Isaiah 13 says that the city of Babylon will never be inhabited again after Cyrus conquered it. It says no Arab will pitch their tent there.

Do you consider Alexander’s venture there in 331 B.C. as inhabiting the city? Perhaps not to the extent of it’s old self, but no criteria was specified. Even when Alex went there he was met by Mazaeus who apparently had taken refuge in the city.
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t44.html 

Saddam Hussein tried to rebuild it. Yes, he never completed it, but isn’t Saddam Arabian? Did he not inhabit that land in order to build it. His forces were Arabian of course; I mean… at least ONE right?

So an Arab pitches a tent. But at the same time, were the Arabs within the city walls with their tents?

Why am I (the person risking my chance at eternal life) having to figure out what god is saying is the standard?

Ok. So let’s say that everything works in the bibles favor here.
No Arab actually set up station within the city.
And that Alexander’s stay and Mazaeus’s stay  are discounted because they didn’t inhabit it to the level it was inhabited before.

How hard is it to predict that a city in the middle of a dessert will not be inhabited ever again to the extent that it was before. When Cyrus redirected the Euphrates river he essentially nuked the place. When you nuke a place it’s not easily inhabited, so your bets are safe for a few thousand years. Due to it’s likely hood of not being inhabited, someone could have just said god is behind this phenomenon. It’s not everyday people think about the likeliness of a place being inhabited; they see the superficial fact that it isn’t and move on with that.

Please respond to this

SO there you have it. Story of my life, people. Long story short; I’m some reincarnated bad ass that’s supposed to serve as the final anti-Christ.

————————————————————————-

Schiaparelli notes that the Hebrew word kesil is

named along with other constellations twice in Job (9:9

and 38:31), and once in Amos (5:8).3 The name generally

means foolish and is used this way frequently in the Bible.

Referring to ‘Can you loose the cords of Orion?’ (NIV)

in Job 38:31, Schiaparelli draws the conclusion that the

Jews at the time of Job somehow envisaged in the kesil

constellation an image of a man chained for his folly.

Schiaparelli considered that only Orion could be regarded

as a suitable candidate for depicting a man in the stars.

Support for this notion that kesil refers to a man that is

bound is found in the Jewish Encyclopaedia:

‘The Aramaic and Syriac names of Orion have

been connected with the ancient Oriental tradition

that Nimrod, who is called in the Bible a hero and

mighty hunter [Genesis 10:8–10; 1 Chronicles

1:10; Micah 5:5], was fettered by God for his

obstinacy in building the tower of Babel, and was

set in the sky (Winer, “B.R.” ii. 157). It is possible

that the ancient Hebrews saw in this constellation

the figure of a man who was naturally regarded as

extraordinarily tall and strong … .’4

Schiaparelli supported his view that Orion was

the correct interpretation by appealing to the renderings

found in the Septuagint (LXX) in Job 38:31, Isaiah

13:10, and in the Latin Vulgate in Job 9:9 and Amos 5:8.

Similarly the Peshitta5 in Job 9:9 and 38:31 translates it

gabarra—‘a strong man’—which is the Syriac name for

Orion. Interestingly the Peshitta translated it in Amos 5:8

as ‘iyutha, which Schiaparelli considers is an error as he

later convincingly indicates that normally ‘iyutha refers

to Hyades.6 However the Jewish Encylcopaedia states

that the Peshitta translates kesil in Amos 5:8 as gabarra.3

Also kesil is not translated consistently by the LXX, which

calls it Hesper in Job 9:9, nor by the Vulgate which calls

it Arcturus in Job 38:31.

According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, the Talmud

also regards kesil as denoting Orion, stating:

‘The Babylonian scribe and physician Samuel

(d. 257), who was celebrated also as an astronomer,

said: “If a comet should pass over Orion the world

would perish” (Bab. Ber. 58b; Yer. Ber. 13c), and

in the same passage of the Babylonian Talmud

further declares that “if it were not for the heat of

Orion, the world could not exist on account of the

cold of the Pleiades, and if it were not for the cold

of Pleiades, the world could not exist on account

of the heat of Orion”.’3

In the view of Schiaparelli there is only one

brilliant constellation that fits the description of a man,

namely that of Orion with its seven stars of first and second

degrees of magnitude. Orion is its Greek name; the Arabs

called it Al-gabbar, Egyptians Sahu, and old Indian myths

Trisanku.

————————————————————————-

I plan on getting close to this, and so far every legend fits my name and my goal.

Irony; and sometimes I think I’m only given the knowledge I have in order to deal with it.

When the subjects are ignorant of the situation and it leads to an action taken by the god that would seem unfitting to the subjects.

To preserve the god’s goal, the unfitting action had to take place.