The Origin of the Term Armageddon

This is the place to discuss anything to do with scriptural doctrine. It is the primary purpose of this site, and most discussions will be here.
Forum rules
Matt 18:6; Eccl 7:9; 1 Pet 4:8 (If you're not sure what they say then please hover over them with your mouse or look them up in your own Bible before posting)
Post Reply
Message
Author
Bobcat
Posts: 3367
Joined: 7 years ago

The Origin of the Term Armageddon

#1 Post by Bobcat » 10 months ago

The essay that follows is about the origin of the term "Armageddon." The material appears as it is in the essay with a few formatting edits: I added sub-titles to help break apart the main ideas as they are presented. And I added paragraph numbers for easier reference to particular ideas or thoughts. And I have broken the whole into three posts so as to not stress the forum's posting limits.

Originally I thought of adding this to this thread. But the subject of the origin of the term Armageddon is itself wide enough to justify its own thread.

Part 1:

From the book, Crossing the Boundaries, Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder


The Origin of Armageddon

Revelation 16:16 as an Interpretation of Zechariah 12:11

by John Day



Introduction

1. It is remarkable how far the notion of a final battle of Armageddon has entered into the popular consciousness, when we consider that there is only one allusion in the whole Bible to the name Armageddon, namely in Rev 16:16. This is part of the section in Rev 16:12-16 recounting the wrath of the sixth bowl, in which the unclean spirits like frogs, issuing from the mouth of the dragon, the beast and the false prophet, assembled the kings of the whole world for battle on the great day of God the Almighty. Finally, verse 16 reads, "And they assembled them at the place which is called in Hebrew Armageddon." There is no consensus as to the origin and meaning of the name Armageddon, or, more precisely, Harmagedon (Ἁρμαγεδών). John does not bother to give a Greek translation as he does for the Hebrew word Abaddon in Rev 9:11. The most favoured view is that it means "mountain of Megiddo," but it still has many dissenters, and even for those who follow it there is disagreement about whence exactly the term was derived and why Megiddo should be called a mountain.

2. According to H. Gunkel (Schopfung und Chaos), the name Armageddon was derived from apocalyptic tradition, the meaning of which was probably unknown to the author of Revelation. He compared, for example, 1 Enoch 6:6, where the fallen angels of Genesis 6 gather on Mt. Hermon. Gunkel's view was followed by W. Bousset and I. T. Beckwith, and more recently by E. Lohse. That the name was derived from some apocalyptic tradition is indeed likely. That we do not know the meaning and are unable to deduce its source is a counsel of despair, however, and as we shall see later, unjustified.


Modern Views of Armageddon's Origin

3. In a note added to H. Gunkel's book (ibid, H Gunkel. p. 389, n. 2), H Zimmern put forward the view . . . that Armageddon derives from [Gesemigadon], a name sometimes encountered in magical spells of the early centuries of the Christian era. It is the name of the husband of [Ershkigal], the Babylonian goddess of the underworld. However, there is nothing in the book of Revelation to suggest any connection with him, and this view has long been forgotten. It was a product of the excesses of the pan-Babylonian period.

4. Another view, one still with some lingering support, claims that Armageddon reflects an underlying Hebrew har mo'ed "mount of Assembly," the site of the mythological mountain which was the object of the ambitions of Lucifer (symbolizing the king of Babylon) in Isa 14:13. This view was first proposed by F. Hommel followed by Johannes Jeremias, and popularized by C. C. Torrey, who equated the mount of Assembly with Jerusalem (cf. Ps 48:5), and has more recently gained the support of M. Rissi and E. Loasby. Joachim Jeremias seems to have been quite attracted to this view, but drew back from supporting it because he felt that the Greek y (gamma) was an inappropriate letter to represent the Hebrew ', when the underlying Semitic root (as we know from Arabic) had an ', not gh. This particular objection is invalid, however, since in the LXX Greek y can be equivalent to proto-Semitic ' as well as gh. Rather, the appropriate objection is that har mo'ed is too remote in form to be a credible source of the [word] Armageddon. For har mo'ed we should expect either Harmoed or Harmoged, not Harmagedon. Hommel and Torrey admittedly sought to overcome this difficulty by supposing that a redactor changed the original Greek transliteration to Harmagedon because he was unfamiliar with the original form and in order to bring it into line with "mountain of Megiddo." This, however, is speculative. Moreover, if, as I shall argue, sense can be made of the meaning "mountain of Megiddo," then it is unnecessary to seek some quite other form behind it.

5. A view first suggested by an anonymous writer in 1887 and followed more recently by J. W. Bowman, and viewed sympathetically by the editorial staff of Encyclopaedia Judaica, maintains that the underlying Hebrew is Har migdo "his fruitful mountain," with reference to Mt. Zion. But this particular phrase is never elsewhere employed of Mt. Zion or anywhere else. In any case, we expect to have here a proper place name and not simply an epithet.

6. Another alleged epithet for Jerusalem which has been held to lie behind Armageddon is har hemda "the desirable city," but this expression is never attested of Jerusalem or anywhere else, and as has already been mentioned, a place name seems required. Further, the possible occurrence of 'ar for 'ir "city" in Hebrew ('ar never being attested) is restricted to a Moabite place name Ar (cf. Num 21:15, 28; Deut 2:9, 18, 24; Isa 15:1).

7. Another minority view is that of A. van den Born, who has suggested that Armageddon means "mount of (the) Macedonian," i.e. Alexander the Great. However, this seems purely speculative with nothing to commend it, and indeed, it has gained no support.

8. The form of the word "Armageddon" most naturally suggests the underlying Hebrew har megiddon "mountain of Megiddo," and this still seems to be the majority position. Occasionally in the past it has been supposed that the meaning is rather "the city of Megiddo" ('ar [for 'ir) megiddon), but this is unlikely, since, as has already been noted, the possible occurrence of 'ar for 'ir in Hebrew is confined to the Moabite place named Ar. "The land of Megiddo" ('ara megiddon) was also once suggested, but there is even less reason to see why Megiddo should be called a land than a mountain, and the vocalization tells against it. Rather the vocalization more naturally suggests "the mountain of Megiddo" (har megiddon). One may compare, for example, 'Argarizin "Mt. Gerizim" in Psuedo-Eupolemos (reported in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 9.17.5).
Note from Bobcat: The writer of the essay points out in a footnote that he only sampled views from recent centuries, and not those of the patristic era.

Bobcat (Part 2 continued in next post)

Bobcat
Posts: 3367
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: The Origin of the Term Armageddon - Part 2

#2 Post by Bobcat » 10 months ago

The essay that follows is about the origin of the term "Armageddon." The material appears as it is in the essay with a few formatting edits: I added sub-titles to help break apart the main ideas as they are presented. And I added paragraph numbers for easier reference to particular ideas or thoughts. And I have broken the whole into three posts so as to not stress the forum's posting limits.

Originally I thought of adding this to this thread. But the subject of the origin of the term Armageddon is itself wide enough to justify its own thread.

Part 2:

From the book, Crossing the Boundaries, Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder


The Origin of Armageddon

Revelation 16:16 as an Interpretation of Zechariah 12:11

by John Day



From Where Did Armageddon Come?

9. Whence did the author of Revelation derive the concept of an end-time battle at Armageddon? Commentators often note that Megiddo was the scene of a couple of significant battles in the Old Testament, namely, the victory of Deborah and Barak over Sisera and the Canaanites (Jdg 5:19) and the defeat of Josiah by Pharaoh Necho in 609 BCE (2Ki 23:29-30; 2Ch 35:22). One might also mention Ahaziah, king of Judah's death at Megiddo following his earlier battle wounds (2Ki 9:27). However, whilst the name of Megiddo was therefore associated with battles, something more than this must have been necessary to introduce it into the scenario of the end-time battle in the book of Revelation, since Old Testament tradition associated this rather with Jerusalem (Zechariah 12, 14; Joel 3-4).
Note from Bobcat: Saul was also defeated in the area near Megiddo. (1Sa 28:4) Saul was camped at Mt Gilboa (which is roughly 10 miles east of Megiddo) and the Philistines were camped at Shunem (which is some 5 miles north of the western end of Mt Gilboa and overlooks the Jezreel valley). The Jezreel valley runs NW to SE on the north side of Megiddo. The map in appendix B-7 in the rNWT shows this area. For a discussion of Saul and the witch at Endor see this thread.


