals, to which it is also applied in 34:14 and Jer. 50:39. This is now commonly agreed to be the meaning, even by those who give to אהים a specific sense. The same writers admit that אהים properly denotes the howls or cries of certain animals, and only make it mean the animals themselves, because such are mentioned in the other clauses. But if ציים has the generic sense which all now give it, the very parallelism of the clauses favors the explanation of אהים in its original and proper sense of howls or yells, viz., those uttered by the צײם.—The history of the interpretation שׂעירים is so curious as to justify more fulness of detail than usual. It has never been disputed that its original and proper sense is hairy, and its usual specific sense he-goats. In two places (Lev. 17:7; 2 Chron. 11:15) it is used to denote objects of idolatrous worship, probably images of goats, which, according to Herodotus, were worshipped in Egypt. In these places the LXX. render it ματαίοις, vain things, i.e., false gods. But the Targum on Leviticus explains it to mean demons (שׁדין), and the same interpretation is given in the case before us by the LXX. (δαιμόνια), Targum and Peshito. The Vulg. in Lev. translates the word daemonibus daemonibus, but here pilosi. The interpretation given by the other three versions is adopted also by the Rabbins, Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi,etc. It appears likewise in the Talmud and early Jewish books. From this traditional interpretation of שׁעירים here and 34:14 appears to have arisen, at an early period, a popular belief among the Jews that demons or evil spirits were accustomed to haunt desert places in the shape of goats or other animals. And this belief is said to be actually cherished by the natives near the site of Babylon at the present day. Let us now compare this Jewish exposition of the passage with its treatment among Christians. To Jerome the combination of the two meanings—goats and demons—seems to have suggested the Pans, Fauns and Satyrs of the classical mythology, imaginary beings represented as a mixture of the human form with that of goats, and supposed to frequent forests and other lonely places. This idea is carried out by Calvin, who adopts the word satyri in his version, and explains the passage as relating to actual appearances of Satan under such disguises. Luther, in like manner, renders it Feldgeister. Vitringa takes another step, and understands the language as a mere concession or allusion to the popular belief, equivalent to saying, the solitude of Babylon shall be as awful as if occupied by Fauns and Satyrs—there if anywhere such beings may be looked for. Forerius and J. D. Michaelis understand the animals themselves to be here meant. The latter uses in his version the word Waldteufel (wood-devils, forest-demons), but is careful to apprise the reader in a note that it is the German name for a species of ape or monkey, and that the Hebrew contains no allusion to the devil. The same word is used by Gesenius and others in its proper sense. Saadias, Cocceius, Clericus and Henderson return to the original meaning of the Hebrew word—viz.: wild goats. But the great majority of modern writers tenaciously adhere to the old tradition. This is done, not only by the German neologists, who lose no opportunity of finding a mythology in Scripture, but by Lowth, Barnes, and Stuart in his exposition of Rev. 11:12 and his Excursus on the Angelology of Scripture (Apocal. II. 403). The result appears to be, that if the question is determined by tradition and authority, שׂעירים denotes demons; if by the context and the usage of the word, it signifies wild goats, or more generically hairy, shaggy animals. According to the principles of modern exegesis, the latter is clearly entitled to the preference. But even if the former be adopted, the language of the text should be regarded, not as ‘a touch from the popular pneumatology’ (as Rev. 18:2 is described by Stuartin loc.), but as the prediction of a real fact, which, though it should not be assumed without necessity, is altogether possible, and therefore, if alleged in Scripture, altogether credible. 1b. Ver. 22. As אײם, according to its etymology, denotes an animal remarkable for its cry, it might be rendered hyenas, thereby avoiding the improbable assumption that precisely the same animal is mentioned in both clauses.]" Isaiah in Ref-1304, Isa. 13:19-22, pp. 181-182.
