LeeMerk:
Babylon exalted itself in place of God. There's a theme going on.
No, it didn’t. Babylonian religion exalted gods above themselves.
You do know that the ‘Tower of Babel’ story isn’t real, don’t you?
How can Babylon the Great be the WORLD of false religion?
by BoogerMan 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Jeffro
-
Jeffro
ThomasMore:
Conspicuously the writer NEVER alludes to the destruction of Jerusalem, probably because it had not happened.
Very incorrect. Revelation refers to Jerusalem being trampled by the nations for 3.5 years (66-70 CE; Revelation 11:2, compare Luke 21:24), and later indicates it being replaced by New Jerusalem, which is depicted as coming down from heaven onto the earth (an imaginary future event).
-
LeeMerk
Jethro, whether the tower of babel story is factual in actual history really isn't the point. The Bible is a book of Theology first and foremost. Not a book of history or science. The stories have a point to them. The writers are trying to teach something to the people in those times. We need to read them that way first.
-
Jeffro
Not sure who Jethro is, but I’m not interested in the pseudo-intellectual bait-and-switch thanks.
And the JW notion that all false religion started with Babylon is not found in the Bible anyway.
-
LeeMerk
Jeffro sorry. Most of mainstream Christian scholars would disagree with you. You still are thinking too much in black and white terms. It's common and understandable when leaving a black and white thinking group like the JWs. It's the rubber band effect.
-
Jeffro
Sigh. No. There was no ‘one single meaning’ of Babylon all the way through. The story of the ‘tower of Babel’ was adapted from a Sumerian story that the Jews likely first encountered during the Babylonian exile (as they did with what became the stories of ‘Adam & Eve’ and ‘the flood’, from Babylonian folklore). They didn’t invent the story or the meaning. Later, Babylon was used as a metaphor to represent oppression in the Seleucid (in Daniel) and Roman periods (in the ‘gospels’ & Revelation). Later still, after early Christian expectations obviously failed, Christians retroactively assigned different meanings, as you are doing now with your simplistic and naive assessment both of the story and your misguided perceptions of my understanding of the subject.
-
LeeMerk
Yes, I'm aware of your view. But there are other views that make more sense. To each their own. I simply stated mine in this thread originally but of course because of your black and white thinking, only your view can be 'correct' and you must make sure to put down other views.
-
Jeffro
🤦♂️ ‘my view’ is consistent with scholarship, reflecting known historical events, and is not at all ‘black-and-white’ thinking, which is nonsensical ad hominem on your part. But you are welcome to your religious (superstitious) interpretations (but they don’t ‘make more sense’ at all).
-
LeeMerk
My view is consistent with scholarship as well. It is and has been taught by seminaries and universities for a very long time. Science and religion does not have to be a zero sum game in my view. They can be reconciled. The answers to do that are out there for those who are interested.
-
Jeffro
I’m talking about proper scholarship across the board, not just ‘Christian scholarship’ that necessarily incorporates biased and unfalsifiable theological opinions rooted in magical thinking.