10. The most natural assumption is that John took up the reference to Megiddo from Zech 12:11: "On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-Rimmon in the valley of Megiddo." First, it should be noted, Zech 12:11 is the only place prior to Revelation where Megiddo is mentioned in an apocalyptic context. Zechariah 12 is one of those proto-apocalyptic passages which is concerned with the end-time onslaught of the foreign nations against Zion (cf. Zech 12, 14; Joel 3-4). It is precisely one of those chapters which we should expect the author of Revelation to have used when forming his picture of the eschatological battle.

11. Secondly - a point hitherto overlooked - it is significant that Zech 12:11 is the only instance in the Old Testament where the Hebrew MT spells Megiddo as megiddon rather than megiddo. We thus have a ready explanation why the place in Revelation is called Armageddon rather than Armageddo. It is true that there are a few occasions in the Greek of the LXX where the name has a final "n" - but the normal spelling is without "n", and the precise form Magedon is found only in Jdg 1:27 and 2Ch 35:22. In any case it is clear that the writer of Revelation was dependent on a Hebrew source at this point, for Rev 16:16 states that "the place . . . is called in Hebrew Armageddon." (Note from Bobcat: This PDF also lists Zech 12:11 as the source for mageddon - the latter part of Armageddon.)
Footnote 20: Careful studies have shown that John often used the Hebrew MT of the Old Testament. . . Interestingly, Rev 1:7's citation from the verses adjacent to Zech 12:11, i.e. Zech 12:10, 12, does not reflect the LXX version. . . It can therefore not be claimed that John would have used Zech 12:11 in the LXX version, where all reference to Megiddo is missing.

12. Thirdly, there is considerable evidence that the book of Zechariah has exerted a pervasive influence throughout the book of Revelation. Among the clearest examples are the four different coloured horses (Zech 1:8; 6:1-3; cf. Rev 6:2-8). the man with the measuring rod (Zech 2:5; cf. Rev 11:1), the two olive trees (Zech 4:3, 11-14; cf. Rev 11:4), and various aspects of the New Jerusalem (Zech 14:7, 8, 11; cf. Rev 21:25; 22:1, 3). Especially significant for our purpose, however, is the fact that part of the verses immediately preceding and following Zech 12:11, i.e. Zech 12:10, 12, are alluded to in Rev 1:7, ". . . and every eye will see him, everyone who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will wail on account of him." Zech 12:11, therefore, must have been known to the author of Revelation and been significant for his depiction of the apocalyptic scenario, since it inherently relates to Zech 12:10, 12. Evidence that Zech 12:11 has indeed influenced Rev 16:16 may be sought further in the fact that closely related verses of Revelation 16 show evidence of influence from succeeding sections of Zechariah. Thus, we read that the kings are assembled to Armageddon by three unclean spirits, one of which emerges from the mouth of the false prophet (Rev 16:13); cf. Zech 13:2, only five verses after Zech 12:11, where Yahweh promises to remove from the land "the prophet and the unclean spirit." Again, at the climax of the septet of bowls, Rev 16:18-19 speaks of a great earthquake resulting in the great city being split into three parts. That "the great city" is here Jerusalem and not Rome is supported by the fact that in Rev 11:13, at the climax of the earlier septet of trumpets, Jerusalem (called "the great city" in Rev 11:8) is likewise afflicted by earthquake. It is attractive to suppose that the depiction in Rev 16:18-19 is dependent on the eschatological earthquake in Jerusalem in Zech 14:4-5, where mountain-splitting is also referred to. Finally, it is tempting to suppose that Rev 16:14 is dependent on a related passage of Zechariah, namely Zech 14:1-2. Compare Rev 16:14's reference to ". . . the kings of the whole world, to assemble them for battle on the great day of God the Almighty" with Zech 14:1-2, where we read that "a day of the Lord is coming . . . For I will assemble all the nations against Jerusalem for battle."
Footnote 21: For a recent defense of the view that the great city in Rev 16:19 is Jerusalem, not Rome, see J. P. Ruiz, Ezekiel in the Apocalypse: The Transformation of Prophetic Language in Revelation 16:17-19:10, (1989; pp. 281-89). [Note from Bobcat: For additional defense of this view, see also this thread. On the phrase, "became/was split into three parts" in Rev 16:19a being an allusion to Ezekiel 5:1-2, 5, see this post. See also here.].

