Nimrod

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

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

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

Is

Guest
the problem with this is...'ninus' was a legendary figure...not a real king...

check all of the mesopotamian king lists for confirmation...

as i said before...if you want the most likely candidate for the historical nimrod...look into enmerkar of uruk...
Explain to me then, why do they call someone named John "Jack or Jackie"?

Jack is thought to harken back to Medieval times as a common derivative of the name John. The nickname has also been seen as Jackie among men (examples of note: Jackie Coogan, Jackie Cooper, and Jackie Gleason, all formally named John).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_(given_name)
 
T

Tintin

Guest
Explain to me then, why do they call someone named John "Jack or Jackie"?

Jack is thought to harken back to Medieval times as a common derivative of the name John. The nickname has also been seen as Jackie among men (examples of note: Jackie Coogan, Jackie Cooper, and Jackie Gleason, all formally named John).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_(given_name)
Jack is a notorious troll on Christian Chat. He goes by many, many, many, many names. Some of those names he assumed early on were derivatives of Jack. And that's the story.
 
I

Is

Guest
Jack is a notorious troll on Christian Chat. He goes by many, many, many, many names. Some of those names he assumed early on were derivatives of Jack. And that's the story.
Explain if you can why Nimrod would have been known as Ninus by the by the Sumerians.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
Explain if you can why Nimrod would have been known as Ninus by the by the Sumerians.
Firstly, I know very little about Ninus. Secondly, he was known as Ninus by Greek historians not the Sumerians. And thirdly, Semiramis has nothing to do with Nimrod (they two lived at least a millenium apart!)
 
I

Is

Guest
Firstly, I know very little about Ninus. Secondly, he was known as Ninus by Greek historians not the Sumerians. And thirdly, Semiramis has nothing to do with Nimrod (they two lived at least a millenium apart!)
Firstly, I don't get how you thought dragging Semiramis int this would clear anything up.

Now, assuming that Ninus is Nimrod, the way in which that assumption explains what is otherwise inexplicable in the statements of ancient history greatly confirms the truth of that assumption itself. Ninus is said to have been the son of Belus or Bel, and Bel is said to have been the founder of Babylon. If Ninus was in reality the first king of Babylon, how could Belus or Bel, his father, be said to be the founder of it? Both might very well be, as will appear if we consider who was Bel, and what we can trace of his doings. If Ninus was Nimrod, who was the historical Bel? He must have been Cush; for "Cush begat Nimrod" (Gen 10:8); and Cush is generally represented as having been a ringleader in the great apostacy. * But again, Cush, as the son of Ham, was Her-mes or Mercury; for Hermes is just an Egyptian synonym for the "son of Ham." **

* See GREGORIUS TURONENSIS, De rerum Franc. Gregory attributes to Cush what was said more generally to have befallen his son; but his statement shows the belief in his day, which is amply confirmed from other sources, that Cush had a pre-eminent share in leading mankind away from the true worship of God.
** The composition of Her-mes is, first, from "Her," which, in Chaldee, is synonymous with Ham, or Khem, "the burnt one." As "her" also, like Ham, signified "The hot or burning one," this name formed a foundation for covertly identifying Ham with the "Sun," and so deifying the great patriarch, after whose name the land of Egypt was called, in connection with the sun. Khem, or Ham, in his own name was openly worshipped in later ages in the land of Ham (BUNSEN); but this would have been too daring at first. By means of "Her," the synonym, however, the way was paved for this. "Her" is the name of Horus, who is identified with the sun (BUNSEN), which shows the real etymology of the name to be from the verb to which I have traced it. Then, secondly, "Mes," is from Mesheh (or, without the last radical, which is omissible), Mesh, "to draw forth." In Egyptian, we have Ms in the sense of "to bring forth" (BUNSEN, Hieroglyphical Signs), which is evidently a different form of the same word. In the passive sense, also, we find Ms used (BUNSEN, Vocabulary). The radical meaning of Mesheh in Stockii Lexicon, is given in Latin "Extraxit," and our English word "extraction," as applied to birth or descent, shows that there is a connection between the generic meaning of this word and birth. This derivation will be found to explain the meaning of the names of the Egyptian kings, Ramesses and Thothmes, the former evidently being "The son of Ra," or the Sun; the latter in like manner, being "The son of Thoth." For the very same reason Her-mes is the "Son of Her, or Ham," the burnt one--that is, Cush.
Now, Hermes was the great original prophet of idolatry; for he was recognised by the pagans as the author of their religious rites, and the interpreter of the gods. The distinguished Gesenius identifies him with the Babylonian Nebo, as the prophetic god; and a statement of Hyginus shows that he was known as the grand agent in that movement which produced the division of tongues. His words are these: "For many ages men lived under the government of Jove [evidently not the Roman Jupiter, but the Jehovah of the Hebrews], without cities and without laws, and all speaking one language. But after that Mercury interpreted the speeches of men (whence an interpreter is called Hermeneutes), the same individual distributed the nations. Then discord began." *

* HYGINUS, Fab. Phoroneus is represented as king at this time.
Here there is a manifest enigma. How could Mercury or Hermes have any need to interpret the speeches of mankind when they "all spake one language"? To find out the meaning of this, we must go to the language of the Mysteries. Peresh, in Chaldee, signifies "to interpret"; but was pronounced by old Egyptians and by Greeks, and often by the Chaldees themselves, in the same way as "Peres," to "divide." Mercury, then, or Hermes, or Cush, "the son of Ham," was the "DIVIDER of the speeches of men." He, it would seem, had been the ringleader in the scheme for building the great city and tower of Babel; and, as the well known title of Hermes,--"the interpreter of the gods," would indicate, had encouraged them, in the name of God, to proceed in their presumptuous enterprise, and so had caused the language of men to be divided, and themselves to be scattered abroad on the face of the earth. Now look at the name of Belus or Bel, given to the father of Ninus, or Nimrod, in connection with this. While the Greek name Belus represented both the Baal and Bel of the Chaldees, these were nevertheless two entirely distinct titles. These titles were both alike often given to the same god, but they had totally different meanings. Baal, as we have already seen, signified "The Lord"; but Bel signified "The Confounder." When, then, we read that Belus, the father of Ninus, was he that built or founded Babylon, can there be a doubt, in what sense it was that the title of Belus was given to him? It must have been in the sense of Bel the "Confounder." And to this meaning of the name of the Babylonian Bel, there is a very distinct allusion in Jeremiah 50:2, where it is said "Bel is confounded," that is, "The Confounder is brought to confusion." That Cush was known to Pagan antiquity under the very character of Bel, "The Confounder," a statement of Ovid very clearly proves. The statement to which I refer is that in which Janus "the god of gods," * from whom all the other gods had their origin, is made to say of himself: "The ancients...called me Chaos."

* Janus was so called in the most ancient hymns of the Salii. (MACROB, Saturn.)
Now, first this decisively shows that Chaos was known not merely as a state of confusion, but as the "god of Confusion." But, secondly, who that is at all acquainted with the laws of Chaldaic pronunciation, does not know that Chaos is just one of the established forms of the name of Chus or Cush? * Then, look at the symbol of Janus, ** (see Fig. 7) whom "the ancients called Chaos," and it will be seen how exactly it tallies with the doings of Cush, when he is identified with Bel, "The Confounder." That symbol is a club; and the name of "a club" in Chaldee comes from the very word which signifies "to break in pieces, or scatter abroad." ***

* The name of Cush is also Khus, for sh frequently passes in Chaldee into s; and Khus, in pronunciation, legitimately becomes Khawos, or, without the digamma, Khaos.
** From Sir WM. BETHAM'S Etruscan Literature and Antiquities Investigated, 1842. The Etruscan name on the reverse of a medal--Bel-athri, "Lord of spies," is probably given to Janus, in allusion to his well known title "Janus Tuens," which may be rendered "Janus the Seer," or "All-seeing Janus."
*** In Proverbs 25:18, a maul or club is "Mephaitz." In Jeremiah 51:20, the same word, without the Jod, is evidently used for a club (though, in our version, it is rendered battle-axe); for the use of it is not to cut asunder, but to "break in pieces." See the whole passage.
He who caused the confusion of tongues was he who "broke" the previously united earth (Gen 11:1) "in pieces," and "scattered" the fragments abroad. How significant, then, as a symbol, is the club, as commemorating the work of Cush, as Bel, the "Confounder"? And that significance will be all the more apparent when the reader turns to the Hebrew of Genesis 11:9, and finds that the very word from which a club derives its name is that which is employed when it is said, that in consequence of the confusion of tongues, the children of men were "scattered abroad on the face of all the earth." The word there used for scattering abroad is Hephaitz, which, in the Greek form becomes Hephaizt, * and hence the origin of the well known but little understood name of Hephaistos, as applied to Vulcan, "The father of the gods." **

* There are many instances of a similar change. Thus Botzra becomes in Greek, Bostra; and Mitzraim, Mestraim.
** Vulcan, in the classical Pantheon, had not commonly so high a place, but in Egypt Hephaistos, or Vulcan, was called "Father of the gods." (AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS)
Hephaistos is the name of the ringleader in the first rebellion, as "The Scatterer abroad," as Bel is the name of the same individual as the "Confounder of tongues."

The Two Babylons: The Child in Assyria
 
I

Is

Guest
In his book "The Scond Coming of the Antichrist," Peter Goodgame makes a very interesting comment.

He says:

"Consider as well the differencs between the Hebrew and Mesopotamian beliefs concerning the - purpose - for which mankind was originally created. To put it bluntly, the Sumerians believed that humans were created to be slaves to the gods, while on the other hand it was revealed to Moses that Adam and Eve were originally created as part of God's family, to be in relationship with Him, and to bear His image and enjoy the God-given responsibilities to rule over the earth." pg.33
 
T

Tintin

Guest
Oh, for the love of all that is good and holy! You're still treating The Two Babylons like a holy text! It's not. It's a shoddy hyrbid of fanciful research/fiction/anti-Catholic propaganda (and believe you me, I'm not pro-Catholic). We've told you it's seriously unreliable and you won't have a bar of it. And of course, mentioning Semiramis won't help to clear anything up. But she's a major part of Alexander He's Sloppy's argument regarding Nimrod and his identity throughout the pagan nations.
 
I

Is

Guest
Oh, for the love of all that is good and holy! You're still treating The Two Babylons like a holy text! It's not. It's a shoddy hyrbid of fanciful research/fiction/anti-Catholic propaganda (and believe you me, I'm not pro-Catholic). We've told you it's seriously unreliable and you won't have a bar of it. And of course, mentioning Semiramis won't help to clear anything up. But she's a major part of Alexander He's Sloppy's argument regarding Nimrod and his identity throughout the pagan nations.
Focus Tintin! I haven't said a thing about Semiramis or said anything that's anti-catholic. Stop trying to build a strawman argument because you can't refute what I posted. ;)
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
Focus Tintin! I haven't said a thing about Semiramis or said anything that's anti-catholic. Stop trying to build a strawman argument because you can't refute what I posted. ;)
Lol indeed, all one has to do really to destroy these points is note that the source is not actually corroborated by the Bible and point out Ninus is a fable character and that all the pagan gods are actually worthless idols and demons. You can even see in these excerpts that basically the author would have us believe moreso in heretical sources or in the pagan religions themselves rather than the simple Bible-only narrative.

Lol I think we've reached the point where we've beat this topic to death. It seems to me that the character of Nimrod going by Bible-only remains somewhat ambiguous. So I will take my leave of this discussion since it's pretty much going to simply devolve into comparing unbiblical sources and me pointing out unbiblical sources are well, unbiblical.

I liked this topic though, if anything because it is somewhat overlooked, and also it is good for the comparison and contrasting of the Bible to the pseudo-biblical theories. Lol that and I don't think I ever learned so much Hebrew in one topic lol. It has given me an idea for another Bible Character study for another person that is somewhat ambiguous as to his character within the Bible-only and whom the pagans and heretics both ancient and modern write quite unfavorably about. I think I'll make the topic pretty soon and indeed I extend the invite to you lady IS and all the others here to jump on in.
 
I

Is

Guest
Lol indeed, all one has to do really to destroy these points is note that the source is not actually corroborated by the Bible and point out Ninus is a fable character and that all the pagan gods are actually worthless idols and demons. You can even see in these excerpts that basically the author would have us believe moreso in heretical sources or in the pagan religions themselves rather than the simple Bible-only narrative.

Lol I think we've reached the point where we've beat this topic to death. It seems to me that the character of Nimrod going by Bible-only remains somewhat ambiguous. So I will take my leave of this discussion since it's pretty much going to simply devolve into comparing unbiblical sources and me pointing out unbiblical sources are well, unbiblical.

I liked this topic though, if anything because it is somewhat overlooked, and also it is good for the comparison and contrasting of the Bible to the pseudo-biblical theories. Lol that and I don't think I ever learned so much Hebrew in one topic lol. It has given me an idea for another Bible Character study for another person that is somewhat ambiguous as to his character within the Bible-only and whom the pagans and heretics both ancient and modern write quite unfavorably about. I think I'll make the topic pretty soon and indeed I extend the invite to you lady IS and all the others here to jump on in.
Ninus is a fable character
To the Sumerians he wasn't a fable, they were his people and the information that Mr. Hyslop has provided proves that Nimrod and Ninus were the same, when coupled with the info. about Ninus's father.

all the pagan gods are actually worthless idols and demons.
Yet we have cultures in Scripture that the Israelites were highly influencd by what they believed about them. Dagon, Bel, Tammuz, Moloch, Zeus, just mention a few, all false but there were cultures that revered them and because they believed doesn't in any way say that these cultures didn't exist because of the people that believed in them.
Satyrs are believed to be mythological creatures, yet the "shaggy goat" in Isaiah 13:21 clearly demonic creatures that danced among the ruins of Babylon and among the remains of Edomite cities Isaiah 32:14 in Hebrew representations is that of the idol and the demon power behind it. Just as the demonic power was behind the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre.
It is undeniable that the Sumerians recorded their history as well as their religious beliefs on tablets of soft clay which were baked and transformed into stone and their records closely parallel the stories that we read in Genesis.

For instance, the Sumerians had a story of the creation of the first human being; stories of immortality denied to human beings, and of a woman that became involved with a snake and a tree; stories that seem to parallel the dispute between Cain and Abel; a history of the very first city and the invention of metal working; stories of advanced beings who descended from the heavens to teach, rule over, and even mate with himan beings, just as the story in Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the sons of God and the daughters of men. There have been several suggetions as to who the sons of God were and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants( that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate).

I've never once tried to even suggest that the Sumerians taught truth as I pointed out:

In his book "The Second Coming of the Antichrist," Peter Goodgame makes a very interesting comment.

He says:

"Consider as well the differencs between the Hebrew and Mesopotamian beliefs concerning the - purpose - for which mankind was originally created. To put it bluntly, the Sumerians believed that humans were created to be slaves to the gods, while on the other hand it was revealed to Moses that Adam and Eve were originally created as part of God's family, to be in relationship with Him, and to bear His image and enjoy the God-given responsibilities to rule over the earth." pg.33
So once again you really haven't brought anything to the table.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
To the Sumerians he wasn't a fable, they were his people and the information that Mr. Hyslop has provided proves that Nimrod and Ninus were the same, when coupled with the info. about Ninus's father.



Yet we have cultures in Scripture that the Israelites were highly influencd by what they believed about them. Dagon, Bel, Tammuz, Moloch, Zeus, just mention a few, all false but there were cultures that revered them and because they believed doesn't in any way say that these cultures didn't exist because of the people that believed in them.
Satyrs are believed to be mythological creatures, yet the "shaggy goat" in Isaiah 13:21 clearly demonic creatures that danced among the ruins of Babylon and among the remains of Edomite cities Isaiah 32:14 in Hebrew representations is that of the idol and the demon power behind it. Just as the demonic power was behind the King of Babylon and the King of Tyre.
It is undeniable that the Sumerians recorded their history as well as their religious beliefs on tablets of soft clay which were baked and transformed into stone and their records closely parallel the stories that we read in Genesis.

For instance, the Sumerians had a story of the creation of the first human being; stories of immortality denied to human beings, and of a woman that became involved with a snake and a tree; stories that seem to parallel the dispute between Cain and Abel; a history of the very first city and the invention of metal working; stories of advanced beings who descended from the heavens to teach, rule over, and even mate with himan beings, just as the story in Genesis 6:1-4 refers to the sons of God and the daughters of men. There have been several suggetions as to who the sons of God were and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants( that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate).

I've never once tried to even suggest that the Sumerians taught truth as I pointed out:



So once again you really haven't brought anything to the table.
Lol even right here you pretty much concede the Sumerians/Babylonians are liars which would indicate their fables about Ninus and other such figures are just that, pure fables, likely inspired by demons. This begs two pertinent question then of; how can we trust them to be telling the truth? If we don't trust them; what does this have at all to do with Nimrod?

I don't think Hyslop makes a good case at all. As with most heretics, they poorly try to cobble together a mythos based on assumptions and build assumptions upon assumptions until they basically have their own little pseudo-biblical mythos. Both the ancient pagan mythos and the newer heretical mythos around Nimrod contradicts the Bible. The only thing it proves true of the Bible is that indeed the scribes are liars. We've been over all this before though, we're pretty much just beating a dead horse and running in circles, so there's not much else to add.

Lol also I did not say you think the Sumerians taught truth. Merely pointing out their myths are all lies and perhaps even demoinc and therefore cannot be trusted. I like you lady IS, you should not think I don't. Btw you are certainly invited to my new Bible Character Study on Ahasuerus seeing as you and this topic in part inspired me to it.

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/129981-bible-character-study-ahasuerus.html
 
Last edited:
I

Is

Guest
Lol even right here you pretty much concede the Sumerians/Babylonians are liars which would indicate their fables about Ninus and other such figures are just that, pure fables, likely inspired by demons. This begs two pertinent question then of; how can we trust them to be telling the truth? If we don't trust them; what does this have at all to do with Nimrod?

I don't think Hyslop makes a good case at all. As with most heretics, they poorly try to cobble together a mythos based on assumptions and build assumptions upon assumptions until they basically have their own little pseudo-biblical mythos. Both the ancient pagan mythos and the newer heretical mythos around Nimrod contradicts the Bible. The only thing it proves true of the Bible is that indeed the scribes are liars. We've been over all this before though, we're pretty much just beating a dead horse and running in circles, so there's not much else to add.

Lol also I did not say you think the Sumerians taught truth. Merely pointing out their myths are all lies and perhaps even demoinc and therefore cannot be trusted. I like you lady IS, you should not think I don't. Btw you are certainly invited to my new Bible Character Study on Ahasuerus seeing as you and this topic in part inspired me to it.

http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/129981-bible-character-study-ahasuerus.html
No, what I said was "They believed in the same events, but, they had a perspective on those events that was completely opposite to the Biblical narrative."
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
No, what I said was "They believed in the same events, but, they had a perspective on those events that was completely opposite to the Biblical narrative."
I would think if they actually believed in the events of Genesis they would not have come up with such myths.
 
I

Is

Guest
I would think if they actually believed in the events of Genesis they would not have come up with such myths.
Unless you're trying to hide the truth from them. It would serve a corrupt ruler that could convince people they came down from heaven and the people were no more than a lackey of the god's.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
Focus Tintin! I haven't said a thing about Semiramis or said anything that's anti-catholic. Stop trying to build a strawman argument because you can't refute what I posted. ;)
I don't believe I was building a strawman argument. Your lengthy quote was from The Two Babylons. Hence, its relevance. I've read the book.
 
T

Tintin

Guest
I would say, yes, pagan gods and goddesses are generally idols and are backed by demonic influence, but the vast majority of gods and goddesses were deified ancestors.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
Unless you're trying to hide the truth from them. It would serve a corrupt ruler that could convince people they came down from heaven and the people were no more than a lackey of the god's.
But then one would think the Bible would say that rather than saying Nimrod was a mighty hunter in the estimation of the Lord, which seems quite a compliment.
 
I

Is

Guest
But then one would think the Bible would say that rather than saying Nimrod was a mighty hunter in the estimation of the Lord, which seems quite a compliment.
paneh is not a compliment, since it can mean "against", and considering the fact that Abraham was called out of Mesopotamia where Nimrod was, to me it says the place wasn't fit for Abraham to live in.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
paneh is not a compliment, since it can mean "against", and considering the fact that Abraham was called out of Mesopotamia where Nimrod was, to me it says the place wasn't fit for Abraham to live in.
We've been over this before paneh in this instance means "in estimation of" according to your own source, Strong's. So don't know why you keep clinging to that notion when your own source is against you. Nimrod wasn't alive during Abraham's time. In fact that's kinda more to my point that just because dude lived in a certain place doesn't make him evil. After all Abraham came from Chaldea. Another example is Jesus lived in Nazareth and Nathanael in the Bible even said "can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Lol "Come and see" saith Phillip.
 
I

Is

Guest
We've been over this before paneh in this instance means "in estimation of" according to your own source, Strong's. So don't know why you keep clinging to that notion when your own source is against you. Nimrod wasn't alive during Abraham's time. In fact that's kinda more to my point that just because dude lived in a certain place doesn't make him evil. After all Abraham came from Chaldea. Another example is Jesus lived in Nazareth and Nathanael in the Bible even said "can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Lol "Come and see" saith Phillip.
You've got a bunch of people that have defied God by building a city and a tower which was expressly the opposite of what God commanded them to do and that was not settle in one permanent place and yet you can believe the leadership behind these people was pleasing to God. I've got some swamp land in Death Valley I want to sell you.