✪ ". . . the nations will labor to establish the city of Babylon, only to see their efforts consumed by fire: “peoples toil for fire, and nations grow weary for nothing” (Hab 2:13) and “the peoples will toil for nothing, and the nations become exhausted only for fire” (Jer 51:58; cf. 50:32; 51:25, 30, 32)." -- Mark A. Hassler, Isaiah 14 and Habakkuk 2: Two Taunt Songs Against the Same Tyrant, Ref-0164 (26:2) Fall 2015 (20151123152934.pdf), 221-229, p. 228. "Apparently, the beast associated with Rome, who desires to be worshipped above all that is called god (2 Thess. 2:4), will grow resentful toward the dominance of the city of Babylon and then turn on her for the purpose of destroying here. As this happens, the beast will then be fulfilling God’s eternal purpose of destroying the city of Babylon (Rev. 17:16-17) in the events of the seventh bowl judgment (Rev. 16:19)." -- Ref-1567, p. 94.
✪ "The destruction of Babylon according to Jeremiah 51:8 was to be sudden. This is confirmed by Rev. 18:17-19. As far as the physical city of Babylon was concerned, this was not true of ancient Babylon as it continued for many years after its political downfall. Further, it is pointed out that the prophecy of Isa. 13:6; Isa. 13:9-11 which formed the context of Isa. 13:19-22, indicates that the destruction of Babylon would be in the day of the Lord [Ref-0036, pp. 1-30]" Ref-0032, p. 262. "Babylon’s history after 539 B.C. : Herodotus gives Babylon’s measurements (450 B.C.); Alexander the Great visits and dies in Babylon (323 B.C.); Seleucus seizes Babylon (312 B.C.); Strabo pronounces Babylon’s hanging gardens as one of the ‘seven wonders of the word’ (25 B.C.); Babylonians present on Pentecost (Acts 2:9); Talmud promulgated from Babylon (A.D. 500); Haukal mentions Babylonian village (A.D. 917); Babylon known as ‘Two Mosques’ and ‘Hilah’ (A.D. 1100)." Hitchcock and Ice, The Truth Behind Left Behind, 109. ". . . when the time comes in the purpose of God the city of Babylon will be rebuilt almost in a night, and on a scale of magnificence such as the world has never seen." Ref-1324, Dan. 5:31. "Some years after [its fall to the Medes and Persians, Dan. 5:31] it revolted against Darius Hystaspis, and after a fruitless siege of nearly twenty months was taken by strategy. This was in B. C. 516. About B. C. 478 Xerxes, on his return from Greece, plundered and injured, if he did not destroy, the great "Temple of Bel ." In B. C. 331 Alexander the Great approached the city . . . the citizens threw open the gates and received him with acclamations. . . . During the subsequent wars of his generals Babylon suffered much, and finally came under the power of Seleucus, who, prompted by ambition to build a Capital for himself, founded Seleucia in its neighborhood about B. C. 293. This rival city gradually drew off the inhabitants of Babylon, so that Strabo, who died in A. D. 25, speaks of the latter as being to a great extent deserted. Nevertheless the Jews left from the Captivity still resided there in large numbers, and in A. D. 60 we find the Apostle Peter working among them, for it was from Babylon that Peter wrote his First Epistle (1Pe. 5:13), addressed to "The strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bethynia." About the middle of the fifth century Theodoret speaks of Babylon as being inhabited only by Jews, who had still three Jewish Universities, and in the last year of the same century the "Babylonian Talmud" was issued, and recognized as authoritative by the Jews of the whole world. In A. D. 917 Ibu Hankel mentions Babylon as an insignificant village, but still in existence. About A. D. 1100 it seems to have again grown into a town of some importance, for it was then known as the "Two Mosques." Shortly afterwards it was enlarged and fortified and received the name of Hillah. In A. D. 1898 Hillah contained about 10,000 inhabitants, and was surrounded by fertile lands, and abundant date groves stretched along the banks of the Euphrates. Certainly it has never AS YET been true that—"neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there, neither shall the shepherds make their fold there." Isa. 13:20. Nor can it be said of Babylon —"Her cities are a desolation, a dry land, and a wilderness, a land wherein no man dweileth, neither doth any son of man passthereby." Jer. 51:43. Nor can it be said—"And they shall not take of thee a stone for a corner, nor a stone for foundations, but thou shalt be desolate forever, saith the Lord" (Jer. 51:26), for many towns and cities have been built from the ruins of Babylon, among them four Capital Cities: Seleucia, built by the Greeks; Ctesiphon, by the Parthians; Al Maiden, by the Persians; and Kufa, by the Caliphs. Hillah was entirely constructed from the debris, and even in the houses of Bagdad, Babylonian stamped bricks may be frequently noticed." Ref-1324, Dan. 5:31. "Early in his reign two pretenders, the so-called Nebuchadnezzar III and Nebuchadnezzar IV, led the Babylonians to rebel against Darius. . . . Darius impaled about three thousand rebels, but hardly destroyed their walls and their gates as Herodotus asserts (3.159). In the first place, this would not have been necessary. Second, Darius continued to use the city. And finally, Herodotus describes an intact city on his visit (1.178-200) less than a century later." Ref-1521, pp. 172-173.
✪ "The ruins of Babylon have been used to build other cities, contrary to Jeremiah 51:26, “No rock will be taken from you for a cornerstone, nor any stone for a foundation, for you will be desolate forever, declares the Lord.” It is reliably reported that at least six cities bear the marks of having used parts of ancient Babylon in their building: Seleucia, built by the Greeks; Ctesiphon, by the Parthians; Almaiden, by the Persians; an dKufa, by the Caliphs. Hillah, just a twenty-minute walk from the Babylonian ruins, was built almost entirely from the ruins of Babylon. The builders of Baghdad, fifty miles north of the site of ancient Babylon, also used materials from the ancient city. The Encyclopedia of Lands and People states in reference to Babylon: “They found great treasure and the materials of its wonderful buildings were used for the construction of Baghdad in 762 . . . . and so, during the centuries, the greatness of Babylon and Assyria passed away. Their magnificent cities were used to supply the bricks for succeeding towns and villages, and such ruins as the barbarians left fell into decay until they became shapeless mounds whose very names were forgotten.”" "Babylon," Encyclopedia of Lands and People (New YorK: The Groller Society, 1960), 3:221, cited by Tim LaHaye, "Iraq (Babylon) May Become the Seat of the UN", Ref-0181, March 2004, p. 2. ". . . Jeremiah 51:26 predicts that Babylon’s destruction would be so catastrophic that even her building materials [would never be] used again, and yet the materials from which ancient Babylon originated have been used extensively in the building of many surrounding cities." -- Ref-1567, p. 21.
✪ See Babylon - destruction future.
✪ [merathayim] “double rebellion”: A name used for Babylon in Jer. 50:21. According to Delitzsch it may be equivalent to the Babylonian Marratun, i.e. land by the nar Marratu, “the bitter river” (Persian Gulf) = Southern Babylonia (OHL, under the word). Ref-0039, s.v. MERATHAIM
✪ Reason why Babylon will be rebuilt: "First, Isa 13:6,9 uses the expression “Day of the Lord” to describe the fall of Babylon. Although some may argue that this expression is sometimes used to depict events of judgment that have already happened (Ezek 30:3, 10), the phrase typically concerns a time of divine judgment that is yet future. Second, Isa 13:10-13 predicts that a host of cosmological disturbances will take place when Babylon falls and these obviously did not take place in 539 B.C. Interestingly, these signs have far more in common with language that is used to describe the Second Coming (Matt 24:27-30) than they do to any past event. Third, Isa 13:11-12 indicates that Babylon's judgment will actually inflict punishment upon the world making mankind scarcer than gold. The magnitude of this prophecy obviously never happened in the past and therefore awaits a future fulfillment (Matt 24:21-22). Fourth, Isa 13:19 analogizes Babylon's destruction to the fall of Sodom and Gomorrah. Again, this prophecy does not fit the facts of history. Ancient Babylon gradually declined and therefore never experienced a sudden, fatal cataclysmic destruction as did Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:24-28). Fifth, Isa 13:20-22 predicts that subsequent to her destruction Babylon will never be inhabited again. Yet Babylon has been inhabited numerous times since 539 B.C. 21 Sixth, Isa 14:5-8 predicts that the world will enter a time of universal peace and rest following Babylon's destruction. Certainly such peace and rest did not begin in 539 B.C. Nor are such conditions present in today's war torn world. Seventh, Isa 14:1-4 predicts that Israel's spiritual restoration will transpire immediately after Babylon's demise. Because such a restoration is consistently portrayed as an eschatological event throughout Scripture (Rom 11:26-27), Isa 14:1-4 obviously awaits a future fulfillment. All of these facts make it clear that the prophecy of Isa 13–14 goes far beyond the historic fall of Babylon in 539 B.C. and is speaking of a futuristic destruction of Babylon. . . . We find an identical pattern in Jer 50–51. This passage, like Isa 13–14, also appears in an extended section dealing with God's coming judgment on the