Can you or can you not back up this statement with any evidence "The LITERAL event of Babylon being sacked by the Medes took place in 539 BC.?"
"When one examines the historical record concerning the fall of the city of Babylon in 539 B.C. to Persia (Dan. Dan. 5:30-31), it is clear that the term destruction is much too strong a word to describe what actually transpired. Babylon has never been destroyed at the hands of a catastrophic attack as prophesied in the OT. (Mr. Unger was certainly not a Preterist- A New World
The city fell by complete surprise. Half of the metropolis was captured before the rest of it was aware of the fact, according to Herodotus. Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates and by night entered the city through the dried up channel." (Dan. Dan. 5:30-31). (Merrill F. Unger, Ungers Commentary on the Old Testament (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2002), Jer. 50:23.
I'm not testing God. I'm questioning preterist assumptions/presuppositions. Is there anything factual in any historical reference to the destruction of Babylon which in any way can be figuratively described as "the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. . . .I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger?" Or is it your position that all of those distinct events refer to the fall olf Babylon?
The fall of Babylon, described in apocalyptic, figurative language by Isaiah, was a transition of kingdoms. God removed Babylon as a kingdom forever. Notice, when king Belshazzar was slain by Darius the Mede, Babylon ceased to exist as a kingdom. Her lights went out metaphorically speaking. She was replaced by the Medo-Persian empire.
Jesus used similar language (Mt. 24:29-31) which I believe the disciples knew was kingdom related. They asked Jesus about the end of the age in which they were living. His answer was in that context.
Maybe you want to take the Dispensationalist approach and posit another literal Babylonian kingdom (they thought Saddam Hussein was a modern Nebuchadnezzar) and another Medo-Persian empire (who knows who they think that is, or will be) in our future.
So heaven and earth, sun, moon, stars, etc refer to just anything you want it to, to support preterist assumptions/presuppositions. For example in Isa 13:6 and 13 heaven and earth refer to the literal heaven and earth but 3 vss. later in vs. 16 it supposedly refers to Israel. Very convenient.
Not just anything we want. Isaiah gave the prophecy, "Wail, for the day of the LORD is near! It will come as destruction from the Almighty," "Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold." (Isaiah 13:6,17 NASB), and it took place in history.
Because of the historical fulfillment I'm confident of the intent behind the figurative language, "For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not flash forth their light; The sun will be dark when it rises And the moon will not shed its light." It was about kingdom removal, and the transition from one kingdom to another, at the hands of the Creator and Sustainer of all things.
Upvote
0