Nimrod

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
J

JesusIsAll

Guest
#41
Cyrus conquered much more than Nimrod and God calls him his anointed in Isaiah 45. We're really given no indication in the Bible that Nimrod was evil or a dictator. Merely that he was a mighty hunter before the Lord.

EDIT: Lol also speaking on no trespassing signs there was a long doubted legend about Cyrus that he set up some pretty crude but funny signs himself to taunt his enemies that were actually unearthed and confirmed.
Somebody once commented that empires are characterized as beasts by the Lord in so much prophecy, because they are all like wild animals, are not to be dignified. There have been mighty servants of God, David worlds moreso than Cyrus, a man after God's own heart, yet David not allowed to build the temple, for being a man of war. So, that a leader is an instrument of the Lord, even does what's right here and there, doesn't mean the Lord approves of rapacious empire building by blood and terror, and we know now the kingdom of God is spiritual. At the best of times, most governments of man have been the best evils we can get. I would ask, what little you do see of Nimrod in scripture, what strikes you as remotely holy?
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#42
Somebody once commented that empires are characterized as beasts by the Lord in so much prophecy, because they are all like wild animals, are not to be dignified. There have been mighty servants of God, David worlds moreso than Cyrus, a man after God's own heart, yet David not allowed to build the temple, for being a man of war. So, that a leader is an instrument of the Lord, even does what's right here and there, doesn't mean the Lord approves of rapacious empire building by blood and terror, and we know now the kingdom of God is spiritual. At the best of times, most governments of man have been the best evils we can get. I would ask, what little you do see of Nimrod in scripture, what strikes you as remotely holy?
I like David a lot better too. On the four beast empires, that is kind of my point. Persia is one of the four beasts of Daniel, yet Cyrus is highly acclaimed in the Bible. So just the same as Cyrus being possibly a good guy, so too may have Nimrod been such. At the very least he's something of a minor character, almost insignificant even. Also the Babylonian beast empire to my knowledge didn't rise until Nebuchadnezzar.

As for Nimrod, if the Lord estimated him well, then that is good. I cannot find anything in the Bible against him.
 
Last edited:
J

JesusIsAll

Guest
#43
I like David a lot better too. On the four beast empires, that is kind of my point. Persia is one of the four beasts of Daniel, yet Cyrus is highly acclaimed in the Bible. So just the same as Cyrus being possibly a good guy, so too may Nimrod been such. Also the Babylonian beast empire to my knowledge didn't rise until Nebuchadnezzar.

As for Nimrod, if the Lord estimated him well, then that is good. I cannot find anything in the Bible against him.
You could be right, but, absent proof of this, and given the all too reliable historic behaviors of man, I find it most dubious Nimrod gobbled all his neighbors by staging Tupperware parties.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#44
You could be right, but, absent proof of this, and given the all too reliable historic behaviors of man, I find it most dubious Nimrod gobbled all his neighbors by staging Tupperware parties.
Bible is pretty specific when places get conquered by the sword. Bible never says Nimrod killed anyone. Nevertheless even assuming such does not necessarily make Nimrod an evil king. The Canaanites and Phillistines got wiped out by the sword after all by good kings like David and mighty men in the sight of the Lord like Joshua.
 
J

JesusIsAll

Guest
#45
Bible is pretty specific when places get conquered by the sword. Bible never says Nimrod killed anyone. Nevertheless even assuming such does not necessarily make Nimrod an evil king. The Canaanites and Phillistines got wiped out by the sword after all by good kings like David and mighty men in the sight of the Lord like Joshua.
You need to be careful and very focused on the people and the times recorded in the Bible, what stage of God's plan they're under, what most call dispensations, whether a mandate from God is proclaimed, as it is in scripture when this is the case.

The conquering of the land by Israel was ordained of God, for the express purpose of Israel occupying the land the Lord promised and to avoid pollution of the society by Canaanite, et al, practices offensive to God. People coexisting in relative autonomy and harmony, until a "mighty man" comes along to grab some more land, cattle, grain, gold, silver or slaves, or just stick his name on the road signs, is not the way of God.

We must also be careful that, in the cases of evil rulers that are used of God, it is a matter of God taking the evil and making His pleasure come of it, without He being the primal cause, which is sin, Genesis 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. The evil ruler can be God's punishment, simply by God letting man have his way, letting the evil events run their course, man who has forgotten him and doesn't want His way or help, "Better watch what you ask for, you just might get it," and God leaves man alone, to fall in the ditches he digs.

Most wars, at man's level, boil down to just wanting to ripoff somebody else, grand theft on a grand scale. But "thou shalt not steal." (Note that the earth and the fullness thereof are God's, His right to give land to anybody He pleases, and evict who He pleases: Israel was not stealing.)
 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
#46
@IS Show me in the Bible that Nimrod displeased the Lord.
I can show you that Nimrod being "before the Lord" means nothing, except he was what he was in God's presence, BTW, which is everywhere.

Genesis 13:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.
[HR][/HR]1 Samuel 21:7 (KJV)
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD; and his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul.
[HR][/HR]1 Samuel 26:19 (KJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Now therefore, I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If the LORD have stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering: but if they be the children of men, cursed be they before the LORD; for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the LORD, saying, Go, serve other gods.
[HR][/HR]2 Samuel 21:9 (KJV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP]And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.
[HR][/HR]2 Chronicles 33:23 (KJV)
[SUP]23 [/SUP]And humbled not himself before the LORD, as Manasseh his father had humbled himself; but Amon trespassed more and more.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 15:11 (KJV)
[SUP]11 [/SUP]Hell and destruction are before the LORD: how much more then the hearts of the children of men?
 

oldhermit

Senior Member
Jul 28, 2012
9,144
614
113
70
Alabama
#47
I'm reading "Bible Numerics" by Peter Ruckman. He says that the number one means unity, then he brings up the Tower of Babel and Nimrod in Gen.11:6.

"And the Lord said, Behold the people are one, and they all have one language; and this they have begin to do: and now nothing will restrain them, which they have imagined to do."

When I read it my first thought was how much of a threat can humans be to God? Then I realized the impact of the passage is:

" and now nothing will be restrained from them, which "THEY" imagine to do."

Nimrod means "Let Us Revolt", it comes from the Hebrew word "marad", meaning "rebel".

There really isn't much more information than that in scripture about Nimrod and so other sources have to be untilized.

Josephus says:

"Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the Son of Noah-a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe to God, as if it through his means they were, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny-seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but bring them into a constant dependence upon his own power.

He also would be revenged on God, if he should have a mind to drown the world again; for he would build a tower too high for the waters to be able to reach! and that he would avenge himself on God for destroying their forefathers!" (Ant. I: iv: 2)


That clears a lot up for me because I had always thought how dumb could they have been to think they could really reach God! It looks like the purpose of the tower was to escape flood waters.




By oldhermit

Nimrod Journeyed east, 1-9

1. Settled in the plains of Shinar in the territory of Japheth.
2. He built the city of Babel in what would later become the Babylonian Empire.
3. The stated purpose for building this city was to prevent them from being scattered. This violated the mandate of the Lord in 9:7 to “be you fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein...” They did not want to be scattered.


The earth was one language. Literally, one dialect.

1. Language is the cohesive agent of any society.
2. In Nimrod's time, one language offered a global point of reference.
3. A common language provides a strong sense of continuity and organization.
4. Language provides a conduit for the flow of ideas.
5. A common language provides limitless possibilities for human achievement that does not serve the will of God.
6. For knowledge to be controlled, language must be controlled. Without language as a common frame of reference there can be no flow of ideas.
7. When there is no avenue of communication the social continuity immediately breaks down. Consequently, the people scatter and the city went unfinished.

 
I

Is

Guest
#48
I can show you that Nimrod being "before the Lord" means nothing, except he was what he was in God's presence, BTW, which is everywhere.

Genesis 13:13 (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.
[HR][/HR]1 Samuel 21:7 (KJV)
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD; and his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul.
[HR][/HR]1 Samuel 26:19 (KJV)
[SUP]19 [/SUP]Now therefore, I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If the LORD have stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering: but if they be the children of men, cursed be they before the LORD; for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the LORD, saying, Go, serve other gods.
[HR][/HR]2 Samuel 21:9 (KJV)
[SUP]9 [/SUP]And he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the LORD: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest, in the first days, in the beginning of barley harvest.
[HR][/HR]2 Chronicles 33:23 (KJV)
[SUP]23 [/SUP]And humbled not himself before the LORD, as Manasseh his father had humbled himself; but Amon trespassed more and more.
[HR][/HR]Proverbs 15:11 (KJV)
[SUP]11 [/SUP]Hell and destruction are before the LORD: how much more then the hearts of the children of men?
Since it is believed hat the name Nimrod means "rebel", that is probably what Gen.10:9 means that Nimrod was:

"a rebel before the Lord"
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#49
@JesusIsAll I agree with you indeed. If we're looking at the time frame of the events though I think that makes the case more solid that Nimrod was either a good guy or at the least somewhat insignificant. As mentioned before never quite says he took those cities by war. Also I like this thinking because it makes me ponder that it would be more solid proof that Nimrod may have lived after the event of the Tower of Babel since his small kingdom consisted of more than just the city of Babel, which would fit into the narrative/dispensation of the peoples spreading out.

@Stephen63 These are good examples. So as we can see that the people of Sodom were clearly wicked before the Lord, so therefore we know they were wicked. We can apply the same concept to Nimrod. In which case it would seem that all the Bible tells us about him is that he was a mighty hunter before the Lord., so we know he mighty and was a hunter. This would seem to me to indeed harden the case that he was either a good guy, a compliment that the Lord estimated him as mighty. Or that he is merely a somewhat a minor character just a strong hunter.

@OldHermit I like your thoughts as always beloved OldHermit, and I agree on your premises about the Tower of Babel incident. However, we're not told in the Bible if Nimrod was even alive when Tower of Babel happened.

@IS we've been through this all ready. Nimrod's name does not correspond to Marad, this was imagined way later. Strong's says the meaning of his name is unknown and there is a clear distinction between the name Nimrod and the word marad. Bible does not say Nimrod was a rebel before the Lord, it says that he was a mighty hunter before the Lord. This means either he was favored by the Lord as mighty, or that he was merely a minor character, a strong hunter.
 
Last edited:
S

sparkman

Guest
#50
Where does Hislop incorrectly quote his sources.

If all the pagan elements of Rome does not come from Pergomos which came from Babylon, where did it all come from?
Read the book The Babylon Connection? by Ralph Woodrow on this if you want more details on Alexander Hislop's bad logic and misstatements.

Ralph Woodrow used to be a supporter and proponent of Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons until he got educated :) He even wrote a book promoting it.

By the way heretics of all stripes use his writings to "prove" that the rest of Christianity is false and counterfeit. The group that I belonged to, the Armstrongites, are a cultic group that uses it in exactly the same way. In fact, at least one of the people posting on this thread is an Armstrongite who tries to push Herbert Armstrong's teachings all the time.

He believes he is going to be fully God in the resurrection, just like God the Father and Jesus Christ.

I would stay out the company of such heretics if I were you.

Cults and pseudo-Christians seek to discredit Christianity in any way that they can and assert that they and their peculiar teachings are "true Christianity". Christianity may have some minor issues, but the issues related to their groups are gigantic, like the aforementioned "God Family" teaching. Hislop's Two Babylons is just one of those tools that they employ.
 
Last edited:
I

Is

Guest
#51
@JesusIsAll I agree with you indeed. If we're looking at the time frame of the events though I think that makes the case more solid that Nimrod was either a good guy or at the least somewhat insignificant. As mentioned before never quite says he took those cities by war. Also I like this thinking because it makes me ponder that it would be more solid proof that Nimrod may have lived after the event of the Tower of Babel since his small kingdom consisted of more than just the city of Babel, which would fit into the narrative/dispensation of the peoples spreading out.

@Stephen63 These are good examples. So as we can see that the people of Sodom were clearly wicked before the Lord, so therefore we know they were wicked. We can apply the same concept to Nimrod. In which case it would seem that all the Bible tells us about him is that he was a mighty hunter before the Lord., so we know he mighty and was a hunter. This would seem to me to indeed harden the case that he was either a good guy, a compliment that the Lord estimated him as mighty. Or that he is merely a somewhat a minor character just a strong hunter.

@OldHermit I like your thoughts as always beloved OldHermit, and I agree on your premises about the Tower of Babel incident. However, we're not told in the Bible if Nimrod was even alive when Tower of Babel happened.

@IS we've been through this all ready. Nimrod's name does not correspond to Marad, this was imagined way later. Strong's says the meaning of his name is unknown and there is a clear distinction between the name Nimrod and the word marad. Bible does not say Nimrod was a rebel before the Lord, it says that he was a mighty hunter before the Lord. This means either he was favored by the Lord as mighty, or that he was merely a minor character, a strong hunter.
@IS we've been through this all ready. Nimrod's name does not correspond to Marad, this was imagined way later. Strong's says the meaning of his name is unknown and there is a clear distinction between the name Nimrod and the word marad. Bible does not say Nimrod was a rebel before the Lord, it says that he was a mighty hunter before the Lord. This means either he was favored by the Lord as mighty, or that he was merely a minor character, a strong hunter.
excuseme.gif

What does Bible Hub say about Strong's ?

Strong's Hebrew: 4775. מָרַד (marad) -- to rebel
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,977
400
83
63
#53
He believes he is going to be fully God in the resurrection, just like God the Father and Jesus Christ.

.
-one tool the devil uses is to lie and slander others , you sir are both.


He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool.

Deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue.

A fool despiseth his father's instruction: but he that regardeth reproof is prudent.

Lying lips are abomination to the Lord: but they that deal truly are his delight.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#54
Yes the word marad means rebel. Note that in your own link the word marad is not used in any of the passages about Nimrod according to this link.


Note also that the meaning of Nimrod's name is "wholly unknown" according to Strong's, and that it is a separate word from the word marad as a literal transliteration of his name, Nim-rode.

Strong's Hebrew: 5248. נִמְרוֹד (Nimrod) -- a son of Cush and founder of the Bab. kingdom


As for Nimrod being resurrected as the Antichrist/Beast that's an even crazier heresy than Hislop's heresy seeing as following the resurrection is Judgment Day.
 
Last edited:
I

Is

Guest
#55
Yes the word marad means rebel. Note that in your own link the word marad is not used in any of the passages about Nimrod according to this link.


Note also that the meaning of Nimrod's name is "wholly unknown" according to Strong's, and that it is a separate word from the word marad as a literal transliteration of his name, Nim-rode.

Strong's Hebrew: 5248. נִמְרוֹד (Nimrod) -- a son of Cush and founder of the Bab. kingdom


As for Nimrod being resurrected as the Antichrist/Beast that's an even crazier heresy than Hislop's heresy seeing as following the resurrection is Judgment Day.
Since "before" can also have the meaning of "against" Strong's Hebrew: 6440. פָּנִים (panim or paneh) -- face, faces it isn't a far stretch to assume Nimrod was a "rebel".

Read the article before criticize.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#56
Since "before" can also have the meaning of "against" Strong's Hebrew: 6440. פָּנִים (panim or paneh) -- face, faces it isn't a far stretch to assume Nimrod was a "rebel".

Read the article before criticize.
Lol we've been over this before.

From your own link:

a. With the implication of (a) under the eye or oversight of, Deuteronomy 25:2; 1 Samuel 3:1. (b) under the eye and regard of, Genesis 17:18 לוּ יִשְׁמָעֵאל יִחְיֶה לְפָנֶיךָ, Hosea 6:2; Isaiah 53:2; Psalm 61:8; compare Jeremiah 30:20; Jeremiah 31:36; Isaiah 66:22; Psalm 102:29: also 1 Samuel 2:28; 2 Samuel 19:14. (c) figurative for in (or into) the full (mental) view of, Genesis 6:13 קֵץ כָּלבָּֿשָׂר בָּא לְפָנַי is come in before me, Lamentations 1:22 תָּבאֹ כָלרָֿעָתָם לְפָנֶיךָ, Jonah 1:2 עָֽלְתָה לְפָנַי (compare אֶל Genesis 18:21; Exodus 2:23), Isaiah 65:6 כְּתוּבָה לְפָנָ֑י, Jeremiah 2:22 נִכְתָּךְ לְפָנָי (compare נֶגְדִּי Isaiah 47:12). (d) openly before, 1 Samuel 12:2 הִתְהַלֵךְ לִפְנֵי, and with collateral idea of deserving (and receiving) regard 1 Samuel 2:35, especially ׳לפני י Genesis 17:1 and elsewhere. (e) in presence of the moon or sun, Psalm 72:5; Psalm 72:17, i.e. as long as they endure. (f) free before, at the disposal of,Genesis 13:9 הֲלֹא כָלהָֿאָרֶץ לְפָנֶיךָ (compare Genesis 20:15; Genesis 34:10; Genesis 47:6; Jeremiah 40:4; 2Chron 14:6), 2 Chron 24:51; Songs 8:12. (g) in the sight (estimation) of, Genesis 7:1 thee have I seen to be just before me, Genesis 10:9 a mighty hunter before ׳י
 
S

sparkman

Guest
#57
This is a book review of Hislop's Two Babylons from The Saturday Review, September 17, 1859:

"In the first place, his whole superstructure is raised upon nothing. Our earliest authority for the history of Semiramis wrote about the commencement of the Christian era, and the historian from whom he drew his information lived from fifteen hundred to two thousand years after the date which Mr. Hislop assigns to the great Assyrian Queen. The most lying legend which the Vatican has ever endorsed stands on better authority than the history which is now made the ground of a charge against it.

"Secondly, the whole argument proceeds upon the assumption that all heathenism has a common origin. Accidental resemblance in mythological details are taken as evidence of this, and nothing is allowed for the natural working of the human mind.

"Thirdly, Mr. Hislop's reasoning would make anything of anything. By the aid of obscure passages in third-rate historians, groundless assumptions of identity, and etymological torturing of roots, all that we know, and all that we believe, may be converted ... into something totally different.

"Fourthly, Mr. Hislop's argument proves too much. He finds not only the corruptions of Popery, but the fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, in his hypothetical Babylonian system...

"We take leave of Mr. Hislop and his work with the remark that we never before quite knew the folly of which ignorant or half-learned bigotry is capable."

And, unfortunately, as a young believer, I followed an imbecile whose reasoning was based a lot on Hislop's Two Babylons and his own imagination.
 
Last edited:
A

AboundingGrace

Guest
#58
This url gives etomology of Nimrod, comparing it with Narad- rebellious. However it strangely concludes that Nimrod is comparative to enlightenment.

Nimrod | The amazing name Nimrod: meaning and etymology

My thoughts. Nimrod by gathering people into a co-operative effort of rebellion speaks of one who has an evil charismatic influence to hunt for people, not, to hunt as a sport.

To me, Nimrod is the spirit of the coming anti-christ and the coming Armageddon war.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#59
This url gives etomology of Nimrod, comparing it with Narad- rebellious. However it strangely concludes that Nimrod is comparative to enlightenment.

Nimrod | The amazing name Nimrod: meaning and etymology

My thoughts. Nimrod by gathering people into a co-operative effort of rebellion speaks of one who has an evil charismatic influence to hunt for people, not, to hunt as a sport.

To me, Nimrod is the spirit of the coming anti-christ and the coming Armageddon war.
There's nothing in the Bible though that says Nimrod gathered the people into rebellion. Quite the opposite, the Bible says that Nimrod was a mighty hunter before/in sight of/in estimation of the Lord.

I think the attempts to link Nimrod's name to the word marad don't hold water. It's like how islam claims that because the names of the fictional characters in the Koran sound similar to those of people in the Bible that they must be the same, when in fact their names actually don't mean the same thing at all. Curiously at that Nimrod is only ever cast as a villain in the writings of pagans (ie: Islamic canon), the Pharisees (ie: Josephus), and heretics (ie: Hislop).

No matter what anyone thinks, what matters is what the Bible says. The Bible says very little about Nimrod, and what it says appears to be either good or indifferent casting him either as a believer of God because he was a mighty hunter before the Lord or as a minor character, merely a strong hunter.
 
Last edited:
K

Karraster

Guest
#60
wonder what these folks think about it?