surrounding nations (Jer 46–51). Yet Jeremiah appears to be drawing special attention to the Babylon oracle in comparison to the oracles against the other nations. Unlike the other oracles, two full chapters are devoted to predicting the destruction of Babylon. Moreover, there are at least six clues found within Jer 50-51 that clearly require a prophetic fulfillment beyond the historic fall of Babylon in 539 B.C. 24 First, Jeremiah 50:3 predicts that an enemy from the north would destroy Babylon and yet the Persians came from the east. Second, Jeremiah 51:8 predicts that Babylon would be destroyed suddenly and yet the actual destruction of the city was a gradual process taking several centuries. Third, Jeremiah predicts that Babylon would be completely destroyed (Jer 50:3, 13, 26, 39-40; 51:29, 43, 62) and yet Babylon remained productive and populated after her initial fall. In fact, the city was spared and made one of the ruling centers of the Persian Empire with Daniel serving in an administrative position (Dan 5:30; 6:1-3). Fourth, Jeremiah 51:26 predicts that Babylon's destruction would result in even her building materials never being used again and yet the materials from which ancient Babylon have been used extensively in the building of many surrounding cities. Fifth, Jeremiah predicts that believers would flee Babylon upon her destruction (Jer 50:8; 51:6, 45) and yet there is no record of the Jews fleeing Babylon when she fell to the Persians. In fact, Scripture specifically states that Daniel remained in the city after its fall (Dan 5:28, 30-31; 6:1-3). Sixth, Jeremiah predicts the reuniting and national repentance of Israel following Babylon's fall (Jer 50:2, 4-5, 20; 51:50) and yet such a reuniting and repentance never took place. In fact, the postexilic record evidences God's continual rebuking of His people through the ministries of the prophets such as Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Furthermore, as previously indicated, the reuniting and restoration of Israel is typically treated as an eschatological event throughout Scripture (Ezek 37; Rom 11:26-27). In sum, it is quite plain that the prophecies of Isa 13–14 and Jer 50–51 were never fully exhausted in the historic fall of Babylon." Andy Woods, Babylon of the End Times, pp. 5-7. [https://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/topics_by_andy_woods/18_Back_to_Babylon/babylon_article_chafer_conference_2009.pdf] accessed 20120704. "And when we consider how rapidly cities spring up in these days, or are rebuilt, as were Chicago and San Francisco, from the catastrophes that overtook them, it would take but a very few years to rebuild the city of Babylon when once the capitalists of the world decide to do it." Ref-1324, Dan. 5:31. "Another piece of evidence favoring a futuristic Babylon is a prophetic vision found in Zechariah 5:5-11. This vision was given 519 B.C. (Zec. 1:7) . . . Because ancient Babylon had already fallen to the Persians (539 B.C.) by the time that this prophecy was given (519 B.C.), Zechariah’s vision furnishes a clear biblical prediction of a futuristic, rebuilt Babylon. Newton notes, “That this event predicted in this remarkable passage remains still unaccomplished, is sufficiently evident from the fact that Zechariah’s having prophesied after Babylon had received that blow under which it has gradually wanted. Zechariah lived after Babylon had passed into the hands of the Persians . . .” [Benjamin Wills Newton, Babylon: Its Future, History, and Doom, With Remarks on the Future of Egypt and Other Eastern Countries, 3rd ed. (London: Wertheimer, 1890), 64]." -- Ref-1567, p. 29-31. "Early Babylon interpreters: Govett (1813-1901); Newton (1853); Newell (1935); Bullinger (1909); Seiss (1909); Larkin (1919); Pink (1923); Jennings (1937); Pember (1941); Cooper (1942); Lang (1948); Dyer (1979). [Thomas Ice, “Babylon in Bible Prophecy,” https://www.pretrib.org]." -- Ref-1567, p. 83.
✪ ". . .in Isaiah's day [Babylon] was a mere subject province under the Assyrian empire. . . the eighth-century Isaiah foresaw the coming importance of Babylon, her devastation of Palestine, and her ultimate downfall before the onslaughts of the Medes (Isa. 13:17)." Ref-0001, p. 389.
✪ "In my limited library, I have found a number of men who taught a future [literal] Babylon from Revelation 17 and 18. They include the following: B. W. Newton (1853), G.H. Pember (1888), J. A. Seiss (1900), Clarence Larkin (1918), Robert Govett (1920), E. W. Bullinger (1930), William R. Newell (1935), F. C. Jennings (1937), David L. Cooper (1942), G. H. Lang (1945). I am sure that more could be added to the list." -- Thomas Ice, "Babylon in Bible Prophecy", Ref-0181, Vol. VII No. 11, March 2003, p. 5. "the Whore represents a City. . . . Babylon, must therefore be understood literally, otherwise we should have the anomaly of a figure representing a figure." -- A. W. Pink, Ref-0215, "Antichrist in Babylon" "Babylon will be a glorious city, the greatest city ever built and the most influential. Habakkuk calls Antichrist the Chaldean. Babylon will be the glory of his empire and his greatest achievement. . . . The events of the last days of the age await the rebuilding of Babylon. It will be one of the greatest of all signs and possibly the most sensational." Ref-1201, p. 160. "And one of the great debates that I haven't fully resolved yet in my own thinking is whether or not the Babylon pictured in Revelation 17-18 is merely a symbol that is a reference to Rome or whether it is a…that during the Tribulation there will be a literal restoration of the city of Babylon. More and more studies are being done and it's interesting that more and more dispensational scholars have been moving to a position that it is a literal Babylon that will be restored." Ref-1368, p. 30.351-352.
✪ "Nebuchadnezzar was assisted by Astibares, that is, by Astivares, Assuerus, Acksweres, Axeres, or Cy-Axeres, the king of the Medes, in the third year of Jehoiakim. They came with an army of Babylonians, Medes, Syrians, Moabites and Ammonites to the number of ten thousand chariots, one hundred and eighty thousand foot soldiers and one hundred and twenty thousand calvary. They subdued Samaria, Galilee, Scythopolis, and the Jews in the region of Caleed and besieged Jerusalem (2K. 25:2,7; Dan. 1:1). . . . They captured King Jehoiakim alive and bound him in chains for a time (Dan. 1:2; 2Chr. 36:6). They carried the king, Daniel and other people to Babylon along with part of what gold, silver and brass they found in the temple." Ref-1507, p. 104. "God threatened that he would take all the families of the north (that is the armies of the Medes, and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon), and bring them against Judah (Jer. 25:9,15)." Ref-1507, p. 108.
✪ "‘Babylon’ was a common euphemism for ‘Rome’ in the Pseudepigrapha (2 Baruch 11:1, 67:7; Sibylline Oracles 5:143, 159) and in rabbinic writings. Midrash Rabbah on Sos. 1:6 states directly, One calls Rome ‘Babylon.’ Yechiel Lichtenstein on 1 Pe 5:13 remarks that Rome is called ‘Babylon’ since it is always described as the worst kingdom." Those who interpret Babylon in 1Pe. 5:13 as denoting Rome include: Ref-0038. Those who take it as literal Babyon on the Euphrates include: Ref-0147 (see especially note on 1Pe. 5:13), Ref-0187. "In the first century of the Christian era Babylon still stood, for Peter refers to a church there! (See 1 Pet. 5:13)." Ref-0215, Babylon and the Antichrist "1 Peter was written to a predominantly Jewish audience. His use of the word ‘diaspora’ in 1Pe. 1:1 always refers to Jews in all of its New Testament uses (John 7:35; Jas. 1:1) and LXX (Deu. 28:25; 30:4; Isa. 49:6; Ps. 74:2; 2 Macc 1:27). If Babylon refers to Babylon in all of its Old Testament uses, why would 1 Peter 5:13 be the exception considering Peter's Jewish audience? . . . Fruchtenbaum argues that at the time that Peter's epistle was written, Babylonia had the largest concentration of Jews living outside the land. Moreover, Babylon was also the center of Judaism outside the land. The Babylonian Talmud would later be developed from this area. Because Peter was the apostle to the circumcised (Gal. 2:8), it would have been a logical place for him to travel." -- Andy Woods, What is the Identity of Babylon In Revelation_17-18?, [https://www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=46] [https://www.SpiritAndTruth.org/id/articles.htm?7] "Regarding 1 Peter 5:13, Rome proponents cite several reasons to support the conclusion that Peter was speaking of Rome rather than literal Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13. First, tradition places Peter in Rome at the end of his life. Second, according to 1 Peter 5:13, one