Looking for prophecy about survivers of Armageddon

[Christian Mormon]

I am looking for the prophecy about how the survivors of the battle of Armageddon will have to settle somewhere in the world that nobody wants and I think it's in the Old Testament. I just need help finding it

[ksfisher]

9 hours ago, Christian Mormon said:

I am looking for the prophecy about how the survivors of the battle of Armageddon will have to settle somewhere in the world that nobody wants and I think it's in the Old Testament. I just need help finding it

The battle at Armageddon is prophesied in Revelation 16:14, 16.  No mention of survivors settling anywhere.

According to Wikipedia re the Old Testament:

"Megiddo is mentioned twelve times in the Old Testament, ten times in reference to the ancient city of Megiddo, and twice with reference to "the plain of Megiddo", most probably simply meaning "the plain next to the city".^[10] None of these Old Testament passages describes the city of Megiddo as being associated with any particular prophetic beliefs." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon

[bOObOO]

14 hours ago, Christian Mormon said:

I am looking for the prophecy about how the survivors of the battle of Armageddon will have to settle somewhere in the world that nobody wants and I think it's in the Old Testament. I just need help finding it

The process of seeking is always more rewarding when you find for yourself what you are seeking.  I could probably tell you but I would not want to rob you of some of that fun.  Probably something from Ezekiel or Zephaniah.

Here is a good link to give you an overall summary of what will be involved a little later in these days: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-kings-malachi/enrichment-i?lang=eng

 

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Christian Mormon said:

I am looking for the prophecy about how the survivors of the battle of Armageddon will have to settle somewhere in the world that nobody wants and I think it's in the Old Testament. I just need help finding it

I don't think that there will be an end to Armageddon in mortality once it has started.   My understanding is that Armageddon signals the end of the world.  Armageddon will be in progress when the Lord "comes out of hiding".   So, I suppose the "survivors" will be with the Lord in millennial rest.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-kings-malachi/enrichment-i?lang=eng

Edited October 14, 2021 by pogi

[Kenngo1969]

Perhaps I don't understand your question.  If that is the case, I'm sure the fault is mine, but let's look at it logically for a second.  After the Battle at Armageddon, who is left to say, "No, no, you go live there, we don't want to"?  If, after the Battle of Armageddon, anyone is left to say that, wouldn't they be the kind of people who ... should have perished perished in the Battle of Armageddon (or in plague, or in pestilence, or in famine, ad infinitum)? 

And notwithstanding the chaos that, undoubtedly, will reign in the run-up to and during the Battle of Armageddon, already, Zion, the New Jerusalem, will have been established.  Since, already, the New Jerusalem will have been established, if it is the only desirable spot left on the planet during and after the Battle of Armageddon (in my mind, that's a debatable proposition, given both the geographic reality that Zion will be limited in scope along with the demographic reality that more people will want to live there than, physically, it will be able to accommodate, but let's just run with it for a second) anyone who is willing to live in peace will be welcome to live in (at) New Jerusalem.  And if anyone who is willing to live it peace will be welcome at New Jerusalem, why would it be somewhere of which people will say,  "No, no, you go live there.  We don't want to"?

Now, there are prophecies of people who will think that Zion, aka the New Jerusalem, is "terrible" for the opposite reason—who want to wipe it off of the map because, since it is righteous, the Lord's glory is there—but that, of course, is a far, far different thing than, "No, no, you go live there.  We don't want to."

[bOObOO]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps I don't understand your question.  If that is the case, I'm sure the fault is mine, but let's look at it logically for a second.  After the Battle at Armageddon, who is left to say, "No, no, you go live there, we don't want to"?  If, after the Battle of Armageddon, anyone is left to say that, wouldn't they be the kind of people who ... should have perished perished in the Battle of Armageddon (or in plague, or in pestilence, or in famine, ad infinitum)? 

And notwithstanding the chaos that, undoubtedly, will reign in the run-up to and during the Battle of Armageddon, already, Zion, the New Jerusalem, will have been established.  Since, already, the New Jerusalem will have been established, if it is the only desirable spot left on the planet during and after the Battle of Armageddon (in my mind, that's a debatable proposition, given both the geographic reality that Zion will be limited in scope along with the demographic reality that more people will want to live there than, physically, it will be able to accommodate, but let's just run with it for a second) anyone who is willing to live in peace will be welcome to live in (at) New Jerusalem.  And if anyone who is willing to live it peace will be welcome at New Jerusalem, why would it be somewhere of which people will say,  "No, no, you go live there.  We don't want to"?

Now, there are prophecies of people who will think that Zion, aka the New Jerusalem, is "terrible" for the opposite reason—who want to wipe it off of the map because, since it is righteous, the Lord's glory is there—but that, of course, is a far, far different thing than, "No, no, you go live there.  We don't want to."

That's easy.  Some people prefer desert country with little rain and few if any large bodies of fresh water while some other people prefer places like where I live, the Pacific NW USA with lots of rain and lots of plants that grow from the rain.

Just different strokes for different folks.  If the capital of Zion stays in Salt Lake City I will probably just continue to live here rather than think about moving there.  I would probably visit occasionally though.

Edited October 15, 2021 by bOObOO

[Canadiandude]

I like to think of them as self-fulfilling prophecies. 
 

A location become associated with future (& often past) religious significance and it seems as if everyone that cares about such things predisposes themselves in preparing for a violent outcome & solution.