13. Because Megiddo is not itself a mountain it has sometimes been supposed that the reference to Armageddon alluded to the nearest mountain, i.e. Mt Carmel. This view was put forward by E. Lohmeyer, and has had recent defenders in W. H. Shea and perhaps J. Paulien (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, p.395, 1992 edition). Mt Carmel is held to be significant in that it was here that Elijah successfully confronted the false prophets of Baal (1Ki 18). Lohmeyer also drew attention to a much later Mandaean work, Ginza, where demonic powers gathered on Mt. Carmel in order to concoct the mysteries of love. However, this is quite different from Revelation 16, where demonic spirits assemble the kings to Armageddon for the eschatological battle. In any case, "the mountain of Megiddo" is unlikely to denote Mt. Carmel, since Megiddo is some 10 km from the south-eastern end of Carmel and there is no evidence that Mt. Carmel was ever called the mountain of Megiddo; it would have been simpler to call it Mt. Carmel. A. M. Farrer aptly comments, "As well call Ben Nevis 'Mt Fortwilliam'." (The Revelation of Saint John the Divine, p.167) Other occurrences of this kind of expression would lead one to believe that it is Megiddo itself which is regarded as the mountain - cf. Argarizin (Mt Gerizim) in Psuedo-Eupolemos (in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 9.17.5) and other instances in the Old Testament of har and a name, e.g. Mt. Zion.

14. Even more far fetched are the occasional suggestions that "the mountain of Megiddo" is a code name for some totally different place. This is the case with H. Ewald's suggestion that Armageddon = Rome, because the numerical value of 'rmgdn and rwmh hgdlh "Rome is great" is 304, and the proposal of A.G. Beagley that Armageddon = Jerusalem. [Note from Bobcat: The writer ls referring to "Rome" as an interpretation of "Babylon the Great."]

Bobcat (Part 3 continued in next post)

Bobcat
Posts: 3367
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: The Origin of the Term Armageddon - Part 3

#3 Post by Bobcat » 10 months ago

The essay that follows is about the origin of the term "Armageddon." The material appears as it is in the essay with a few formatting edits: I added sub-titles to help break apart the main ideas as they are presented. And I added paragraph numbers for easier reference to particular ideas or thoughts. And I have broken the whole into three posts so as to not stress the forum's posting limits.

Originally I thought of adding this to this thread. But the subject of the origin of the term Armageddon is itself wide enough to justify its own thread.

Part 3:

From the book, Crossing the Boundaries, Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder


The Origin of Armageddon

Revelation 16:16 as an Interpretation of Zechariah 12:11

by John Day



Why Call Megiddo a Mountain?

15. But why should Megiddo be called a mountain? It has frequently been noted that Megiddo is not a mountain; elsewhere we read of "the valley of Megiddo" (2Ch 35:22; Zech 12:11) but not of "the mountain of Megiddo." This does not mean that Megiddo was itself a valley or a plain, as R.H. Preston and A.T. Hanson, and G.E. Ladd suppose; rather it was a tell or mound in a plain (the Jezreel or Esdraelon valley). Occasionally it has been supposed that the term "mountain of Megiddo" might have arisen from knowledge of the actual mound or tell of Megiddo, which is hill-like in form, and in which the debris of twenty archaeological strata of occupation have accrued. It is uncertain, however, whether the location of Megiddo at Tell el-Mutesellim was still known in ca. 90 CE, since it had been abandoned in ca. 332 BCE, and the precise site was certainly unknown later to Jerome. Possibly, however, it was known; in any case, sites tended to be on either hills or mounds. It is arguable - though I have never seen this put forward before - that the reference to the "valley of Megiddo" in Zech 12:11 suggested a mountain, since a mountain and valley naturally go together.