of Peter's companions was Mark. Mark was with Paul during his first Roman imprisonment (Col. 4:10; Phm. 1:22-23) and may have accompanied Timothy to Rome for the second incarceration (2Ti. 4:11). Therefore, it is more rational to assume that Peter and Mark got together in Rome rather than in Babylon." Andy Woods, The Identity of Babylon in Revelation_17-18, Ref-0055, vol. 9 no. 27 August 2005 142:169, p. 152. "Although the majority of scholars believe that Peter was referring to Rome in 1 Peter 5:13 rather than literal Babylon, it is interesting to note that many prominent interpreters throughout Church history have held to the literal Babylon interpretation. These prominent interpreters include Erasmus, Calvin, Hort, Gregory, Alford, Mayor, Moorehead, and Thiessen." Andy Woods, The Identity of Babylon in Revelation_17-18, Ref-0055, vol. 9 no. 27 August 2005 142:169, pp. 161-162. "The theme of Rome as the “Mystical Babylon ” of the Apocalypse was common in seventeenth century England." Ref-1573, p. 69.
✪ "Zechariah's vision teaches that in God's providence, wickedness, commerce, and religion will once again return to the land of Babylon. Because Babylon had already fallen (539 B.C.) by the time that this prophecy was given (519 B.C.), Zechariah's vision furnishes a clear biblical prediction of a futuristic, rebuilt Babylon. Henry Morris aptly observes, “Zechariah's vision thus clearly foretells a time when the center of world finance and commerce will be removed from its bases in New York and Geneva and other great cities and transported quickly across the world to a new foundation and headquarters in the land of Shinar.”" Andy Woods, Babylon of the End Times, p. 8. [https://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/topics_by_andy_woods/18_Back_to_Babylon/babylon_article_chafer_conference_2009.pdf] accessed 20120704.
✪ "The Messiah -- what is his name?. . .those of the house of Rabbi Yda the Saint say, ‘The sick one,’ as it is said, ‘Surely he hath borne our sicknesses’" (Sanhedrin 98b) Ref-0011, p. 125.
✪ God of wine whose symbol was ivy.
✪ "to speak evil of people" (Dr. Ben Gigi)
✪ Questionable: Luke 8:25 (?);
✪ "The rabbinic interpretation of Gen. 1:2 was that the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters ‘like a dove.’" Ref-0067, Summer 1997.
✪ "While the church age is introduced by the baptism of the Spirit, the kingdom age is to be introduced with a baptism of fire." John Walvoord, Ref-0019, p. 165. Peter omits any mention of fire in his recounting of the baptism of the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius (Acts 11:15-17). "As the Messiah comes, His role includes bringing both New Covenant blessings for His people (baptism with the Holy Spirit) and Day of the Lord wrath (baptism with fire) for His enemies. As salvation history plays out, a time gap will exist between the outworking of these two aspects of His ministry. His baptizing ministry with the Holy Spirit will begin with the events of Acts 2, but the Day of the Lord judgment awaits the future (see 2 Thessalonians 2 and 2 Peter 3)." Michael J. Vlach, The Trinity and Eschatology, Ref-0164 24/2 (Fall 2013) [2013121101.pdf], 199-215, p. 206.
✪ ". . .and therefore they [children] ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that which Christ has done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law that they should be made partners of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death shortly after they were born. . . Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, baptism is to our children. And for this reason St. Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ." The Belgic Confession of Faith, Article XXXIV, cited by Willem VanGemeren, "Systems of Continuity," Ref-0199, p. 41.
✪ "This element of finality in baptism throws significant light on the question of infant baptism. The problem is not whether infant baptism is baptism at all, but that the final and unrepeatable character of infant baptism necessitates certain restrictions in its use" Bonhoeffer, Deitrich, The Cost of Discipleship pp. 234-235.
✪ "Anyone with only a passing acquaintance with L. S. Chafer’s Systematic Theology would know that he tries to stridently defend infant baptism. Who does not know that men like Scofield, Walvoord and others were paedo-baptists?" Paul Henebury, “Kingdom through Covenant” – A Review (Pt.1) [http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/06/28/kingdom-through-covenant-a-review-pt-1] accessed 20130629.
