Nimrod

[jaybird88]

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.

what exactly do you think the tower of babel was?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

what exactly do you think the tower of babel was?

An incomplete tower in the city of Babel like the Bible says.

Genesis 11:1-9

1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.



Provably wiped out of history by the power of our mighty and valiant Lord in recompense for what they did to Zion in the time of Nebuchadrezzar.

Jeremiah 51

1 Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I will raise up against Babylon, and against them that dwell in the midst of them that rise up against me, a destroying wind;
[SUP]2 [/SUP]And will send unto Babylon fanners, that shall fan her, and shall empty her land: for in the day of trouble they shall be against her round about.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]Against him that bendeth let the archer bend his bow, and against him that lifteth himself up in his brigandine: and spare ye not her young men; destroy ye utterly all her host.
[SUP]4 [/SUP]Thus the slain shall fall in the land of the Chaldeans, and they that are thrust through in her streets.
[SUP]5 [/SUP]For Israel hath not been forsaken, nor Judah of his God, of the Lord of hosts; though their land was filled with sin against the Holy One of Israel.
[SUP]6 [/SUP]Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity; for this is the time of the Lord's vengeance; he will render unto her a recompence.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Babylon is suddenly fallen and destroyed: howl for her; take balm for her pain, if so be she may be healed.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed: forsake her, and let us go every one into his own country: for her judgment reacheth unto heaven, and is lifted up even to the skies.
[SUP]10 [/SUP]The Lord hath brought forth our righteousness: come, and let us declare in Zion the work of the Lord our God.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]Make bright the arrows; gather the shields: the Lord hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes: for his device is against Babylon, to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of his temple.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]Set up the standard upon the walls of Babylon, make the watch strong, set up the watchmen, prepare the ambushes: for the Lord hath both devised and done that which he spake against the inhabitants of Babylon.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]O thou that dwellest upon many waters, abundant in treasures, thine end is come, and the measure of thy covetousness.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]The Lord of hosts hath sworn by himself, saying, Surely I will fill thee with men, as with caterpillers; and they shall lift up a shout against thee.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens; and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth: he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.
[SUP]17 [/SUP]Every man is brutish by his knowledge; every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.
[SUP]18 [/SUP]They are vanity, the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.
[SUP]19 [/SUP]The portion of Jacob is not like them; for he is the former of all things: and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: the Lord of hosts is his name.
[SUP]20 [/SUP]Thou art my battle axe and weapons of war: for with thee will I break in pieces the nations, and with thee will I destroy kingdoms;
[SUP]21 [/SUP]And with thee will I break in pieces the horse and his rider; and with thee will I break in pieces the chariot and his rider;
[SUP]22 [/SUP]With thee also will I break in pieces man and woman; and with thee will I break in pieces old and young; and with thee will I break in pieces the young man and the maid;
[SUP]23 [/SUP]I will also break in pieces with thee the shepherd and his flock; and with thee will I break in pieces the husbandman and his yoke of oxen; and with thee will I break in pieces captains and rulers.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]And I will render unto Babylon and to all the inhabitants of Chaldea all their evil that they have done in Zion in your sight, saith the Lord.
[SUP]25 [/SUP]Behold, I am against thee, O destroying mountain, saith the Lord, which destroyest all the earth: and I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and roll thee down from the rocks, and will make thee a burnt mountain.
[SUP]26 [/SUP]And they shall not take of thee a stone for a corner, nor a stone for foundations; but thou shalt be desolate for ever, saith the Lord.
[SUP]27 [/SUP]Set ye up a standard in the land, blow the trumpet among the nations, prepare the nations against her, call together against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni, and Ashchenaz; appoint a captain against her; cause the horses to come up as the rough caterpillers.
[SUP]28 [/SUP]Prepare against her the nations with the kings of the Medes, the captains thereof, and all the rulers thereof, and all the land of his dominion.
[SUP]29 [/SUP]And the land shall tremble and sorrow: for every purpose of the Lord shall be performed against Babylon, to make the land of Babylon a desolation without an inhabitant.
[SUP]30 [/SUP]The mighty men of Babylon have forborn to fight, they have remained in their holds: their might hath failed; they became as women: they have burned her dwellingplaces; her bars are broken.
[SUP]31 [/SUP]One post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to shew the king of Babylon that his city is taken at one end,
[SUP]32 [/SUP]And that the passages are stopped, and the reeds they have burned with fire, and the men of war are affrighted.
[SUP]33 [/SUP]For thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; The daughter of Babylon is like a threshingfloor, it is time to thresh her: yet a little while, and the time of her harvest shall come.
[SUP]34 [/SUP]Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon hath devoured me, he hath crushed me, he hath made me an empty vessel, he hath swallowed me up like a dragon, he hath filled his belly with my delicates, he hath cast me out.
[SUP]35 [/SUP]The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon, shall the inhabitant of Zion say; and my blood upon the inhabitants of Chaldea, shall Jerusalem say.
[SUP]36 [/SUP]Therefore thus saith the Lord; Behold, I will plead thy cause, and take vengeance for thee; and I will dry up her sea, and make her springs dry.
[SUP]37 [/SUP]And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant.
[SUP]38 [/SUP]They shall roar together like lions: they shall yell as lions' whelps.
[SUP]39 [/SUP]In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the Lord.
[SUP]40 [/SUP]I will bring them down like lambs to the slaughter, like rams with he goats.
[SUP]41 [/SUP]How is Sheshach taken! and how is the praise of the whole earth surprised! how is Babylon become an astonishment among the nations!
[SUP]42 [/SUP]The sea is come up upon Babylon: she is covered with the multitude of the waves thereof.
[SUP]43 [/SUP]Her cities are a desolation, a dry land, and a wilderness, a land wherein no man dwelleth, neither doth any son of man pass thereby.
[SUP]44 [/SUP]And I will punish Bel in Babylon, and I will bring forth out of his mouth that which he hath swallowed up: and the nations shall not flow together any more unto him: yea, the wall of Babylon shall fall.
[SUP]45 [/SUP]My people, go ye out of the midst of her, and deliver ye every man his soul from the fierce anger of the Lord.
[SUP]46 [/SUP]And lest your heart faint, and ye fear for the rumour that shall be heard in the land; a rumour shall both come one year, and after that in another year shall come a rumour, and violence in the land, ruler against ruler.
[SUP]47 [/SUP]Therefore, behold, the days come, that I will do judgment upon the graven images of Babylon: and her whole land shall be confounded, and all her slain shall fall in the midst of her.
[SUP]48 [/SUP]Then the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, shall sing for Babylon: for the spoilers shall come unto her from the north, saith the Lord.
[SUP]49 [/SUP]As Babylon hath caused the slain of Israel to fall, so at Babylon shall fall the slain of all the earth.
[SUP]50 [/SUP]Ye that have escaped the sword, go away, stand not still: remember the Lord afar off, and let Jerusalem come into your mind.
[SUP]51 [/SUP]We are confounded, because we have heard reproach: shame hath covered our faces: for strangers are come into the sanctuaries of the Lord's house.
[SUP]52 [/SUP]Wherefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will do judgment upon her graven images: and through all her land the wounded shall groan.
[SUP]53 [/SUP]Though Babylon should mount up to heaven, and though she should fortify the height of her strength, yet from me shall spoilers come unto her, saith the Lord.
[SUP]54 [/SUP]A sound of a cry cometh from Babylon, and great destruction from the land of the Chaldeans:
[SUP]55 [/SUP]Because the Lord hath spoiled Babylon, and destroyed out of her the great voice; when her waves do roar like great waters, a noise of their voice is uttered:
[SUP]56 [/SUP]Because the spoiler is come upon her, even upon Babylon, and her mighty men are taken, every one of their bows is broken: for the Lord God of recompences shall surely requite.
[SUP]57 [/SUP]And I will make drunk her princes, and her wise men, her captains, and her rulers, and her mighty men: and they shall sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the King, whose name is the Lord of hosts.
[SUP]58 [/SUP]Thus saith the Lord of hosts; The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly broken, and her high gates shall be burned with fire; and the people shall labour in vain, and the folk in the fire, and they shall be weary.
[SUP]59 [/SUP]The word which Jeremiah the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah into Babylon in the fourth year of his reign. And this Seraiah was a quiet prince.
[SUP]60 [/SUP]So Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that should come upon Babylon, even all these words that are written against Babylon.
[SUP]61 [/SUP]And Jeremiah said to Seraiah, When thou comest to Babylon, and shalt see, and shalt read all these words;
[SUP]62 [/SUP]Then shalt thou say, O Lord, thou hast spoken against this place, to cut it off, that none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate for ever.
[SUP]63 [/SUP]And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of Euphrates:
[SUP]64 [/SUP]And thou shalt say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring upon her: and they shall be weary. Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.

 

[Tintin]

Nimrod was a son of Cush and grandson of Ham. The tower of Babel dispersion followed up to 200 years after the Great Flood, so that means Nimrod was most certainly alive at the time, possibly middle-aged by early post-Flood standards. But was he king? That's doubtful. Did he make himself king following the scattering of the nations? Quite possibly. As for establishing his kingdom, the Bible lists several more cities in the land of Shinar, following Babel, but it doesn't say he built them. Maybe Cush and his family group had already built them by the time Nimrod became ruler. But that's pure speculation.

Genesis 10 does say he went to Assyria (or what was Assyria by Moses' time) and built a few cities. These are in addition to the four cities he already ruled. This doesn't sound like a humble man. We can infer from this that Nimrod was a man with an ego, a man who wanted to rule everything he could touch. I'm more inclined, therefore, to believe that Nimrod was a 'great' hunter in rebellion to God.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Nimrod was a son of Cush and grandson of Ham. The tower of Babel dispersion followed up to 200 years after the Great Flood, so that means Nimrod was most certainly alive at the time. Was he king? That's doubtful. Did he make himself king following the scattering of the nations? Quite possibly. As for establishing his kingdom, the Bible lists several more cities in the land of Shinar, but it doesn't say he built them. Maybe Cush and his family group had already built them by the time Nimrod became ruler. But that's pure speculation.

Genesis 10 does say he went to Assyria (or what was Assyria by Moses' time) and built a few cities. These are in addition to the four cities he already ruled. This doesn't sound like a humble man. We can infer from this that Nimrod was a man with an ego, a man who wanted to rule everything he could touch. I'm more inclined, therefore, to believe that Nimrod was a 'great' hunter in rebellion to God.

Almost Tintin, but Asshur built the cities in Assyria. Asshur is after all the father of the Assyrians. Assyrians literally sons of, people of Asshur. It seems they both had kingdoms around the same time.

Also to note, it doesn't say when Babel was built, but since Nimrod took control of other cities, and Asshur built other cities, this would have to be after the Tower of Babel incident since during tower of Babel incident the people were all gathered in one place and didn't scatter until after the Lord confounded the languages to scatter them abroad.

 

[Tintin]

Almost Tintin, but Asshur built the cities in Assyria. Asshur is after all the father of the Assyrians. Assyrians literally sons of Asshur. It seems they both had kingdoms around the same time.

Also to note, it doesn't say when Babel was built, but since Nimrod took control of other cities, and Asshur built other cities, this would have to be after the Tower of Babel incident since during tower of Babel incident the people were all gathered in one place and didn't scatter until after the Lord confounded the languages to scatter them abroad.

Where does it say Asshur built the cities in Assyria, those mentioned in Genesis 10? I've checked many different Bible translations. Yes, I realise Asshur is the father of the Assyrians but think about it, Assyria as a kingdom didn't exist back then.

If we go by a biblical creation perspective (which I do) we have Sumer as the first ancient civilisation, perhaps some 50 years after the Babel dispersion. Then we have the civilization of Akkad some 50 years after that. We have the Babylonian empire some 200 years later. And about 1,000 years later, we have the Assyrian empire.

Given this timeline, Nimrod would possibly have ruled during the times of Sumer or Akkad, but not during the times of Babylonia. I suppose it's entirely possible that Asshur built the cities in what later became Assyria, during the times of Sumer, and that the Assyrians (more than millennia later) made Asshur their deity.

 

[Stephen63]

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)

Genesis 10:8 (NRSV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to become a mighty warrior.

Genesis 10:8 (TEV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Cush had a son named Nimrod, who became the world's first great conqueror.

Ahem..... in order to be a WARRIOR, you fight in WARS. (kindaaa wannaaa say 'duh' heeere )

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Where does it say Asshur built the cities in Assyria, those mentioned in Genesis 10? I've checked many different Bible translations. Yes, I realise Asshur is the father of the Assyrians but think about it, Assyria as a kingdom didn't exist back then.

If we go by a biblical creation perspective (which I do) we have Sumer as the first ancient civilisation, perhaps some 50 years after the Babel dispersion. Then we have the civilization of Akkad some 50 years after that. We have the Babylonian empire some 200 years later. And about 1,000 years later, we have the Assyrian empire.

Given this timeline, Nimrod would possibly have ruled during the times of Sumer or Akkad, but not during the times of Babylonia. I suppose it's entirely possible that Asshur built the cities in what later became Assyria, during the times of Sumer, and that the Assyrians (more than millennia later) made Asshur their deity.

