Wright Way: A Star Over Bethlehem?

[carlos]

Why can we conclude he was instrumental in building the Tower of Babel simply because he was the first king of Babylon?  We would need to ascertain if Nimrod was still alive when the tower was being built.  Perhaps he had died and this tower was his legacy?  Perhaps it was also to be a memorial to their first fallen king?

 

I'm just spitballing and I'm being contrary just for the sake of being contrary.  Still, you said we're separating fact from speculation.  The Bible does not indicate Nimrod was directly responsible for the Tower.  That is speculation.  It's probably correct, but it's still speculation.

 

Edit.  I see you already stated this in your comment " This would fit well with the few information we have about him, but we can't be certain." 

 

I should work on my reading comprehension.  LOL.

 

 That's why I wrote "We can reasonably speculate that since he was the king of Babel..." I admited that was just speculation, so I separated it from the facts above. I think it is reasonable because both episodes are mentioned one after the other in the Bible and because it makes sense, but we don't know for sure.

[carlos]

Also keep in mind the commonality of making the king synonymous with a god.  Pharaoh was king of Egypt and a god.  Caesar was king and a deity of sorts.  Are their any other ancient cultures that merged the king with a god?

 

That is a good point that Michael mentioned before.

 

And there is another one. Josephus says about Nimrod that "He persuaded them not to ascribe to God as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that is was their own courage which procured that happiness." He also says he wanted the tower built so that they could survive another Flood in case Jehvoah decided to destroy them. Of course we don't know how much of what Josephus writes is true and how much are just legends. By the time of Nimrod, Noah and his sons were still alive. So people had clear proof that Jehovah was a true God with real power, because there were first-hand witnesses of the Flood brought by him. It wouldn't make sense in that situation to start worshipping the god Sun or the goddess Moon or the god of fire or whatever. But if a powerful man, far superior to the rest, forced people to serve him or even challenged Jehovah, he could easily be considered a god worth of worshipping. But again this is speculation. The Bible Stories book shows an idol in the time of Enoch, although I don't know how authoritative that is.

[AH173]

He is our brother.

long time good friends with a couple in our cong

good idea

Ashley send him an email link

OK, will try. ☺

Brother Wright has sent me a reply along with a nice picture of him and a sister (wife??) out in public witnessing (looks like at a Wal Mart). I'll wait for his reply back to me. ☺
Edited December 29, 2014 by AH173

[GStorrs46]

Carlos, Shawn, and others,

 

   That is the reason that I said in essence at the conclusion of my post that based on the article in the Insight book

that showed the Sumerians deified their kings as gods ( as mentioned as was true of Pharoah, the Caesars ) etc.

And that a powerful king like the Bible says Nimrod was in founding both Nineveh and Babylon would highly effect

the Mythologers in creating their pantheon of gods. So this information appears to at least coincide with the general

picture the Bible paints of Nimrod, as well as the traditions about him as voiced by the Jewish historian Josephus.

Does this again prove the case as we have presented it in the past. No.

   But court cases are often decided by the actual evidence of the know conduct of an individual, as well as strong'

circumstancial evidence that would tend to validate  the case. So while in the Insight article no mention is made of

Nimrid, who do we assume they have reference to when they quote te author of the Journal of Semetic Studies

as saying Dumuzi was Tammuz and both a man and king of Erech, the very city Nimrod founded ( Gen. 10: 10 )

As far as the statement what king would have a prostitute as a wife, are we forgetting Anthony and Cleopatra ?

Or the Byzantine emperor Justinian and his beautiful courtisen wife Theodosis ( a courtesan is a high class prostitute )

Or the Infamous Pope Alexander IV who married a courtensan and had his infamous children, amoung them being

Caesar Borgia, who became the model for Machevelli's infamous "The Prince". and Lucresia Borgia, who gained'

fame as a seductress. In addition the occult is filled with stories of beautiful  seducing goddesses in every cutture.

Did they have not factual basis in history. Look at all of the Flood legends, and how we point to them as prove

that there was an ancient real life flood. And we are not alone in this conclusion.

   While at present the best that can be said of Semaramis in a historical framework is one that lived in the 800s b.c.e.

and was apparently married to one Ninus, I think the larger question for me is: How did this all get started ? We

can trace what it became. But what gave birth to it ? And I think at this point that is the $64,000.00 question.

 

                                                                                                                                                         GStorrs46

[Shawnster]

I split the water canopy discussion off into a separate topic here:  http://jwtalk.net/forums/topic/18249-the-water-canopy-a-question-with-no-real-answer-up-for-discussion/?page=9#comment-392650

[Omoyeme]

That original news article link is no longer available. Is there someplace else we can read it?

[Shawnster]

6 hours ago, Omo_Yeme said:

That original news article link is no longer available. Is there someplace else we can read it?

https://plus.googleapis.com/118356805627875468789/posts/arMn6DrWDtt

 

 

[Friends just call me Ross]

Thanks for the link, Brother Shawn!

That is a great article.  Glad I finally got to read it.

[Witness1970]

On 12/25/2014 at 3:15 AM, niall said:

Josephus says that Nimrod hated God and swore vengeance against him. That's why he built the tower of Babel — reasoning that it would be high above the flood waters should God decide to destroy them all again.