✪ ". . .since they [children], as well as adults, are included in the covenant and the Church of God, and since both redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, the Author of faith, are through the blood of Christ promised to them no less than to adults, they must also by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be ingrafted into the Christian Church. . . as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism was instituted in the new covenant." The Heidelberg Catechism, answer 74, cited by Willem VanGemeren, "Systems of Continuity," Ref-0199, p. 42.
✪ "As the 1640s gave way to the 1650s, more and more children of the earliest settlers failed to experience God’s grace in the same fashion as their parents, and hence they did not seek full membership in the churches. The problem became acute when these children began to marry and have children of their own. Under the Puritans’ Reformed theology, converted people had the privilege of bringing their infant children to be baptized as a seal of god’s covenant grace. Now, however, many of those who had been baptized as infants were not stepping forth on their own to confess Christ. Yet they wanted to have their children baptized. The Puritan dilemma was delicate: leaders wished to preserve the church for genuine believers, but they also wanted to keep as many people as possible under the influence of the church." Ref-0958, p. 48. "The second and third generation saw a disquieting change of temper. The ideal of a church of the regenerate was faced with a condition of increasing indifference and the failure in many of evidence of conversion. A concession to this condition was made in the Half Way Covenant (1662), which without admitting the unregenerate to communion permitted the baptism of their children. The new plan called forth controversy but was at length generally adopted. It may have led to the weakening of the religious life that was characteristic of the early eighteenth century in New England as elsewhere." Ref-1096, p. 341. "Under the initial impulse to institute a pure church, the early New Englanders baptized children only if the parents were full communicant members of the church. But they soon faced a troubling question. What happened if those baptized children grew to adulthood but were never certifiably converted, even though they might be upstanding in other respects? Should the children of these half-way (baptized) church members be baptized? If God's covenant, as the Old Testament clearly said, extended to many generations, how could the grandchildren of the regenerate be denied the sacrament? After much debate, a synod of clergy declared in 1662 that children of half-way members could be baptized." Ref-1348, p. 30. "The great problem was how to reconcile the Old and New Testaments. According to Puritan teaching, the church, being the “new Israel,” was successor to the covenant with the Old Testament nation. This point was crucial for infant baptism because the main justification for children receiving the New Testament sign and seal of the covenant was that God had included children in the promises of the covenant to Israel, ratified by the sign of circumcision." Ref-1348, p. 351. "Although infant baptism was not as much a matter of course in New England as in Anglican England, it was by now regarded virtually as a right. For a respectable family to have unbaptized children or grandchildren would be a stigma." Ref-1348, p. 355.
✪ The Roman Catholic church teaches that: "The faith of the priest, parents, and god-parents justifies the infant in baptism." Ref-0165, p. 31.
✪ "In ceremonial cleansing and in proselyte baptism the individual washed or baptized himself. John is the first to baptize others, and this may account for his name, John the Baptist." Ref-0143, p. 60
✪ "A word needs to be said about the origin of the ordinance of baptism. A popular, modern approach to the origin of the act is to say that it has a Jewish origin, perhaps in the days of the Babylonian captivity, and that John the Baptism merely appropriated for his won use a custom he already found in use. The idea that proselytes to the Jewish religion were baptized, even during Old Testament times, is based on a reference found in the Talmud. Now we must remember that the Talmud was not put down in written form till 300 to 500 years after Christ. And it is very difficult to affirm that all the things now found in the Talmud were in the oral form of the Talmud in Old Testament times. There ware several lines of evidence showing that the act of baptizing people in water originated with John the Baptist. First, John was called “the baptizer” because his practice of immersion was something new--something that people had never seen before. Again, Matthew 21:25ff is evidence that John’s baptism was not of human origin. In the light of this evidence it seems much more probably that the Jews learned the idea of baptizing female proselytes from the Christians, than that the Christians simply are copying a Jewish practice.", Ref-1350, pp. 74-75. "Actually, it is not necessary to go beyond the religious heritage in which Christianity has its roots--the religion of Israel. Here we find baptism by immersion already in existence. Gentiles who espoused Judaism were required to enter its fold by circumcision, baptism, and the offering of a sacrifice. . . . A Gentile convert to Judaism was required to undergo immersion. While he stood in the water, two scholars nearby read some of the lighter and some of the heavier requirements of the Law. Then at the proper time he immersed himself." George E. Rice, Baptism in the Early Church Ref-0066, Vol. 26 No. 1 Winter 2013, 21-23, p. 21.