Genesis 10:11-12

[SUP]11 [/SUP]Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.



The nations start with people themselves, this is why those tedious so and so begat so and so lists post-Flood is commonly referred to as the Table of Nations. So the Assyrians start with Asshur, Egypt starts with Mizraim (Egypt is greek rendering of Mizraim), Cush Aethiopia (aethiopia is greek of cush) etc. At this time neither Assyria nor Babylon would be empires, after all this is the beginning of them post-flood.

Nimrod's kingdom of proto-Babylon/Sumeria included Accad/Akkad. The earliest mention of Sumeria/Shinar to my knowledge as a distinct kingdom starts with Amraphel in Genesis 14. The Assyrian Empire proper is in the time of Kings as is the Babylonian Empire proper which destroyed it which of course is then destroyed in turn by the Medo-Persian as both foretold and recorded in the writings of the prophets.

EDIT: Also bonus points is them tedious Table of Nations begetting is while typically acclaimed the most boring parts of the Bible by some people, is actually some of the best and hardest proof for the Bible.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Genesis 10:8 (NRSV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to become a mighty warrior.

Genesis 10:8 (TEV)
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Cush had a son named Nimrod, who became the world's first great conqueror.

Ahem..... in order to be a WARRIOR, you fight in WARS. (kindaaa wannaaa say 'duh' heeere )

Lol gibbor is the word there for "mighty", not hunter. As demonstrated can mean strong mighty in authoritarian tyrannical sense, mighty in sense of hunting or prowess, or valiant. Note the vine word "hero" in your post mentioning gibbor also.

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]

Hunter is tsayid by the way.

Strong's Hebrew: 6718. צָ֫יִד (tsayid) -- catch

tsayid: catch

. צַ֫יִד [SIZE=+1]noun masculine[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]hunting, game[/SIZE]; — absolute ׳צ Genesis 10:9+, צָ֑יִד Genesis 27:3 (Qr; > Kt צידה), Nehemiah 13:15, construct צֵיד Genesis 27:25; suffix צֵידִי Genesis 27:19, etc.; — [SIZE=+1]1[/SIZE] hunting Genesis 27:30; ׳גִּבֹּרצֿ Genesis 10:9 (twice in verse), ׳יֹדֵעַ צ Genesis 25:27 (all J).

 

[Angela53510]

Please give me some examples of Mr. Ruckman's poor hermeneutics, thanks.

The first passage Ruckman chose to address was my citation of Luke 2:22. This passage is mentioned only twice in my book, once in a table, once in an endnote. Yet it is an excellent example of the textual problems in the Textus Receptus (TR). It also allows us to see just how much KJV Only advocates are really dedicated to the "truth," or to their own traditions.[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is helpful to refocus the reader's attention on the real issues as we begin looking at Luke 2:22. First, let's remember: our goal is to know what Luke wrote, not what a scribe wrote a thousand or more years later, not what our traditions have taught us it should say, or anything else. We want to know what Luke wrote under the direction of the Holy Spirit, period. Second, we must keep our eyes on that goal, and never allow our fallible understanding of any issues related to the text to enter into our deliberations. That is, if we say, "Well, it can't read this way, since that would create an error" (as Ruckman does above in citing Leviticus 12), we are assuming something: that our understanding of the passage is the only possible one! "Oh, Luke couldn't have said that, since I think he believed X and Y." This subtle error is gravely dangerous, for it makes our systems of theology the "grid" by which the Scriptures themselves are to be judged! But where, then, do we derive our theology? Isn't it supposed to come from the Scriptures? Of course. So, the KJV Only advocate who follows Ruckman's lead is trapped in a viciously tight circle, using his theology to judge what the Bible should say, all the while claiming the theology comes from the Bible! We need to avoid this kind of thinking.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Let's look at the passage as found in the KJV and NASB:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Luke 2:22 (KJV)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Luke 2:22 (NASB)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord;[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, two completely different arguments have been presented against the reading of the NASB by KJV Only advocates. D.A. Waite thinks this reading makes Jesus a sinner, since he sees "their" as referring to Mary and Jesus. Ruckman takes a different view, and sees "their" referring to the couple, Mary and Joseph. At this point Ruckman is in a better position than Waite, to be sure, as the passage says that "they (plural, i.e., Joseph and Mary) brought him (Jesus) to Jerusalem." Hence, the natural way to take "their" would be in reference to Mary and Joseph, not to Mary and Jesus. Dr. Metzger provided a comment on this passage:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The reading autwn, which is by far the best attested reading, is difficult for the Law prescribes no ritual of purification for the husband. The reading authj (which, in the editions of Theodore Beza, lies behind the AV) is a late correction made by a punctilious scribe. The Western reading autou can be regarded as a transcriptional error for autwn (in cursive Greek script the pronoun was abbreviated aut with the termination expressed by a "shorthand" stroke), or as a deliberate modification, introduced because afterwards (ver. 27) Jesus is the object of the presentation in the Temple (p. 134).[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Edward F. Hills, an advocate of the TR, admitted that this was a passage that is troublesome, for many reasons. First, all five editions of Erasmus read "their" rather than "her." Erasmus is often put forward as a particularly strong source, for the obvious reason that many of the unique readings that found their way into the KJV came from him. But here he stands against the final reading of the TR that found its way into the KJV. Likewise, Stephanus (1555) reads "their." Why is this? For the simple reason that 99.9% of all Greek manuscripts of Luke read "their"! This includes the entire Byzantine manuscript tradition, which is always called upon by KJV Only advocates as the "pure" form of the text. As Hills admits, he knows of only a few Greek minuscules and manuscript 76 that supports the TR reading. Indeed, Beza was probably unaware of those sources, and simply made a "conjectural emendation," which is a nice way of saying, "He didn't like the way it read in all the manuscripts, so he changed it without evidence." Let's think about what this means. The earliest we can trace the specific reading "her" in the Greek manuscripts is to the 14th century--almost a millennium and a half after Luke wrote the passage. Somehow, Christians got along with the reading "their" for quite some time! Are we to believe that all during this period God was unconcerned about this, and allowed it to go on unchecked? If we apply KJV Only standards we must.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So what we have at Luke 2:22 is simply this: nearly every single manuscript of the Gospel of Luke we have, whether it be Byzantine, Western, or Alexandrian, reads "their." There are no Greek manuscripts prior to the 14th century that read "her." The reading that is found in the KJV can be traced directly to Theodore Beza at the end of the sixteenth century. The KJV Only advocate, then, is telling us that the "real" reading of Luke 2:22 was "hidden" for the vast majority of the Christian era, only to reappear out of thin air in the work of Calvin's successor, Beza.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The simple reality is this: the TR is in error here as a result of Beza's emendation. A couple of manuscripts dating to no earlier than the 14th century is insufficient grounds for overthrowing the entire witness of history. It is an obvious error, one of those 1800 places where the TR itself disagrees against the Majority Text, and in this case, against all texts.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]With this background, we note the impropriety of Ruckman's response. There is no question that Luke wrote "their." The proper statement then becomes, "To what was Luke making reference?" not, "Luke couldn't have written that because of what I think Leviticus 12 means." It is obvious that Luke could speak of "their" purification without having to force such a technical meaning upon his words. When a couple has a baby even today we say "they are going to have a baby." Of course, the man isn't going to have a baby at all-the woman is. But, we speak that way because we see couples as a single unit. Why could not Luke speak the same way? Such is perfect reasonable, and it does not require us to throw the entirety of the manuscript tradition away in favor of one man's idea about what the passage should say. The amazing thing is, Ruckman will admit this very possibility, but only after basing all of his comments on the denial of this very idea![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ruckman continues:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, here is a perfect test case. If you "corrected the Greek with the English," you would have preserved the INTEGRITY OF MOSES (John 5:45-47) and the SCRIPTURE (John 10:35). However, if you had translated "the Greek" literally ("THEIR"), you would have denied every Hebrew text extant of Leviticus 12, and you would have made a LIAR out of the Holy Spirit. What to do? All Alexandrians are programmed clones; you know EXACTLY what they will do. They are more predictable than sunrise and sunset. They made a liar out of God.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Response:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is classic Ruckman. Ignoring the facts, ignoring the logical problems with his own position, Ruckman plows ahead, using insults and broad brush strokes, unconcerned about anything else. He can't possibly see that you can allow God, Moses, and the Scriptures to be true without making Theodore Beza the means of new revelation. This unwillingness to recognize the validity of any position other than his own is another hallmark of Ruckman's writings.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ruckman continues:[/FONT]
Now White's reasoning is as follows: "If there are no variants then we have 'INDEED THE ORIGINAL' " (see The King James Only Controversy, pp. 118,124). Since he has found no "variant" against ("their purification") then "her purification" is not even a possibility. This is the Alexandrian mentality. ON the surface it looks logical. Look a little deeper. White just approved changing more than three thousand words in the King James text (NIV and NASV) on the basis of "variants" that showed up AFTER the AV text was printed.

</title> </head> <body link="#003399"> <html> <head> <meta name="description" content="Christian Apologetics, Theology, Information on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. A reformed ministry dedicated to sharing the Gospel of God'

What the article basically says, is that when ALL the Greek manuscripts before. The 14th century, including the TR say, "autone" in Greek in Luke 2:22, but some of the KJV translators didn't like that word, they used "autas" for her, even though none of the manuscripts say that. Ruckman agrees, because he doesn't like the right word, either. So he stands behind a wrong word, because the KJV uses it, instead of actually looking at the Greek for nearly 14 centuries. And then calling acknowledged Bible scholars names, because they have not joined the KJV only cult!

I could give you a lot more examples, if you want!

 

[Tintin]

Genesis 10:11-12

[SUP]11 [/SUP]Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city.



The nations start with people themselves, this is why those tedious so and so begat so and so lists post-Flood is commonly referred to as the Table of Nations. So the Assyrians start with Asshur, Egypt starts with Mizraim (Egypt is greek rendering of Mizraim), Cush Aethiopia (aethiopia is greek of cush) etc. At this time neither Assyria nor Babylon would be empires, after all this is the beginning of them post-flood.

Nimrod's kingdom of proto-Babylon/Sumeria included Accad/Akkad. The earliest mention of Sumeria/Shinar to my knowledge as a distinct kingdom starts with Amraphel in Genesis 14. The Assyrian Empire proper is in the time of Kings as is the Babylonian Empire proper which destroyed it which of course is then destroyed in turn by the Medo-Persian as both foretold and recorded in the writings of the prophets.

EDIT: Also bonus points is them tedious Table of Nations begetting is while typically acclaimed the most boring parts of the Bible by some people, is actually some of the best and hardest proof for the Bible.

No worries, brother. Thank you. I'm very familiar with the Table of Nations. It's one of my most favourite parts of Genesis. I didn't make the Accad/Akkad connection though. Maybe it was too obvious, so I missed it. Oops. Haha!

 

[Tintin]

Let's look at it this way.

Noah and wife had Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Shem, Ham and Japheth each acquired wives.
Each son and his wife had children.

Shem had 5 sons and very likely some daughters.
Ham had 4 sons and very likely some daughters.
Japheth had 7 sons and very likely some daughters.

Shem's sons: Elam, Asshur, Lud, Aram, and Arphaxad all grew up together.
Ham's sons: Cush, Mizraim (Egypt), Phut, and Canaan all grew up together.
Japheth's sons: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras all grew up together.

It's very likely that Shem, Ham and Japheth's children all grew up together (of course they would be of varying ages). When these children came of age, they eventually married (maybe when they were 40-50 years old) and had children of their own. These children had their own children and so on.

Now, we're at the time of Peleg. Maybe 200 years have passed since the Great Flood ended. Biblical creationists have estimated that by this time, there were perhaps between 1,000 and 5,000 people on the earth (all living together, at least very close to each other) at the time of the dispersion at the tower of Babel. We don't know how long the people were united in purpose in building a city and a great tower, but they had probably been building it for quite some years.

Given that Nimrod was the son of Cush, who himself was the son of Ham, I think it's safe to say he was seen as a powerful man in his time. He wouldn't have been a spring chicken, but neither was he an old fart. People still lived to upwards of 400 years in this early post-Flood period. Given that Nimrod was a man of war and a great ruler, it's quite possible that he didn't make his full allotment of years in his Life bank. But this is speculation by way of inference.

Needless to say, it would seem that Nimrod, being younger and of Ham, may have claimed Babel, Uruk, Akkad and Calneh for himself and then Asshur, being older and of Shem, left the land of Shinar (perhaps he was overthrown) and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen. This would have been sometime during the early Sumerian/Akkad periods.

 

[jaybird88]

An incomplete tower in the city of Babel like the Bible says.

just an incomplete tower and nothing more, yet we build skyscrapers all the time and they dont seem to provoke and anger our Lord. what made this one different? or was it just an act of randomness.

 

[prove-all]

Abraham lived in Ur of the Chaldees, a city in Babylon at the heart of
the civilized world. Archeological evidence reveals that the Babylonians
“had detected the precision of the equinoxes. They knew the cause of
the eclipses, and … could predict them. …

They had correct views of the structure of the solar system, and knew the
order of emplacement of the planets”
(John William Draper, History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science).

Other history books corroborate that when the Greeks conquered Babylon,
they discovered advanced astronomical observations and even a map
representing the world as round, with Babylon near the center.

Babylonian priests knew where the sun, moon and planets were positioned,
recognized their orbits and calculated where they would appear at any
given time in the future.

The world traces its astronomical knowledge to Babylon.

 

[Tintin]

Abraham lived in Ur of the Chaldees, a city in Babylon at the heart of
the civilized world. Archeological evidence reveals that the Babylonians
“had detected the precision of the equinoxes. They knew the cause of
the eclipses, and … could predict them. …

They had correct views of the structure of the solar system, and knew the
order of emplacement of the planets”
(John William Draper, History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science).

Other history books corroborate that when the Greeks conquered Babylon,
they discovered advanced astronomical observations and even a map
representing the world as round, with Babylon near the center.

Babylonian priests knew where the sun, moon and planets were positioned,
recognized their orbits and calculated where they would appear at any
given time in the future.

The world traces its astronomical knowledge to Babylon.

True, and yet, Babylon isn't the same as Babel. They're two different places. Babylon only appeared on the map some 300 years after the dispersal at the tower of Babel. That's roughly around the time of Abraham.

 

[prove-all]

Babylons had advanced astronomical knowledge, where did they get it from ?

 

[Tintin]

Babylons had advanced astronomical knowledge, where did they get it from ?

Most likely from Babel. I'm just saying that Babel and Babylon are two different places. I mean no harm.

 

[prove-all]

I would be hard pressed to believe a mere man could know these things back then.
astronomical knowledge

my guess It would have to come from God, given to a man,
or fallen angeles, given knowledge of the heavens to man.

 

[Tintin]

I would be hard pressed to believe a mere man could know these things back then.
astronomical knowledge

my guess It would have to come from God, given to a man,
or fallen angels, given knowledge of the heavens to man.

Well, yes. In some form, the knowledge came from God. After all, He created mankind to be very intelligent, creative and skilled, from the very first man, Adam. Even the early post-Flood people would've been geniuses compared to us. It only seems outrageous to us because we've been brought up in a world where everything is viewed through an evolutionary lens.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Let's look at it this way.

Noah and wife had Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Shem, Ham and Japheth each acquired wives.
Each son and his wife had children.

Shem had 5 sons and very likely some daughters.
Ham had 4 sons and very likely some daughters.
Japheth had 7 sons and very likely some daughters.

Shem's sons: Elam, Asshur, Lud, Aram, and Arphaxad all grew up together.
Ham's sons: Cush, Mizraim (Egypt), Phut, and Canaan all grew up together.
Japheth's sons: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras all grew up together.

It's very likely that Shem, Ham and Japheth's children all grew up together (of course they would be of varying ages). When these children came of age, they eventually married (maybe when they were 40-50 years old) and had children of their own. These children had their own children and so on.

Now, we're at the time of Peleg. Maybe 200 years have passed since the Great Flood ended. Biblical creationists have estimated that by this time, there were perhaps between 1,000 and 5,000 people on the earth (all living together, at least very close to each other) at the time of the dispersion at the tower of Babel. We don't know how long the people were united in purpose in building a city and a great tower, but they had probably been building it for quite some years.

Given that Nimrod was the son of Cush, who himself was the son of Ham, I think it's safe to say he was seen as a powerful man in his time. He wouldn't have been a spring chicken, but neither was he an old fart. People still lived to upwards of 400 years in this early post-Flood period. Given that Nimrod was a man of war and a great ruler, it's quite possible that he didn't make his full allotment of years in his Life bank. But this is speculation by way of inference.

Needless to say, it would seem that Nimrod, being younger and of Ham, may have claimed Babel, Uruk, Akkad and Calneh for himself and then Asshur, being older and of Shem, left the land of Shinar (perhaps he was overthrown) and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen. This would have been sometime during the early Sumerian/Akkad periods.

@Tintin Ah I see where you get the 200 year mark from now. Interesting. I take it you ascribe to thinking the earth being divided to mean in a culture sense, the scatterings of the people after Tower of Babel. I think the dividing of the earth in time of Peleg could be a little more literal than that, or perhaps both. Interesting post though for sure Tin, you're very close! Mindful Tin a lot of the creationists believe a little bit more in their creationism than the Bible, which is why they can't fully figure out and disprove the absurd old earth mythologies. Remember even the followers of the evil religion of islam are creationists.

Also the city of Babel is actually the same as the city of Babylon. It was renamed to Babylon around the 1st millennia BC.

Abraham lived in Ur of the Chaldees, a city in Babylon at the heart of
the civilized world. Archeological evidence reveals that the Babylonians
“had detected the precision of the equinoxes. They knew the cause of
the eclipses, and … could predict them. …

They had correct views of the structure of the solar system, and knew the
order of emplacement of the planets”
(John William Draper, History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science).

Other history books corroborate that when the Greeks conquered Babylon,
they discovered advanced astronomical observations and even a map
representing the world as round, with Babylon near the center.

Babylonian priests knew where the sun, moon and planets were positioned,
recognized their orbits and calculated where they would appear at any
given time in the future.

The world traces its astronomical knowledge to Babylon.

Lol they weren't actually that advanced as is portrayed. They were mislead probably by demons and astrologers. Indeed one of the biggest lies and heresies existent today is the heliocentric/spinning ball earth, other earths, and various space heresies which are all assumed from the pagans and are quite popular still in our time today. In fact this is the big one to putting the death nail in the coffin of the atheistic old earth mythology which I spoke of in the comment to Tintin.

The Bible is the only doctrine and religion that contains the true cosmology. Earth is relatively flat and stationary that it be not moved, the edge of the earth is girded by bounds. The sun is in a circuit above the earth. The stars and mazzaroth circle the earth. There are no other earths, the planets are stars , literally the word planet means wandering star. Earth is not a planet, the earth is the earth. The sun is not a star, the sun is the sun. The stars are the stars and ever star differs from other stars in glory. The moon is a moon, but it is its own light, the lesser light created by God to rule the night, it does not get its light from the sun. Man has never landed on the moon, that is one of the biggest hoaxes this side of history. Space is not a vacuum, space is the heavens, and they are made of a material, the waters the Bible says.

The fallen angels did not teach them any such knowledge if that's what you're wondering, for the Bible says those angels were cast into chains of darkness. Supposing the demons or Satan told them this, remember they are liars, therefore it only makes sense keeping with their character that the various pagans, and not just the Babylonians either, but all the pagans were lied to and deceived.

That's a whole big old topic in itself though, so I think we should leave that for another topic. On that especially, no fault to ya'll again, I understand that's a hard one to swallow as we've all been taught the space lies and heresies from since we were children.

just an incomplete tower and nothing more, yet we build skyscrapers all the time and they dont seem to provoke and anger our Lord. what made this one different? or was it just an act of randomness.

Tis no act of randomness. Read the chapter 11, I have posted it enough, it tells you plainly why the Lord confounded their language. As for man's skyscrapers today, they build them for different reasons it seems than were built in those days according to Bible, but nevertheless they'll all be brought low one day, soon too.

@all I know this has turned now into a juicy post and topic, but I am going to bed here shortly. I think we have kinda split off the topic into all sorts of directions now, and yet indeed they are all tied together. Perhaps some of these tangents would make interesting topics in their own right to try to hammer down more specifically for another day. Praise Jesus and may you all increase in wisdom and love of our Lord God.

 

[Tintin]

@Tintin Ah I see where you get the 200 year mark from now. Interesting. I take it you ascribe to thinking the earth being divided to mean in a culture sense, the scatterings of the people after Tower of Babel. I think the dividing of the earth in time of Peleg could be a little more literal than that, or perhaps both. Interesting post though for sure Tin, you're very close! Mindful Tin a lot of the creationists believe a little bit more in their creationism than the Bible, which is why they can't fully figure out and disprove the absurd old earth mythologies. Remember even the followers of the evil religion of islam are creationists.

Also the city of Babel is actually the same as the city of Babylon. It was renamed to Babylon around the 1st millennia BC.

Yes, I ascribe to the belief that the earth divided in Peleg's day, according to family groups (by way of languages) which later led to different cultures. I don't believe the earth divided in a physical sense then, mainly because the Great Flood already happened, and if the earth divided again (this time in Peleg's time), all land life would have been lost in what would be another global Flood. And naturally, God promised never to see another Flood of that magnitude. It's interesting that you should say a lot of creationists believe more in their creationism than the Bible, I haven't come across that (but then I do usually stick to the main three ministries - Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis, and the Institute for Creation Research, when it comes to biblical creation matters. They always put the Bible above their theories and I find them regularly and probably disputing old earth mythologies. That's their forte!

As for the city of Babel, you could be right, but I'm more inclined to believe Babel is north-west of Babylon (because the Flood waters would've stuck around for quite sometime in the southern part of Mesopotamia).