How's that explanation ?
It's a dark and sticky stuff that keeps the jw heirarchy together.
Can someone explain to me the story of the tower of Babel?
by tippysock 80 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
czarofmischief
His power, if he was indeed a tyrant, was built on POWER not language, and typically this power would be maintained through relationships.
I have to disagree with you there. Language is a more powerful unifier than threat of force. Just look at the rise of nationalism in the past century or so - mostly fueled by linguistic divisions and a desire to imitate Napoleon's wonderful new national army. Even our modern definitions of national groups or ethnic groups tend to revolve around what language we speak.
Extra-biblical tradition also states that Nimrod was murdered. Besides, if Nimrod's allies saw a chance to build their own power bases built on language; wouldn't they have seized it? If the guy's power base was hanging by a thread anyway, maybe a language change was all he needed to get overthrown.
As far as it being literal, no, I don't really believe it. I think it is Masonic code... har har har...
CZAR
-
funkyderek
myelaine:
You must be reading a different Bible to read that EVERYONE believed in God after a miracle like that.
And you're obviously not reading what I actually wrote, or are incapable of understanding it.
Having said that I have to admit that I don't even recall what statement I'm replying to.
Ah, that explains it.
noko59:
Well if that story is indeed a myth, then what other stories in the Bible are just myths?
Most of them probably. The Flood (obviously), the Siege of Jericho, the whole Samson story, Jonah and the big fish, the three Hebrews in the furnace, the Writing on the Wall, all the resurrection stories and most, if not all, "miracles". It's fairly easy to tell, actually. All the impossible things reported in the Bible are myths. Some of the possible ones may have actually happened.
If the foundation faulters doesn't the building collapse?
Yes. If your faith is based on the literal truth of the Bible, then it is on a very shaky foundation.
Is the Bible a collection of writtings truthfully representing God's interactions with mankind or is it just a fable? Is it partially true? Mostly true or what?
Parts of it are certainly true. Parts of it are clearly nothing more than Bronze Age myths. And some parts are of questionable veracity. You have read the thing, haven't you?
Didn't Jesus read and quoted from the bible or the scriptures? Used them? As recorded by the Bible Jesus says "Before Abraham came into existence, I have been". John 8:58. So if the scriptures was really corrupted and a myth wouldn't Jesus know that and say so? That wasn't the case.
Again, this goes back to the shaky foundation. If your belief in Jesus requires him to have literally believed in these Old Testament legends, then obviously it will be shaken by the realisation that they are only legends.
-
Abaddon
czar
I have to disagree with you there. Language is a more powerful unifier than threat of force. Just look at the rise of nationalism in the past century or so - mostly fueled by linguistic divisions and a desire to imitate Napoleon's wonderful new national army. Even our modern definitions of national groups or ethnic groups tend to revolve around what language we speak.
Different situation czar.
Bert speaks bull, Fred speaks cow. They don't know each other. They will tend to support speakers of their own language. This is nationalism.
Bert knows Fred and both speak dog. They work together building a 'Mreptag-hut-isk' ('building of bricks right up god nose'). Then god plays silly buggers and Bert and Fred speak different languages. But they still know each other. If Fred met Jake, and they happen to speak the same language, Jake is still a stranger. And even though Fred can't understand what Bert says, he can figure out what he means, and he's his friend, and even if Jake (who Fred understands) is against Bert because of his language, Bert is still Fred's friend.
Extra-biblical tradition also states that Nimrod was murdered.
Oh, well, as long as we're going on relaible sources...
Besides, if Nimrod's allies saw a chance to build their own power bases built on language; wouldn't they have seized it?
If the guy's power base was hanging by a thread anyway, maybe a language change was all he needed to get overthrown.
If? Where do you get the 'if' from? It doesn't say 'mighty hunter with a precarious power base', does it?
As far as it being literal, no, I don't really believe it. I think it is Masonic code... har har har...
Oh, it's a code. It means 'take this literally and you're really stupid'.
-
Bubbamar
Myelaine
Is the story a "fore-glimmer" of a type of people? Is it prophectic?