✪ If a believer was baptized prior to faith in Christ, he should still undergo subsequent Christian baptism in faith.
✪ Hebrew. "Son of command." At first Sabbath after 12 years of age, directly responsible before God thereafter and eligible for father's inheritance. Also qualifies as one of ten adult males needed to found a synagogue. "Luke specifically mentions the visit during Jesus’ twelfth year because Jesus was performing the Jewish mitzvot connected with arriving at the age of puberty." Ref-0146, p. 257. "It was apparently a tradition that children accompany their fathers to the Passover at least a year prior to their reaching puberty (M. Niddah 5:7-9; cf. M. Hagiga 1:1; Pirke Avot 5:24), S. Safrai, ‘Home and Family,’ JPFC 2:771f, notes that T. Hagiga 1:2 indicates that a child was to keep whatever mitzvot he was capable of performing. The later concept of the Bar Mitzvah probably developed from this early tradition." Ref-0146, p. 670, note 9. "The passage from childhood to adolescence was physical, social, legal, and religious. By tradition it was associated with a girl’s twelfth year and a boy’s thirteenth, but these are only approximate figures." Ref-1200, p. 249. "Formal education was usually concluded at the age of twleve or thirteen. At that point many young men began learning a craft or trade. . . . The end of formal education did not mean the end of study. Many men continued either personal or group study throughout life." Ref-1200, p. 258. Questionable: Luke 2:42 (?);
✪ "When bārā’ is in the Qal stem in Hebrew, it is always used with God as the subject of the action, and it always means “create.”" Ref-0819, p. 54.
✪ "Barnabas, Was of Cyprus, but of Jewish descent, his death is supposed to have taken place about A. D. 73.[19]" Ref-1306, loc. 307.
✪ The grace Paul received via Barnabas in Acts 9:27 he refused to extend to John Mark in Acts 15:37.
✪ See Ref-0161, pp. 295-300.
✪ See barren - childless as judgment.
✪ "Bartholomew, Preached in several countries, and having translated the gospel of Matthew into the language of India, he propagated it in that country. He was at length cruelly beaten and then crucified by the impatient idolaters." Ref-1306, loc. 297.
✪ Blessed, Hebrew.
✪ Both numbers indicate completeness. Twelve for the Jewish feeding (the twelve tribes) and seven for the Gentile feeding (completeness). The feeding of the 4,000 was in Gentile territory -- decapolis (Mark 7:31). "Because Christ deliberately involved the disciples (Mat. 15:32-36) in the feeding of the four thousand (Mat. 15:29-39), this miracle was again designed primarily for their benefit. Not only did it reinforce the same lesson that they had learned in the feeding of the five thousand (Mat. 14:13-21), but it also played a role in further expanding their missionary vision. This miracle took place in Gentile territory (Mark 7:31). This seems clear since the crowd glorified the “God of Israel” (Mat. 15:31) and because the Gentile word for basket (spyris) is used (Mat. 16:10; Mark 8:8,20) rather than the Jewish word (kophinos) for basket (Mat. 15:37). Thus, because this crowd was Gentile rather than Jewish, the disciples were not expecting this multitude to be fed. [Toussaint, Behold the King, 197.] The disciples were locked into this way of thinking because their previous ministry consisted of offering the kingdom exclusively to the nation (Mat. 10:5-7; 15:24)." Andy Woods, "The Purpose of Matthew's Gospel, Part II", Ref-0785, Volume 11 Number 34 December 2007, 5:42, p. 26.
✪ Recorded by Roman Historian Ovid. Jupiter and Hermes had come down disguised as human beings, but no one would offer them hospitality except one elderly couple named Baucis and Philemon. For that reason, the whole population was then destroyed with the exception of Baucis and Philemon who became the priest and priestess of the temple of Jupiter (or Zeus) because of their hospitality. Ref-0100, Tape 13:B.