16. In any case, it is likely that the term "mountain" was influenced by Ezek 38:8; 39:2, 4, 17, which predict that the eschatological conflict will take place "on the mountains of Israel." The influence of Ezekiel 38-39 is clearly apparent elsewhere, not only in Rev 20:7-10, which make explicit mention of Gog and Magog, but also in Rev 19:17-21, which take up the motif in Ezek 39:4, 17-20 of birds eating the flesh of the foreign rulers and warriors who take part in the eschatological battle. (Note that the beast and the false prophet appear in both Rev 16:13 and Rev 19:20.) Moreover, the pervasive influence of Ezekiel throughout Revelation is abundantly obvious, as has been emphasized by A. Vanhoye, J. Lust, M.D. Goulder and J.P. Ruiz. It is noteworthy that Revelation has a tendency of conflating themes from different Old Testament books (including Ezekiel). For example, Rev 4:6-8 conflate the four creatures of Ezekiel 1 with the six-winged seraphim of Isaiah 6; the lament over Rome (Babylon) in Revelation 18 conflates parts of Ezekiel's oracles against Tyre in Ezekiel 26-27 with parts of various Old Testament prophetic oracles against Babylon; and Rev 22:1-3's depiction of the river of the water of life flowing from the throne of God, with trees on each side, with leaves for the healing of the nations, etc. clearly owes some elements to Ezekiel 47 and others to Zechariah 14 (cf. Rev 22:11 with Ezek 47:1; Rev 22:2 with Ezek 47:12; Rev 22:1a with Zech 14:8; Rev 22:3 with Zech 14:11). What I am proposing, that Armageddon in Rev 16:16 is a conflation of Zech 12:11 with Ezek 38-39, is therefore totally in keeping with the book of Revelation's methods elsewhere.


"At" or "For" Hadad-Rimmon?

17. The majority view nowadays renders Zech 12:11 as follows: On that day the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Hadad-Rimmon in the valley of Megiddo." However, there is still some dispute among scholars whether we should understand the mourning as being for Hadad-Rimmon, understood as a dying and rising fertility god, or whether the mourning is rather at Hadad-Rimmon, taken as a place name. The Hebrew literally has "the mourning of Hadad-Rimmon," so the debate is over whether we have an objective or a subjective genitive here. Linguistic criteria alone do not provide a decisive solution, since whereas it might be argued that we should more naturally expect kemisped 'al hadadrimmon rather than kemisped hadadrimmon if Hadad-Rimmon were a divine name (cf. kemisped 'al-yahid in Zech 12:10), it may also be pointed out, if Hadad-Rimmon were a place name, we should more naturally expect it to be preceded by be "in," as with Jerusalem in Zech 12:11. Rather the decisive arguments are as follows: In favor of Hadad-Rimmon's being a divine name (objective genitive) is the fact that Hadad was another name for Baal, who is well known as a dying and rising fertility god for whom ritual mourning was made, as is attested in the Ugaritic texts (cf. KTU 1.5.VI.11-25 and 1.5.VI31-1.6.I.8). (One might compare also the ritual laceration by the prophets of Baal in 1Ki 18:28 and the women weeping for the Babylonian fertility god Tammuz in Ezek 8:14.) Rimmon, too was the name of a Syrian storm god (2Ki 5:18) and one naturally equated with Hadad. On the other hand, there is no evidence in the Old Testament for a place named Hadad-Rimmon. Those who hold, nevertheless, that it is a place name, tend to assume that the mourning was for king Josiah, who was killed in battle in the valley of Megiddo in 609 BCE (2Ch 35:22; 2Ki 23:29). However, the mourning for Josiah, to which the Chronicler refers as continuing up to his own time (2Ch 35:24-25), is not represented as taking place in the valley of Megiddo. Zechariah 12:11 therefore seems to testify rather to the pagan cult of the Syrian god Hadad-Rimmon being practiced near Megiddo in the post-exilic period. This would cohere with the discovery of some fertility figurines at Megiddo dating from the Persian period, in stratum 1 (539-332 BCE).