This sounds like standard JW rhetoric. EVEYTHING in the Bible is a prophesy to be fulfilled in the 21st century through a book and magazine publishing company based in New York city. Where do you get the idea that the story was actually told and meant to be a prophesy? If it is a prophesy, could it have already been fulfilled? Could it be fulfilled in the year 3007? Or were you just poking fun that the Witlesses yourself? From the posts that I have read of yours - and I am glad you post here - it sounds like part of you is still stuck in the JW mindset - which is a dangerous place to be, IMO. I hope you will continue to explore things for yourself and come up with your own beliefs. Afterall, didn't Jesus say the Holy Spirit would "teach us all things"? He didn't mention the WTBTS.
-
Brummie
Well since everything else seems to have been covered let me throw in something else:
I think the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2 was a reversal of what happened at Babylon, here they all spoke again in eachothers languages so the communication was restored by blessing.
Then again, perhaps I dont know what I am on about
Brummie
-
frankiespeakin
Abaddon,
I've quite enjoyed your posts on this thread. You should post more when you're stoned,,you seem to have a certain fluidity of thought that is easy to follow and full of humor too,,and non-offensive. It seems to open up your mind to more possiblities,,and a rather humoristic-sound type of logic(IMO).
-
mysterio91
Here is my question. What difference would it have made to allow this tower to be built?? It would never have "reached the heavens". Man would never know if it was tall enough to endure another flood. So why stop it. Why was this tower such a big deal to God??
-
Leolaia
I would also be suspicious about the Choctaw myth because of the nature of cultural diffusion. The article hooberus cites gives no cited source and makes no attempt to trace the story through the anthropological literature and in earlier writings. How can we tell if this is genuinely an ancient pre-Colombian myth or rather a syncretistic attempt to harmonize Christian myth with their own native myth? The Choctaw have been in contact with white settlers for hundreds of years. Unless the myth was recorded in something dating back to the 1600s, it is impossible to prove that this is a genuinely independent account. This is the same problem with the Flood myth stories that may contain details leaked by Christian missionaries, conquistadors, or others, and then centuries later are taken to be independent confirmation of the biblical story. Look at what happened with the Dogon in Africa. This is an African tribe which became a media sensation in the 1970s when it was discovered that in their legends the Dog Star (Sirius) was known to be a binary star. This supposedly wasn't known to astronomers until relatively recently, while the Dogon apparently knew this fact from their own legends. But it turns out that the Dogon were visited by an anthropologist in the 1930s who had studied astronomy and brought star maps to Mali and from whom the Dogon learned about Sirius.
-
noko59
Why ask questions when I am really quite clear?
To clarify your stand since you indicated you where stoned or was joking at it.
You don't bother to analyse the reasons I outlined that bring me to that conclusion, but just disagree.
I sure did, the Bible also contains the story of Christ who does represent Jah of armies and in no way does he reflect what you assert.
Show me how silly and wrong my assertions are.
Your assumptions about me are actually pretty silly and wrong at best.
Oh, and what does the fact that anyone can do this mean? Could you answer that for me please? What I am getting is is what proof is there that you, or the Pope, or Fred, or anyone is right, if we can all have our own interpretation.
Well if your interpretation agrees with the truth or Christ then that would be the right interpretation I would say. I would no way tell you to believe what I say in this but would ask you to go to the true source.
You are alleging that an entity who makes a Universe of bewildering complexity cannot communicate clearly with human beings. This is illogical.
I am alleging just the opposite, seems like you are demanding to much from only a book.
Classic presuppositionalistic answer. The Bible is true, therefore those who cannot see the truth have something wrong with their heart. How curious that the Bible has taught you to insult and judge people you don't even know; my study of its latter portions indicate this is not how it advises people to act.
How have I insulted you? Your the one that said God is an Asshole in the Bible and I whole heartedly disagree. Then again I did say the Bible has a way of reflecting the heart, your heart.
It seems you've already come to an absolute determination of your own rightness. If this is the case I doubt if there's further worth in conversing with you. I have not really made any claim to knowing rightness; I have however outlined obvious areas of wrongness. Refute them, deal with them or ignore them as you will.
Not at all. Rightness comes from God through Christ is what I have faith in.
I hope you find true peace.