rainerann
Star
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 4,550
It's funny that you should quote Ezekiel because it is the book of Ezekiel that strongly supports the theory that the state of Israel is not the original location of the descendents of Abraham through Jacob, otherwise known as "Israel."As i type the confederacy in Ezekiel 38 which will attack Israel and infuriate God are already amassing along the northern border of Israel who has been bombing Iranian bases in Syria as a preventive measure before the inevitable showdown of war between Israel and the GogMagog confederacy.
It's much later than most think.
Ezekiel 29 to 30 gives a prophecy concerning Egypt. For one, it says in Ezekiel 29:9 that the land will become a desolation. Whether Egypt has had authority over the land or has been subject to another authority, the land has never been desolated. Apparently, the land would be desolated for 40 years and the egyptians would be scattered (Ezekiel 29:13). Egpyt has never experienced any period where there has been a recognizable exodus until the last century. Through wars and whatever, these people have never been inclined to seek their shelter in another location.
It also says that Egypt would become the possesion of Babylon, which never happened. It was the Assyrians who became an authority over Egpyt. While people try to defend that this is accurate because for a period of time Egypt paid tribute to Babylon, this is not exactly what the verse is saying about how Egypt would be given to the Babylon. It appears to have been given to Assyria.
Ezekiel 30:23 also says that the Egyptians would be scattered and again there is no record of migration from Egpyt to other locations. Also again in Ezekiel 30:26 it says that the Egyptians would be scattered.
There is another problem with the description of the judgement towards Tyre in Ezekiel 28. It says in verse 13, "you were in Eden, the garden of God...on the day that you were created." It is interesting to note that if this is referring to Tyre, it could be describing a different location rather than a comparison to Satan.
Interestingly enough, we know that the tigris and the Euphrates run into the Persian gulf and are the rivers described that flow from Eden where several ancient cities were actually desolated so that they are no longer known by their former identities including Babylon, Elam, and the Akkadian empire just to name a few that could actually be the original location that this verse is describing.
As you can see, Tyre that we know as Tyre is no where any of these desolated locations that were once near the rivers mentioned in the description of Eden from Genesis 2.
In addition to this, it is already very well established that there is no evidence of an exodus that took place in Egypt. There is no historical evidence that Israel was ever identified as Israel throughout history. According to the book The Legend of the Septuagint, there is no record of any Jews or Hebrew people in the land of Egpyt until around the time that the Septuagint was made.
On the other hand, there are stories from ancient Mesopotamia, that line up completely with the Bible including the Epic of Gilgamesh, the story of Sargon, the Hammarabi code, finally leading to an exile of the Akkadian empire.
So what is likely to have happened is that around the time of the desolation and captivity of a people who carried the Bible with them, there was a conversion because of the rewards listed for the practice of it. This would explain why the Septuagint has a mystical story of 70 elders who trascribed the text verbatim without knowing how the other was translating the text.
This history of conversion has always been known to us, but isn't recognized often because we know for a long time that King Herod is a descendent of Edomites who were Jewish converts. Forget the conversion of the Khazars. There has always been a conversion from before this that we have known about but rarely credit as the reason that Jesus referred to these same converts as a synogogue of Satan.
This is how the land became known as Israel, because they were not been able to identify the original location or return to this location yet, and it is why there is no evidence that the land that we call Israel was ever called Israel before this.
Finally, in Ezekiel 36:3-5
"This is what the Lord God says: Because they have made you desolate and have trampled you from every side, so that you became a possession for the rest of the nations and an object of people’s gossip and slander, 4 therefore, mountains of Israel, hear the word of the Lord God. This is what the Lord God says to the mountains and hills, to the ravines and valleys, to the desolate ruins and abandoned cities, which have become plunder and a mockery to the rest of the nations all around.
5 “This is what the Lord God says: Certainly in My burning zeal I speak against the rest of the nations and all of Edom, who took[a] My land as their own possession with wholehearted rejoicing and utter contempt so that its pastureland became[b] plunder."
The first bolded section supports what I am saying because it says that land will be restored from desolate ruins and abandoned cities. The area we call Israel/Palestine was not been a desolated ruin or abadoned city to restore. If it were, we would not be arguing over Palestine and Israel so much. We argue over this issue entirely because the Jews did not return to a desolate place. It was not an abandoned city. In fact, it had several times more people than the state of Israel began with.
At the moment, it is likely that in another 20 years, there will be several locations in an ancient Sumerian location that would fit this description. Large parts of Iraq are completely desolate and abadoned. In addition to this, Yemen would also fit this description better than the region known as Israel/Palestine. If there is to be a restoration of a physical location, this is not it. This is deception and believing that it is not deception would qualify as apostacy.
I bolded the second part because it speaks about judgement towards Edom, and I am saying that there was a conversion from Edom proven at least by king Herod's geneology that is likely what Christ was referencing when he called them Jews who claim to be Jews, but are not (Revelation 3:9). Therefore, when the state of Israel comes to an end, it is likely that an angel with say Babylon has fallen on that day (Revelation 18:2).
In conclusion, I think the Bible is telling a different story than what you are saying here, and we should be listening to it. I believe in the accuracy of scripture because I have seen the power of the resurrection in my life and as you can see, I have formed my conclusions with the description of the locations mentioned in the Bible. I don't agree with the conclusions that you are making and more than likely, I will not agree with anything you will respond with. However, I still feel a responsibility to share this. God bless.
Last edited: