Endtime Prophecy and the European Union

I didn't make it up, Ringo, it's what a number of commentators on the Tower of Babel say, both about the dispersion and about the height. They couldn't replenish the earth without dispersing.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So it's a second-hand fiction that isn't in the Bible. That's what I said. The dispersal was incidental. It was also necessary to go downhill from Mount Ararat but the downhill part was incidental. It wasn't a command from God to always go downhill.

I really don't get what you think you are saying. What they were refusing to do was to disperse, the dispersal that was necessary for replenishing the earth. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think the best support for your position comes from Genesis 11:4:

quote:

---

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.

---

The problem I see is that the imperative to Noah was to replenish the earth, and 11:1 suggests that this was happening. Just because some people are congregating does not mean that God was being disobeyed in this respect.Further, the author quotes God as giving a completely objection to the tower of Babel. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You are right about that being the best evidence for this particular claim. I'm going by the commentaries because I haven't studied or meditated on the incident myself, and until I do that I'm not going to find fault with the commentators who have a good reputation. When a number of them agree it's a pretty good sign they have a good understanding of the passage.

The necessary dispersal had already happened, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to come back together at Babel. You can't have a reaction before the action. It isn't necessary to read any disobedience into the passage.It's funny that I take the Bible more literally than you do. You accept the word of the commentators over what the Bible actually says. If it isn't in the Bible, you should be wary of it, no matter how reputable the commentators are.

Babel is in the general vicinity of where Noah and family debarked, the dispersal called for was across the entire world.

But the point we've been trying to make is that it's a stupid connection. It may remind you of the words 'woman riding a beast' but it is clearly not the woman described in Revelation. You can only make a connection if you ignore all of the words describing the woman and the beast.Now, if I spent all my days rereading Revelation over and over again I could look at this statue and say it reminded me of the woman in Revelation, simply because it's a woman. And I'd be correct - because I'm obsessed and everything reminds me of something in Revelation. You, however, would be quite correct if you pointed out to me that it clearly has nothing to do with Revelation since the woman in question is not riding a beast. Similarly, we are correct in pointing out to you that, whatever connections your brain makes and regardless of what something reminds you off, the statue of Europa clearly has no connection to Revelation, since it is not at all like the description in Revelation in any respect.

Stop making up nonsense. There is nothing in the Bible account to suggest that there was any kind of a "dispersal problem". For God's sake, read what the Bible says, not what some goober says it says. You're making Christians look bad.

(Genesis 11:2)These things are not the same.

But it is so much easier to claim to be a Bible Christian when you can just keep making shit up like Faith does and don't have to pay attention to what the Bible actually says.

"General vicinity" means the Middle East basically, probably you have a smaller area in mind than I did. Nobody knows for sure where the ark landed but one likely area is in Asia Minor or what is now Turkey, and Babel was founded southeast from there, maybe about a thousand miles, but hardly as far as God commanded them to disperse. India, China, Africa, Europe would have been more like "replenishing the earth."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This is of course a very subjective judgment. Some Christians happen to judge the statue of Europa as I've described. Yours doesn't even involve a beast but you think it's the equivalent of ours?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I've explained what trumps what these particular Christians believe. I'm not sure why you're having difficulty grasping it.The woman in Revelation is clothed. The statue of Europa is naked.The woman in Revelation is carrying a cup. Europa is empty-handed.The woman in Revelation is bedecked in precious stones. Europa isn't.The beast in Revelation has seven heads. Zeus, in the statue, has one.The beast in Revelation has ten horns. Zeus, in the statue, has two.In short, the statue of Europa differs from the description of the woman riding a beast in Revelation in every single named detail.

Yes you can tick off all those differences and to your mind that makes us wrong. Again, this is all a subjective judgment, we CAN'T be wrong. This argument is really ridiculous. We're perfectly capable of toting up the differences ourselves. Obviously to us that's all unnecessary, but since you think it's necessary you actually think that makes you RIGHT? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.