 

Apparently, Josephus had a mistaken idea about the tower.  It was definitely not tall enough to survive another flood like the first one.  Of course, the floodwaters which, at least partially came from the waters above the expanse, were now all on earth.  The "Tower of Babel" was actually a pyramid structure used for religious purposes. 

[Shawnster]

On 6/24/2016 at 1:36 PM, Witness1970 said:

Apparently, Josephus had a mistaken idea about the tower.  It was definitely not tall enough to survive another flood like the first one.  Of course, the floodwaters which, at least partially came from the waters above the expanse, were now all on earth.  The "Tower of Babel" was actually a pyramid structure used for religious purposes. 

 

(Genesis 11:1-4) 11 Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words. 2 As they traveled eastward, they discovered a valley plain in the land of Shiʹnar, and they began dwelling there. 3 Then they said to one another: “Come! Let us make bricks and bake them with fire.” So they used bricks instead of stone, and bitumen as mortar. 4 They now said: “Come! Let us build a city for ourselves and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, so that we will not be scattered over the entire face of the earth.”
 

Where is Josephus idea about the tower different than what the scriptures say?  They wanted to build a tower with the top in the heavens.  If I wanted to make a tower that I thought would protect me from another global flood, I'd make it with its top in the heavens.

 

Where do you get your information about the shape of the tower?  If you are going by the shape and purpose of the Babylonian ziggurats, then why are you concluding that the first or original tower in Babel had to be shaped and used like the ziggurats.

 

Personally, I bet it was shaped like a ziggurat and was probably used in false worship.  I just don't see how that contradicts either Josephus or the Bible.  I do think that Nimrod's descendants copied his original design, especially when they began worshiping him.

[Witness1970]

9 hours ago, Shawnster said:

 

(Genesis 11:1-4) 11 Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words. 2 As they traveled eastward, they discovered a valley plain in the land of Shiʹnar, and they began dwelling there. 3 Then they said to one another: “Come! Let us make bricks and bake them with fire.” So they used bricks instead of stone, and bitumen as mortar. 4 They now said: “Come! Let us build a city for ourselves and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, so that we will not be scattered over the entire face of the earth.”
 

Where is Josephus idea about the tower different than what the scriptures say?  They wanted to build a tower with the top in the heavens.  If I wanted to make a tower that I thought would protect me from another global flood, I'd make it with its top in the heavens.

 

Where do you get your information about the shape of the tower?  If you are going by the shape and purpose of the Babylonian ziggurats, then why are you concluding that the first or original tower in Babel had to be shaped and used like the ziggurats.

 

Personally, I bet it was shaped like a ziggurat and was probably used in false worship.  I just don't see how that contradicts either Josephus or the Bible.  I do think that Nimrod's descendants copied his original design, especially when they began worshiping him.

1

I never, ever said it contradicted the bible.  The words "a tower with its top in the heavens"  would  not necessarily mean it was tall enough to survive a global flood such as the one described in the bible.  Therefore I do think that Josephus was wrong in that assumption.

 

There is no direct evidence that the tower was actually in the shape of a Ziggurat, but I feel that circumstantial evidence makes it very likely.  It is unlikely that those Babylonians were attempting to build a structure that was tall enough to survive a flood that would reach over the tops of mountains.  If they did build such a tower what good would it do?  How many people could fit at the top of that tower?  And how would everyone be able to get to the tower after the flood started?  The people would be able to see the top of the tower in the distance as they took their last breath.

 

This is assuming that they did not believe God's promise that he would never again bring a flood to destroy every living thing.

[Shawnster]

 

On 6/29/2016 at 8:07 AM, Witness1970 said:

I never, ever said it contradicted the bible.  The words "a tower with its top in the heavens"  would  not necessarily mean it was tall enough to survive a global flood such as the one described in the bible.  Therefore I do think that Josephus was wrong in that assumption.

 

 

I didn't mean to imply otherwise.  I may have chosen my words wrong.  I meant that the assumption or conjecture that the tower was built "with its top in the heavens" meant that it was built to survive another global flood does not contradict the bible.  They may very well have intended to build the tower tall enough to survive another flood.  That doesn't mean they would have succeed.  It merely means that was their intent.

 

After all, if you were Nimrod, and you wanted to build something that would save you from another global flood, what would you build?  Nimrod clearly wanted to defy Jehovah.   I can see how someone might reason that if they simply could have gotten high enough, those people who died in the flood may have survived.  It's wrong thinking, but I can understand the logic.

 

No, the Bible doesn't state specifically that is the reason they were going to build a tower that tall.  It's an assumption, but it's a practical assumption.  Just like assuming the tower was shaped like a ziggurat is a logical assumption.

 

I also think this is where the idea of Jack and the Beanstalk springs from - a tower or beanstalk stretching up to the heavens or the sky where a human climbs to heaven and slays the powerful evil being that lives up there. 

 

Edited June 30, 2016 by Shawnster

[ChrisC]

On 30 June 2016 at 1:00 PM, Shawnster said:

 

I also think this is where the idea of Jack and the Beanstalk springs from - a tower or beanstalk stretching up to the heavens or the sky where a human climbs to heaven and slays the powerful evil being that lives up there. 

Really? Magic beans, golden eggs ...

I'm not seeing a link.