-
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.
Lol I have heard many factions with many different heretical beliefs of a New World Order. Not many of them New. Not much Order either. I guess they got the world part though.
I also wish to see a New World Order. Once more doesn't matter what they think, only matters what the Bible says.
2 Peter 3:13
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
I also wish to see a New World Order. Once more doesn't matter what they think, only matters what the Bible says.
2 Peter 3:13
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
T
No. God confused the people by creating different languages, but the people wouldn't have changed their physical appearance. That's kind of silly. They were scattered according to their family groups. It's very likely Noah, his wife and their sons and their wives were all middle-brown (olive-skinned), much like Adam and Eve probably were. Then the variations in skin colours may have happened later down the track. But we're all one human family.
T
Yes, I'm of the mind that Nimrod was a rebellious king against the LORD. Certainly, the first post-Flood king, at least of what later became Babylonia. I also believe Nimrod was possibly the inspiration for Gilgamesh. That said, nowhere can I find words that speak to Nimrod dictating the building of the city and the tower of Babel. That's an assumption. Read this passage: Genesis 11:1-4
Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like the people were united in a common cause of their own free will. That they didn't have a king, but that they wanted to make a name for themselves and be self-sufficient apart from God.
Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like the people were united in a common cause of their own free will. That they didn't have a king, but that they wanted to make a name for themselves and be self-sufficient apart from God.
Indeed a good insight on the Tower of Babel incident Sir Tintin.
However, just as it is an assumption that Nimrod dictated, or was even alive when the Tower incident happened; so too is it an unbiblical assumption that Nimrod was rebellious. In fact the Bible says in the narration that Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord and that it was even a proverb among the people. If the Lord estimated Nimrod well just as Genesis says that is quite the opposite of rebellion.
However, just as it is an assumption that Nimrod dictated, or was even alive when the Tower incident happened; so too is it an unbiblical assumption that Nimrod was rebellious. In fact the Bible says in the narration that Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the Lord and that it was even a proverb among the people. If the Lord estimated Nimrod well just as Genesis says that is quite the opposite of rebellion.
Also on the subject of Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh is almost certain to be an entirely fictional character. Trying to say that Nimrod is wicked and is the inspiration for Gilgamesh is like trying to say that Winston Churchill is the inspiration for Sauron just because Tolkien lived and wrote LOTR in Britain around the same time.
I
Matthew Henry's commentary on the subject is interesting:
(Read Genesis 10:8-14)
"Nimrod was a great man in his day; he began to be mighty in the earth, those before him were content to be upon the same level with their neighbors, and though every man rule his own houe, yet no man pretended any further. Nimrod was resolved to lord it over his neighbors. The spirit of the giants before the flood, who became mighty men, and men of renown, Gen.6:4, revived in him Nimrod was a great hunter. Hunting then was the method of preventing the hurtful increase of wild beasts. This required great courage and address, and thus gave an opportunity for Nimrod to command others, and gradually attached a number of men to one leader. From such a beginning, it is likely, that Nimrod began to rule, and to force others to submit. He invaded his neighbor's rights and properties, and persecuted innocent men; endeavoring to make all his own by force and violence. He carried on his opressions and violence in defiance of God himself. Nimrod was a great ruler. Some way or other, by arts or arms, he got into power, and so founded a monarchy, which was the terror of the mighty, and bid fair to rule all the world.
Nimrod was a great builder. Observe in Nimrod the nature of ambition. It is boundless; much would have more, and still cries, Give, give. It is restless; Nimrod, when he had four cities under his command, could not be content till he had four more. It is expensive; Nimrod, will rather be at charge rearing cities, than not have the honour of ruling them. It is daring, and will stick at nothing. Nimrod's name signifies rebellion; tyrants to men rebels to God. The days are coming, when conquerors will no longer be spoken of with praise, as man's partial histories, but be branded with infamy, as the impartial records of the Bible."
(Read Genesis 10:8-14)
"Nimrod was a great man in his day; he began to be mighty in the earth, those before him were content to be upon the same level with their neighbors, and though every man rule his own houe, yet no man pretended any further. Nimrod was resolved to lord it over his neighbors. The spirit of the giants before the flood, who became mighty men, and men of renown, Gen.6:4, revived in him Nimrod was a great hunter. Hunting then was the method of preventing the hurtful increase of wild beasts. This required great courage and address, and thus gave an opportunity for Nimrod to command others, and gradually attached a number of men to one leader. From such a beginning, it is likely, that Nimrod began to rule, and to force others to submit. He invaded his neighbor's rights and properties, and persecuted innocent men; endeavoring to make all his own by force and violence. He carried on his opressions and violence in defiance of God himself. Nimrod was a great ruler. Some way or other, by arts or arms, he got into power, and so founded a monarchy, which was the terror of the mighty, and bid fair to rule all the world.
Nimrod was a great builder. Observe in Nimrod the nature of ambition. It is boundless; much would have more, and still cries, Give, give. It is restless; Nimrod, when he had four cities under his command, could not be content till he had four more. It is expensive; Nimrod, will rather be at charge rearing cities, than not have the honour of ruling them. It is daring, and will stick at nothing. Nimrod's name signifies rebellion; tyrants to men rebels to God. The days are coming, when conquerors will no longer be spoken of with praise, as man's partial histories, but be branded with infamy, as the impartial records of the Bible."
T
Babel was the beginning of Nimrod's kingdom. That means it was the first city in his kingdom, not necessarily that Nimrod ruled at the time of the dispersion. It's just as likely that Nimrod was made king by those who stayed behind, following the scattering of the family groups across the face of the earth.
@IS indeed as Tintin says, it only says Babel was the start of kingdom, not that he necessarily built the city or was even alive when Tower of Babel happened. It would seem compared to the following verses about Asshur which clearly define Asshur as building those cities that Nimrod may not have built the cities he ruled over. When did Matthew Henry live? How does Matthew Henry know? Again all those commentaries that reimagine the Bible are literally heresies, we can't rely on them. To determine the true character of Nimrod we have to rely on the Bible only.
I
For one thing I don't thnk the Sons of Shem would have anything to do with the Sosns of Ham, since Shem was the Godly line through which our Lord would come and second names are repeated in scripture all the time.
There are in fact two distinct Asshurs—one is a descendent of Ham and the other is a descendent of Shem. This is not unprecedented in the book of Genesis and shouldn't be viewed as an improbable conclusion. If we compare the genealogies of the line of Seth with the line of Cain in Genesis 4-5 we find that there are two "Enochs" and two "Lamechs".
There are in fact two distinct Asshurs—one is a descendent of Ham and the other is a descendent of Shem. This is not unprecedented in the book of Genesis and shouldn't be viewed as an improbable conclusion. If we compare the genealogies of the line of Seth with the line of Cain in Genesis 4-5 we find that there are two "Enochs" and two "Lamechs".
There is two Asshurs in the Bible though indeed. Asshur the son of Shem in Genesis 10 and Ashur father of Tekoa in 1 Chronicles 4. It would seem both are Semites. So you can see there is a wide gulf between the writings of the heretics and the actual Bible. Think it's probably obvious which Asshur they're talking about in Genesis 10.
Genesis 10:22
[SUP]22 [/SUP]The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram
1 Chronicles 4:5-7
[SUP]5 [/SUP]And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]And Naarah bare him Ahuzam, and Hepher, and Temeni, and Haahashtari. These were the sons of Naarah.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]And the sons of Helah were, Zereth, and Jezoar, and Ethnan.
Genesis 10:22
[SUP]22 [/SUP]The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram
1 Chronicles 4:5-7
[SUP]5 [/SUP]And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]And Naarah bare him Ahuzam, and Hepher, and Temeni, and Haahashtari. These were the sons of Naarah.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]And the sons of Helah were, Zereth, and Jezoar, and Ethnan.
Also to note, ran out of EDIT time. The line through which Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and eventually Jesus came was through Arphaxad. Being a son of Shem or building cities such as Nineveh doesn't necessarily mean that Asshur was good or bad. There is no real indication of Asshur's belief in the Bible unless indirectly he being one of the people that said "as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord" would indicate belief in God amongst the early post-Flood peoples, which would include Asshur.
Race don't mean you're good or bad, the Book of Kings displays that quite well with kings of the line of Judah, even the line of David, both good and evil.
Race don't mean you're good or bad, the Book of Kings displays that quite well with kings of the line of Judah, even the line of David, both good and evil.
Last edited:
