Nimrod

[Is]

The Mighty One

Nimrod the insignificant?


Regarding the Sumerian name Enmer-kar, the suffix "kar" means "hunter," and so "Enmer-kar" is in fact "Enmer the Hunter," just as Nimrod is referred to as the "Mighty Hunter" in Genesis 10. Furthermore, Enmerkar is named on the Sumerian King List as "the one who built Uruk," just as Nimrod is described in Genesis 10:10 as having a kingdom that began in "Babel (Eridu) and Erech (Uruk)... in the land of Shinar." After Enmerkar's death he became honored in Sumerian myth as the semi-divine hero Ninurta, and eventually this cult evolved into the great cult of Marduk, which became the state religion of Babylon after the conquests and religious innovations of Hammurabi. At first glance Nimrod may appear to be an insignificant figure from a Biblical perspective, but if our analysis of Nimrod's legacy is correct then it is clear that he was a very important figure from a pagan perspective, both during his life and after his death."

http://www.redmoonrising.com/Giza/Asshur9.htm

 

[GodIsSalvation]

The Mighty One

Nimrod the insignificant?


Regarding the Sumerian name Enmer-kar, the suffix "kar" means "hunter," and so "Enmer-kar" is in fact "Enmer the Hunter," just as Nimrod is referred to as the "Mighty Hunter" in Genesis 10. Furthermore, Enmerkar is named on the Sumerian King List as "the one who built Uruk," just as Nimrod is described in Genesis 10:10 as having a kingdom that began in "Babel (Eridu) and Erech (Uruk)... in the land of Shinar." After Enmerkar's death he became honored in Sumerian myth as the semi-divine hero Ninurta, and eventually this cult evolved into the great cult of Marduk, which became the state religion of Babylon after the conquests and religious innovations of Hammurabi. At first glance Nimrod may appear to be an insignificant figure from a Biblical perspective, but if our analysis of Nimrod's legacy is correct then it is clear that he was a very important figure from a pagan perspective, both during his life and after his death."

http://www.redmoonrising.com/Giza/Asshur9.htm

Lol again not a source from the Bible. The Sumerian King's list is ridiculously inflated just like almost all other pagan religions such as the Egyptian king's list, the Hellenists mythic age, etc. is inflated to account for their demonic pagan religions. After all the Sumerian King's list would have you believe the earth is like tens of thousands of years old, which controverts the Bible.

Even if I play into the game Enmerkar, for one isn't even the first king on their post-Flood king's list, in fact he's not even in the first fictional post-Flood dynasty. He's not even the first king of the second fictional dynasty. Lol to make it even more ludicrous the Sumerian King's list would try to beguile you into believing Enmerkar assumed his reign 17,440 years after the Flood! I'm going to believe the Bible over Sumerian mythology.

There is too much that has come archaeologically that sheds light on Nimrod. If you choose to ignore it, fine, but knock off your penchant for calling everyone a heretic or a pharisee that doesn't agree with you.

No it is because they are literally heretics and Pharisees and pagans. Them making a mythos that contradicts and rewrites the Bible is literally heresy. Josephus and the Talmud and unbelieving jew midrashes stuff is literally the works and leaven of the Pharisees. Islam and Babylonian mythology is literally a pagan religion. Note how the heretics have to try to conflate the Bible with demonic pagan religions. It's not that hard to understand. It's not because they don't agree with me, it's because they rather don't agree with the Bible.

Note how it's impossible for you to find anything in Bible saying Nimrod was evil. If the heretics and pagans and Pharisees were right it should pretty easy to give me one canonical Bible verse that says Nimrod did any of the stuff they allege. So far not one person here has been able to locate such a verse. Technically you need two witnesses, I'm just asking for one and can't even find that one. I can find two inspired scripture witnesses intra-Bible Only with Moses and the Chronicler that describe Nimrod as a mighty hunter before the Lord.

Also note, I am not calling ya'll heretics, pagans, or Pharisees, but the sources you keep showing me are literally heretics, pagans, and Pharisees. The theories ya'll keep showing me I can only trace back to either heretics, pagans, or Pharisees.

Please show me in the Bible only. Just like Paul says I will cut the floor out from under every heretic, pagan, and Pharisee theory that masquerades as if their heresies and pagan religions were equal to our one and true Bible, God, Jesus, and Christianity.

2 Corinthians 11: 11-12

[SUP]11 [/SUP]Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about.

 

[JesusIsAll]

Also note, I am not calling ya'll heretics, pagans, or Pharisees, but the sources you keep showing me are literally heretics, pagans, and Pharisees. The theories ya'll keep showing me I can only trace back to either heretics, pagans, or Pharisees.

Please show me in the Bible only.

Just what is your problem? You come here, acting as if you expect Bible discussion or something! What I'd like to know is why is there a big controversy over Nimrod? Already stated, there are deductive reasons to believe he may not have been a very nice guy, or just suffice it to say, if nothing else, the Lord didn't deign it worthwhile to reveal much of anything about him. But also, there are a lot of people in the Old Testament I'd probably want to meet, before coming to Nimrod in the list. There's Ezekiel, David and Solomon, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah: you could go on and on. I'd find it more interesting to meet Balaam's ass, frankly. You can't get a donkey's viewpoint just any old day, except from some of the grace threads here. I've known good old boys who were hunters, as well as builders. Let's face it: all they did was stack rocks back then, nothing to even help you figure out what to do about a leaking toilet. Maybe I'm missing something. Has a justice for Nimrod movement surfaced even the Daily Mail missed?

 

[Is]

Lol again not a source from the Bible. The Sumerian King's list is ridiculously inflated just like almost all other pagan religions such as the Egyptian king's list, the Hellenists mythic age, etc. is inflated to account for their demonic pagan religions. After all the Sumerian King's list would have you believe the earth is like tens of thousands of years old, which controverts the Bible.

Even if I play into the game Enmerkar, for one isn't even the first king on their post-Flood king's list, in fact he's not even in the first fictional post-Flood dynasty. He's not even the first king of the second fictional dynasty. Lol to make it even more ludicrous the Sumerian King's list would try to beguile you into believing Enmerkar assumed his reign 17,440 years after the Flood! I'm going to believe the Bible over Sumerian mythology.

Since the Bible isn't a history book I don't see anything arong with using other sources such a archeaology.

David Rohl has claimed parallels between Enmerkar, builder of Uruk, and Nimrod, ruler of biblical Erech (Uruk) and architect of the Tower of Babel in extra-biblical legends. One parallel Rohl noted is the description "Nimrod the Hunter", and the -kar in Enmerkar also meaning "hunter". Rohl has also suggested that Eridu near Ur is the original site of Babel, and that the incomplete ziggurat found there - by far the oldest and largest of its kind - is none other than the remnants of the Biblical tower.[1]

In a legend related by Aelian [2] (ca. AD 200), the king of Babylon, Euechoros or Seuechoros (also appearing in many variants as Sevekhoros, earlier Sacchoras, etc.), is said to be the grandfather of Gilgamos, who later becomes king of Babylon (i.e., Gilgamesh of Uruk). Several recent scholars have suggested that this "Seuechoros" or "Euechoros" is moreover to be identified with Enmerkar of Uruk, as well as the Euechous named by Berossus as being the first king of Chaldea and Assyria. This last name Euechous (also appearing as Evechius, and in many other variants) has long been identified with Nimrod.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enmerkar[/QUOTE]

No it is because they are literally heretics and Pharisees and pagans. Them making a mythos that contradicts and rewrites the Bible is literally heresy. Josephus and the Talmud and unbelieving jew midrashes stuff is literally the works and leaven of the Pharisees. Islam and Babylonian mythology is literally a pagan religion. Note how the heretics have to try to conflate the Bible with demonic pagan religions. It's not that hard to understand. It's not because they don't agree with me, it's because they rather don't agree with the Bible.

Note how it's impossible for you to find anything in Bible saying Nimrod was evil. If the heretics and pagans and Pharisees were right it should pretty easy to give me one canonical Bible verse that says Nimrod did any of the stuff they allege. So far not one person here has been able to locate such a verse. Technically you need two witnesses, I'm just asking for one and can't even find that one. I can find two inspired scripture witnesses intra-Bible Only with Moses and the Chronicler that describe Nimrod as a mighty hunter before the Lord.

Also note, I am not calling ya'll heretics, pagans, or Pharisees, but the sources you keep showing me are literally heretics, pagans, and Pharisees. The theories ya'll keep showing me I can only trace back to either heretics, pagans, or Pharisees.

Please show me in the Bible only. Just like Paul says I will cut the floor out from under every heretic, pagan, and Pharisee theory that masquerades as if their heresies and pagan religions were equal to our one and true Bible, God, Jesus, and Christianity.

2 Corinthians 11: 11-12

[SUP]11 [/SUP]Why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about.

Since satan's aim was to ascend above the heavens in Isaiah 14 it is very likely that it was he who was behind the desire of the tower builders in Gen.11., I think that is Bible proof enough to connect the whole bunch with evil thoughts and desires, and that would make their leader Nimrod a person who was a rebel against God.

Like I pointed out a long time back the word "before" as in Nimrod was a mighty hunter "before" the Lord, the word "before" is "paneh" and can carry the conotation of "against" with it. And I believe that is just waht Nimrod was, "against the Lord".

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Just what is your problem? You come here, acting as if you expect Bible discussion or something!

Lol sorry thought this was Bible Discussion Forum. Would think therefore it applicable to you know, use the Bible rather the unbiblical heretics and pagan sources.

I'd like to know is why is there a big controversy over Nimrod?

The controversy is simple. Heretics, pagans, and Pharisees claim Nimrod was evil as an essential lynchpin of their heretical mythologies reimagining of the Bible. The Bible does not actually corroborate their heresies and pagan religions, but would rather seem to contradict them.

[Already stated, there are deductive reasons to believe he may not have been a very nice guy, or just suffice it to say, if nothing else, the Lord didn't deign it worthwhile to reveal much of anything about him./QUOTE]

Then you should be able to provide a verse that clearly and unambiguously states anything of the sort about Nimrod. See, now this is moreso the crux of the matter, because then what are the unbiblical sources alleging? That the Lord is lying or hiding stuff from us? Nay it is not so, but the Lord inspired Moses and the Chronicler to tell us everything we need to know, not just about Nimrod, but about everything.

But also, there are a lot of people in the Old Testament I'd probably want to meet, before coming to Nimrod in the list. There's Ezekiel, David and Solomon, Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah: you could go on and on. I'd find it more interesting to meet Balaam's ass, frankly. You can't get a donkey's viewpoint just any old day, except from some of the grace threads here.

LOL this I agree with fully, especially David, Daniel, Isaiah, and Elijah. A Like just for this paragraph. Nevertheless, they be not the subject of the topic, though they would make good subjects for other topics indeed.

I've known good old boys who were hunters, as well as builders. Let's face it: all they did was stack rocks back then, nothing to even help you figure out what to do about a leaking toilet.

Lol aye indeed, therefore then going by Bible only Nimrod is either a minor good character for being estimated well by the Lord or is an insignificant hunter.

[Maybe I'm missing something. Has a justice for Nimrod movement surfaced even the Daily Mail missed?/QUOTE]

Lol personally not a big reader of the DailyMail. The point has turned moreso from Nimrod's personal role in the Bible to showing how the mythology around Nimrod, which is not found in the Bible, is a handy way to identify and prove several pagan religions and heresies that contradict and attempt to undermine faith in the Bible and God and which imply that we should trust their heresies and pagan religions more than we trust the Bible which is inspired by God.

So therefore my aim is two-fold; to lay waste to their false religions and to show the true religion of the Bible is the only true religion to be trusted.

2 Peter 2:1

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 Timothy 3:16

[SUP]16 [/SUP]All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[JesusIsAll]

Since the Bible isn't a history book I don't see anything arong with using other sources such a archeaology.

Heaven forbid to be serious over Nimrod, I also think it's alright, on a very selective basis, to pay attention to writings outside the Bible, where they are congruous with the Bible. You have to take notice of the likes of so many cultures having a flood account, or places where historians noted those things found in the Bible with perhaps some detail that fits. Such things have often proved much, to the world at large, how the Bible is credible. It's another subject, but psychology/psychiatry is also very useful in the study of human behavior, where many cult teaching and false gospels are concerned, but this another subject, pathological human behavior. It's good to take everything into account, but, of course, the only reliable and final word is the Bible. We can't say "thus saith the Lord," when He has not spoken, something we should not, must not, do.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Since the Bible isn't a history book I don't see anything arong with using other sources such a archeaology.

David Rohl has claimed parallels between Enmerkar, builder of Uruk, and Nimrod, ruler of biblical Erech (Uruk) and architect of the Tower of Babel in extra-biblical legends. One parallel Rohl noted is the description "Nimrod the Hunter", and the -kar in Enmerkar also meaning "hunter". Rohl has also suggested that Eridu near Ur is the original site of Babel, and that the incomplete ziggurat found there - by far the oldest and largest of its kind - is none other than the remnants of the Biblical tower.[1]

In a legend related by Aelian [2] (ca. AD 200), the king of Babylon, Euechoros or Seuechoros (also appearing in many variants as Sevekhoros, earlier Sacchoras, etc.), is said to be the grandfather of Gilgamos, who later becomes king of Babylon (i.e., Gilgamesh of Uruk). Several recent scholars have suggested that this "Seuechoros" or "Euechoros" is moreover to be identified with Enmerkar of Uruk, as well as the Euechous named by Berossus as being the first king of Chaldea and Assyria. This last name Euechous (also appearing as Evechius, and in many other variants) has long been identified with Nimrod.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enmerkar






Since satan's aim was to ascend above the heavens in Isaiah 14 it is very likely that it was he who was behind the desire of the tower builders in Gen.11., I think that is Bible proof enough to connect the whole bunch with evil thoughts and desires, and that would make their leader Nimrod a person who was a rebel against God.

Like I pointed out a long time back the word "before" as in Nimrod was a mighty hunter "before" the Lord, the word "before" is "paneh" and can carry the conotation of "against" with it. And I believe that is just waht Nimrod was, "against the Lord".

Nay, the Bible is a history book, in fact all of history from beginning to end, and even the present is contained within the Bible.

Again not a Bible source, a source from heretics trying to conflate the Bible with pagan religions.

Here's the Sumerian Kings List. Go ahead and add up the years of their fictional reigns up to Enmerkar. I got 17,440 years, which means Enmerkar hasn't even been born yet and won't be for approximately another 10,000+ years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List

As for Isaiah 14, that is not about the dragon called Satan and Devil. That be another heresy, a big one too. Isaiah 14 is unambiguously and specifically addressed to the King of Babylon, a human (verse 4). Furthermore we know there is no light in the dragon called Satan and Devil. We also know the dragon called Satan masquerades as an angel of light to deceive many false prophets throughout history Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Ellen White, etc. (2 Corinthians 11:14) and the belief that Satan is a lightbearer is a common belief in most false pagan religions created in the AD from western satanism to islam. Curiously the Bible alone of all religions identifies Satan as a dragon with no light in him.

Further to that tangent, a lot of well meaning people I think go after the heresies and mythologies surrounding Nimrod in an attempt to discover the origin of paganism. Paganism does not start with Nimrod, but rather starts with the dragon in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3 wherein the dragon lied to Eve telling her she would become a god and thus making the dragon both the first to make an idol out of Eve by his lies and also makes the dragon the first pagan. We know this as Jesus says the dragon is the first sinner and murderer, and we can see by his three lies which caused him and the world to fall how he committed basically every sin with his three lies. Therefore cursed directly by God is that serpent above all animals.

As for paneh, we been over this all ready. The usage of paneh in Genesis 10 is clearly identified as meaning "in sight of, oversight, or estimation of". Your own source which you tried to use, Strong's, says this.

 

[JesusIsAll]

L
So therefore my aim is two-fold; to lay waste to their false religions and to show the true religion of the Bible is the only true religion to be trusted.

Well, neither of you guys seem like Nimrods. So, carry on. I think Nimrod actually posted in a thread here named "Who Killed Goliath?". I still have nightmares about that one!

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Well, neither of you guys seem like Nimrods. So, carry on. I think Nimrod actually posted in a thread here named "Who Killed Goliath?". I still have nightmares about that one!

Lol have not seen that one. Did they not think it was David strengthened by the Lord?

 

[Stephen63]

Why is it that you're not going to the correct word in Strong's? Don't your versions have that number?

"mighty one"

Hebrew Word: ‏גִּבֹּר‎
Transliteration: gibbôr
Phonetic Pronunciation: ghib-bore'

Root: intensive from <H1396>
Cross Reference: TWOT - 310b
Part of Speech:
Vine's Words: Hero

Usage Notes:

English Words used in KJV:
mighty 63
mighty man 68
strong 4
valiant 3
ones 4
mighties 2
man 2
valiant men 2
strong man 1
upright man 1
champion 1
chief 1
excel 1
giant 1
men's 1
mightiest 1
strongest 1
[Total Count: 158]

or (shortened) gibbor, ghib-bore'; intensive from the same as <H1397> (geber); powerful; by implication warrior, tyrant :- champion, chief, × excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.

We DO know Nimrod was a warrior..... & a king..... who either built by permission or by force EIGHT CITIES?

HOW does one get the name warrior? From conquests, of course. You don't get that name from buying real estate.

In the OT, we have boatloads of examples of Israel & Judah having both godly kings & wicked kings. When they are wicked, so is the nation..... when they are righteous, most generally so is their kingdoms. This is the way it works. We shouldn't expect any different from Nimrod. We DO KNOW Babylon was wicked. Where then does that leave us? When we can't find direct scriptures for proof, we use other examples in the Bible to aid us.

With this REAL evidence, what can we conclude about Nimrod? He was a warrior/conqueror, taking land by force, for in those days land was a valuable commodity & an inheritance to later generations. Can we really expect the people sold it or gave it away?

YOU DON'T BELIEVE NIMROD WAS A REAL ESTATE AGENT, DO YOU? *Sheesh!* Wake up & read your Bibles!

 

[JesusIsAll]

With this REAL evidence, what can we conclude about Nimrod? He was a warrior/conqueror, taking land by force, for in those days land was a valuable commodity & an inheritance to later generations. Can we really expect the people sold it or gave it away?

YOU DON'T BELIEVE NIMROD WAS A REAL ESTATE AGENT, DO YOU? *Sheesh!* Wake up & read your Bibles!

Agree. Given the unbroken history of Gentile "mighty men" stepping over heaps of corpses to enlarge borders, they probably wouldn't have hired RE/MAX. Also agree Babylon may as well be a dirty word, in Bible terms, Babel not likely an auspicious start, in the annals of holiness.

 

[JesusIsAll]

Lol have not seen that one. Did they not think it was David strengthened by the Lord?

If you're filled with courage and have an empty stomach, the thread may be still around. As I remember, the least likely answer was David. You'd love it, for it sticking close to anything, but scripture. About the only thing I could gather from it was that it proved people could type, while suffering a nightmare.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Why is it that you're not going to the correct word in Strong's? Don't your versions have that number?

"mighty one"

Hebrew Word: ‏גִּבֹּר‎
Transliteration: gibbôr
Phonetic Pronunciation: ghib-bore'

Root: intensive from <H1396>
Cross Reference: TWOT - 310b
Part of Speech:
Vine's Words: Hero

Usage Notes:

English Words used in KJV:
mighty 63
mighty man 68
strong 4
valiant 3
ones 4
mighties 2
man 2
valiant men 2
strong man 1
upright man 1
champion 1
chief 1
excel 1
giant 1
men's 1
mightiest 1
strongest 1
[Total Count: 158]

or (shortened) gibbor, ghib-bore'; intensive from the same as <H1397> (geber); powerful; by implication warrior, tyrant :- champion, chief, × excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.

We DO know Nimrod was a warrior..... & a king..... who either built by permission or by force EIGHT CITIES?

HOW does one get the name warrior? From conquests, of course. You don't get that name from buying real estate.

In the OT, we have boatloads of examples of Israel & Judah having both godly kings & wicked kings. When they are wicked, so is the nation..... when they are righteous, most generally so is their kingdoms. This is the way it works. We shouldn't expect any different from Nimrod. We DO KNOW Babylon was wicked. Where then does that leave us? When we can't find direct scriptures for proof, we use other examples in the Bible to aid us.

With this REAL evidence, what can we conclude about Nimrod? He was a warrior/conqueror, taking land by force, for in those days land was a valuable commodity & an inheritance to later generations. Can we really expect the people sold it or gave it away?

YOU DON'T BELIEVE NIMROD WAS A REAL ESTATE AGENT, DO YOU? *Sheesh!* Wake up & read your Bibles!

Lol what's that vine word there that says hero?

It's possible Nimrod was a warlord, but the Bible never says he made any wars. Never says he built the cities he ruled over either. Good look though, best argument yet, but there's one problem, it still leaves it indecisive as to his actual character since all three forms are used of him lol, good, bad, and indifferent.

My opinion is the qualifier is that both the narrator of Genesis and an ascribed quote of the people say he was a mighty/tyrannical/strong/valiant hunter before/insight/in estimation of the Lord. The qualifier is "in the Lord" which indicates a belief in the Lord. Whether Nimrod held on to that or not, we'll probably never know until the end of time.

Strong's Hebrew: 1368. גִּבּוֹר (gibbor) -- strong, mighty

Bad (note the wonk though as it is compared to Arabic)

[SUB]159[/SUB] [SIZE=+1]adjective[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]strong, mighty[/SIZE] (compare Arabic

one who magnifies himself, behaves proudly, a tyrant, who is bold, audacious) — Genesis 10:9 5t.; גִּבֹּר
Genesis 10:8

Indifferent

1. adjective גִּבּוֺר בַּבְּהֵמָה mightiest among beasts Proverbs 30:30; אִישׁ גִּבּוֺר 1 Samuel 14:52; גִּבּוֺר בָּאָרֶץ Psalm 112:2; גִּבּוֺר צַיִד mighty in hunting Genesis 10:9 (J);

Good

2. noun masculine strong, valiant man Joshua 10:2 (E) Genesis 6:4; Genesis 10:8(J)

 

[GodIsSalvation]

If you're filled with courage and have an empty stomach, the thread may be still around. As I remember, the least likely answer was David. You'd love it, for it sticking close to anything, but scripture. About the only thing I could gather from it was that it proved people could type, while suffering a nightmare.

Lol wow, now you got me curious indeed.

 

[JesusIsAll]

Lol wow, now you got me curious indeed.

It's been quite awhile ago, but I recall just sitting there flabbergasted, like, "This stuff just can't be on the screen!" Snakes and the "Who Killed Goliath?" thread are scary things, the latter if you have any concern for the state of Bible literacy or just civilization, generally.

Anyway, go hunt it down, Pandora.

 

[Is]

Why is it that you're not going to the correct word in Strong's? Don't your versions have that number?

"mighty one"

Hebrew Word: ‏גִּבֹּר‎
Transliteration: gibbôr
Phonetic Pronunciation: ghib-bore'

Root: intensive from <H1396>
Cross Reference: TWOT - 310b
Part of Speech:
Vine's Words: Hero

Usage Notes:

English Words used in KJV:
mighty 63
mighty man 68
strong 4
valiant 3
ones 4
mighties 2
man 2
valiant men 2
strong man 1
upright man 1
champion 1
chief 1
excel 1
giant 1
men's 1
mightiest 1
strongest 1
[Total Count: 158]

or (shortened) gibbor, ghib-bore'; intensive from the same as <H1397> (geber); powerful; by implication warrior, tyrant :- champion, chief, × excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man.

We DO know Nimrod was a warrior..... & a king..... who either built by permission or by force EIGHT CITIES?

HOW does one get the name warrior? From conquests, of course. You don't get that name from buying real estate.

In the OT, we have boatloads of examples of Israel & Judah having both godly kings & wicked kings. When they are wicked, so is the nation..... when they are righteous, most generally so is their kingdoms. This is the way it works. We shouldn't expect any different from Nimrod. We DO KNOW Babylon was wicked. Where then does that leave us? When we can't find direct scriptures for proof, we use other examples in the Bible to aid us.

With this REAL evidence, what can we conclude about Nimrod? He was a warrior/conqueror, taking land by force, for in those days land was a valuable commodity & an inheritance to later generations. Can we really expect the people sold it or gave it away?

YOU DON'T BELIEVE NIMROD WAS A REAL ESTATE AGENT, DO YOU? *Sheesh!* Wake up & read your Bibles!

In the OT, we have boatloads of examples of Israel & Judah having both godly kings & wicked kings. When they are wicked, so is the nation..... when they are righteous, most generally so is their kingdoms. This is the way it works. We shouldn't expect any different from Nimrod. We DO KNOW Babylon was wicked. Where then does that leave us? When we can't find direct scriptures for proof, we use other examples in the Bible to aid us.

And like I showed satan wanted to build to heaven just as the people of Gen.11 and it was credited against satan. Even today a movement has a leader and the leader of the people in Gen.11 was Nimrod.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

It's been quite awhile ago, but I recall just sitting there flabbergasted, like, "This stuff just can't be on the screen!" Snakes and the "Who Killed Goliath?" thread are scary things, the latter if you have any concern for the state of Bible literacy or just civilization, generally.

Anyway, go hunt it down, Pandora.

Lol I will have to read it now for sure, don't worry I won't open it up. Lol I all ready get the sense that ithis is gonna be different. As where with Nimrod being somewhat ambiguous being such a minor character, David and Goliath, I mean come on, that's like famous. Even before I read the Bible I knew that one.

Snakes ain't scary, I remember my grandpa cutting one's head off with a shovel, that's how to deal with snakes.

Also not a subscriber to that music radio station, I just surf youtube for tunes now that I sold off my CD collection.

 

[Is]

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.

It shouldn't be that odd to connect Nimrod and Semeramis because there is a similar story in the first century between Simon Magis and Helen.

"They have a statue of Simon in the form of Zeus, and one of Helen in the form of Athena [Virgin], which they worship, calling the former Lord and the latter Lady. And if any among them on seeing the images, calls them by the name Simon or Helen, he is cast out as one ignorant of the mysteries" (Philosephumena, VI.20)"

 

[GodIsSalvation]

And like I showed satan wanted to build to heaven just as the people of Gen.11 and it was credited against satan. Even today a movement has a leader and the leader of the people in Gen.11 was Nimrod.[/SIZE]

No you didn't show that. You reference Isaiah 14 and mistook it to be about Satan when it is not about Satan, but is rather expressly about the King of Babylon. In fact the dragon is mentioned no where in that chapter.

Also we've been over this before. It's unclear if Nimrod was even alive when Tower of Babel incident happened, considering he took over the city of Babel which implies it was there before him, or at least before his kingship over it. And as another mentioned here, I forget if it was Sir Tintin or another off the top of my head, "the people" started to build tower of Babel. It also says why they wanted to do it, to make a name for themselves that they may not be scattered.

On top of that, I don't think it was the tower itself that was the problem, after all, they probably didn't even get close to finishing it. I think it was as is indicated in the text that the Lord knows all and has omniscient foresight and knew that if allowed to continue in one language nothing be restrained of man. On top of that, it seems the determination was moreso to scatter them abroad. I think if they had intended to utter wickedness they would have just been annihilated, but the Lord is merciful and instead gave us the gift of diversity of tongues. So they left off building.

Not always do people have a leader. Book of Judges for instance, lolz for that matter America. Being king is also not necessarily a bad thing, though indeed there are both good and evil kings. David was a king, and David was awesome before the Lord I think we all agree.

2 Samuel 5:3

[SUP]3 [/SUP]So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the Lord: and they anointed David king over Israel.

Lol and to note there's paneh again used in the exact same manner as is used to describe Nimrod (in sight/before/in estimation of).

 

[GodIsSalvation]

It shouldn't be that odd to connect Nimrod and Semeramis because there is a similar story in the first century between Simon Magis and Helen.

"They have a statue of Simon in the form of Zeus, and one of Helen in the form of Athena [Virgin], which they worship, calling the former Lord and the latter Lady. And if any among them on seeing the images, calls them by the name Simon or Helen, he is cast out as one ignorant of the mysteries" (Philosephumena, VI.20)"

It should be pretty odd considering in both cases they lived hundreds to thousands of years apart and in different places.

Again a non-biblical source seeming to want us to trust in paganism rather than the Bible.

Why can't you find me a Bible verse that clearly and unambiguously supports such a claim?