18. As time went on, however, knowledge of the fertility cult of Hadad-Rimmon disappeared among the Jews. Consequently Zech 12:11 was subject to reinterpretation. The writer of Revelation may have understood Hahad-Rimmon as a place name, as later in Jerome, or conceivably as a personal name. It was then possible to suppose that Zech 12:11 implied that there would be mourning contemporaneously in the valley of Megiddo and in Jerusalem. Furthermore, we know from the allusion to Zech 12:10, 12 in Rev 1:7, "and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all the tribes of the earth will wail on account of him," that ha' ares ["the land"], which is to mourn in Zech 12:12, was now understood by the seer of the Apocalypse to denote "the earth" (cf. Mt 24:30) rather than "the land," as had originally been intended in Zechariah. Putting all this together, we may presume that an understanding arose that the nations of the earth coming up to do battle against Jerusalem, these were naturally understood to be the same nations as those mourning in the valley of Megiddo in Zech 12:11. That is to say, the mourning at Megiddo is by the nations in the context of the eschatological battle against Jerusalem. In this way the writer of Revelation deduced the idea of an end-time assembly for battle at Megiddo. Since Ezekiel 38-39's description of the end-time battle implied defeat for the enemies on the mountains of Israel, and the reference to "the valley of Megiddo" in Zech 12:11 implied the presence also of a mountain, the author of Revelation coined the expression Armageddon, "mountain of Megiddo."


Conclusion

19. Although a connection between Zech 12:11 and Rev 16:16 has previously been suggested in passing by A.M. Farrer (here), no one hitherto has spelled out fully the reasons for holding this to be the case or explained how the seer of the Apocalypse was able to interpret the reference in Zechariah in the way that he did. This I have endeavored to do in the present essay.

20. It is a pleasure to dedicate this essay to Professor Michael Goulder, who, unusually in our age of specialization, has crossed the boundaries between Old and New Testament studies, something which I have attempted to emulate in a small way here.
[Note from Bobcat: I left this last paragraph in because it helped explain the title of the book, Crossing the Boundaries. On Michael Goulder, see here. See the book here.]

Bobcat (This is the end of the essay)

Bobcat
Posts: 3367
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: The Origin of the Term Armageddon

#4 Post by Bobcat » 10 months ago

I added links to some of the referenced documents in the essay above.


Bobcat

Bobcat
Posts: 3367
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: The Origin of the Term Armageddon

#5 Post by Bobcat » 1 week ago

I posted on another board regarding "Armageddon" that I wanted to include here for reference. The OP asked, Was your faith in Armageddon connected to current events?

My response was:
I used to have the WT view of Armageddon referring to a final battle. And, indirectly, it does. But I have come to appreciate that Armageddon, based on Rev 16:13, 14, 16 refers to a "place" where worldwide forces mobilize against God's people. Megiddo and the surrounding area, as a staging area for foreign armies, would have posed an imminent threat to the ancient nation of Israel.

Now I take Armageddon as implying a movement against Christianity (as opposed to natural Israel), and thus, for me, "the place called Armageddon" is a symbolic place. It is also possible that the Har [meaning "mountain"] in Harmageddon is an allusion to Ezek 38:7-9. (See this thread for additional.)

In Rev 16:16-21 the gathering of forces to Armageddon (Rev 16:16) prompts a (destructive) response from God (Rev 16:17f; just as it does in Ezek 38:17-23). So, from that standpoint, "Armageddon" could be described as a "battle" since battles are often named by the place where they are fought (e.g. Normandy, Marathon, etc). But more happens at "Armageddon" than just a final battle. (Compare Rev 16:19)

Vanderhoven's link on page 1 of this thread (this link; down a ways in the portion where Rev 16:16 is discussed), although it understands a preterist (1st century) application of Rev 16, it does correctly apply the term Armageddon to a gathering of foreign/enemy forces against those who are viewed as God's people.

So, back to the question in the thread topic, I now see the approach of Armageddon as being related to a worldwide anti-Christian movement on the part of all governments. Whether it happens in my lifetime or not remains to be seen. And how one nation (such as Russia or China) acts towards Christianity is not necessarily indicative that the time has arrived.

In Rev 16:13-14 the "False Prophet" is one of the leaders in prompting this gathering of forces. I currently understand this to be the US/GB (i.e. Great Britain) so that, a more significant indication of the approach of Armageddon would be the attitude of the US towards Christianity. There are some indications of changes in attitudes in the US towards Christianity even now, but nothing yet of the sort described in Rev 16:13, 14, 16.

Another factor related to this is that, if the "False Prophet" is portraying the US/GB, then, it would imply that the US is still a predominate nation, able to influence a worldwide gathering of forces. Currently, the US seems to be on the verge of losing that dominate influential position. So, based on what I said just above, one might think that the gathering to Armageddon would [have to be] not be too far off in the future, that is, if how I currently understand things holds true. [Either that, or, the "False Prophet" is not to be identified with the US/GB.]

Of course, such views are subject to change, mine included. But that is how I understand things at the moment.

As such, other wars, pandemics, food shortages, cries of peace and security, et al, are not related to how close Armageddon is. On the other hand, Rev 9:20-21 which is part of the 6th Trumpet, portrays the majority of mankind as becoming set in their rejection of Christianity. This parallels with the gathering of forces to Armageddon in the 6th bowl (Rev 16:12-16). So the two combined portray a total rejection by the world of real Christianity and a movement to get rid of it. All of this together is what prompts God to react in the 7th Trumpet (Rev 11:15-19) and the 7th bowl (Rev 16:17-21) which essentially describe the same thing (i.e. a time of destructive judgment by God).
(Parts in brackets "[ ]" were added afterwards because I had run out of editing time on the other site. - Bobcat)


It is noteworthy that the verb "gathered" in Rev 16:16 is in the aorist tense. This would logically place the 'gathering to Armageddon' as something that happens in or during the events of the 6th bowl (Rev 16:12-16). This also places the gathering to Armageddon before the beginning of God's response (Rev 16:17) and before the "great earthquake" and the events that ensue (Rev 16:18-21).

See also this thread for additional regarding how the "little horn" (the 11th horn of Dan 7) makes war with the "holy ones" just prior to having its ruling authority taken away (Dan 7:25, 26). And this post for how I understand how the "great earthquake" of Rev 16:18-21 begins with an attack on Christianity. This post has a column comparison between Mt 24:15-31 and Rev 16:16-21


Bobcat

Dajo1
Posts: 346
Joined: 5 years ago

Re: The Origin of the Term Armageddon

#6 Post by Dajo1 » 1 week ago

Thank you for raising this topic Bobcat - was just about to hit the sack for the night when I spotted your post.

I have had a recurring gut feeling and thought annoyance in my head that Armageddon is/will be a quite different event or "happening" to my JW taught mind.

I have entertained a range of speculative options including the (maybe extreme) theory that it is a spiritual thing that happens in the live of all who might endeavor to be a follower of Christ. A Decisive time one must go through - involving every single human who has ever lived.

After read through your posts I did a search putting all of the individual words from that question that was asked of you in " **** " quote marks.

An interesting read was found here. It is quite "Tel" ing.

To quote a sentence from the article:
"The “mount” of Megiddo in northern Israel is not actually a mountain, but a tell (a mound or hill created by many generations of people living and rebuilding on the same spot)"

It's on "top of" so to speak, or "covers many many peoples ...
... Good night. Sleep tight! https://brewminate.com/exploring-end-ti ... ss-faiths/

Dajo

Bobcat
Posts: 3367
Joined: 7 years ago

Re: The Origin of the Term Armageddon

#7 Post by Bobcat » 1 week ago

Thanks for the link David. It looks like an interesting read. As I understand it, there are 20+ layers of archaeological findings in the tel of Megiddo.


Bobcat

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests