Babel: The Mother Culture?

At a glance, I would agree. But this is more a scientific methodology which will not work in the singular case of proving the supernatural. The nature of God is not defined or contained by science. Science is that which describes the nature and workings of the natural universe. Evidence of the supernatural can only be claimed in the part of our being which relates to the supernatural, the also un-evidenced soul, be it of a christian or Buddhist mystic, or a pagan participant in sceance. In this discription, which is admittedly my own, I am hard put to believe the credibility of those 'seers' who attempt to solve crime or other happenings relating to earthly transcience, by supernatural means.I agree that some 'xians' go too far. It is not a new problem, but can be traced back to the time of Augustine, who held that a literal interpretation of the bible is not of an essence. It is more recent sects which are giving a bad name and an absurd face, to Christendom.The tortoise and the hare was a fable of Aesop, which I paralled for fun in an earlier post. I said that trying to prove the bible is not the word of God with historical evidence, is like trying to prove that this fable is false by looking for evidence of an animal olympics.

Dude, we are in a science thread. That again is the problem, if science cannot even attempt to examine the nature of something that is undetectable to science, how do we conclude it (ones religious belief) is real?Internal feelings and beliefs can all be quantified (its my job to do just that) and what we feel and what we believe are so intertwined that if you believe hard enough, it will alter your very psychological make up and attribution errors abound (see my posts to scotnness on this very thread).Thats what science does: remove bias as best as it can.Just to keep this on topic; Tower of Babel

Ok, Larni, I apologize. I know this is a science thread with the purpose of examining the stories in the Bible. The problem is, the people who hold that the Bible is innerrant are not scientists, and present no evidence of a physical kind for their assertions. So, the debate hardly ever stays in the realm of science.

This is why some folk get so frustrated with the creationist mind set. Once we invoke a god, we may well just stop thinking about the matter at hand. We immediately devolve to 'goddidit'.

nothing in the text supports this. in fact, "lucifer," is a latin version of the hebrew title/name, "heylel," or more commonly "hillel." it's a simple title, just meaning "bright one," and has no connotations of anything demonic.and satan is not king of anything. what great monsters live in the nile? i'll give you a hint: it rhymes.

---

Well I am no Jew nor scholar.But the Apostle Paul was:Also, the other pharisees of the day seemed to understand and accuse in front of the crowds in the same context: I believe the Pharisees must have been playing to the beliefs of the masses. So this idea that the world was ruled by the 'bright one' was well understood. We had given over control to him by not obeying God and giving iin to the seduction of sin as it were.Jesus also confirmed this (context included):As for Ezekiel and the monster of the nile, you said:I don't know that rhymes in the English language tranlate to confirmation of interpretation. Perhaps you are only trying to mock me? To present the connections I think are valid as luducrous?Consider: Now, that passage may refer to a crocodile in your interpretation, but the writers of the Bible didn't think so. From David to Ezekiel and Isaiah to John. I think the Biblical picture of this serpent called leviathan, is quite clear and thorough. It is as descriptive as it could be! I hope that I have adequately defended what I see in the scriptures on this point. Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

again, lucifer has no satanic implications. shall i prove it?

quote:

---

Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

---

as you should know, the latin name for the planet venus for the 6 months it is the morning star is "lucifer." would you care to explain to me exactly why, in revelation, jesus calls himself "lucifer?"as for "god of this age" and such, isn't ba'al a god? asherah? do they even exist? yet they are gods and worshipped as such. satan has no authority but what he is given by god -- or by us. people often choose to worship things that are not yahweh as gods. i'm not trying to be mocking, i just thought the metaphor was extremely obvious. first, i'd like to say that i'm actually impressed that connected leviathan to the dragon in revelation (though i think you might have chosen the wrong passage?). but to connect leviathan to this particular passage regarding pharaoh is, well, mixing metaphors.the leviathan first makes its (well, their) appearance in genesis 1, as simply "taninm" or rather ha-tanynm ha-gadolim, "the big snakes" in the seas. according to myth, god only makes two of them, but kills one (see your psalm verse), and the other becomes furious and trashes ships at sea. it is a highly mythecized animal, but it is an animal, not a spirit or divine entity. it is a creation of god, as part of his creative acts in genesis. when john writes his revelation, filled with metaphors and imagery from inumerable sources, he uses the image of leviathan as something satanic.but leviathan is not the devil, or the devil's minion. it is simply the image john uses for him. he is also not this serpent. (nor does this serpent seem to be satan, though one could easily retrofit satan for the role, as the serpent essentially does the same job that satan would). as i explained above, leviathan is a sea serpent, and a big one at that. your passage from job will tell you that (why do you suppose it talks about fish-hooks?). the serpent in genesis 3 is a land animal.the creature most similar to leviathan in other mythologies might be the kraken, or perhaps homer's scylla, which are probably modelled after giant squid. but if you look up "livyatan" in a modern hebrew dictionary you will find another meaning, for a very real and well known animal, and it's the same one the average person will think of when you say the word "leviathan" colloquially: the whale. but this is not exactly the picture job creates. now you're confusing things even more. that's behemoth, who is to the land what leviathan is to the open ocean.

---

Thanks for giving me something to sink my teeth into when I'm not so busy with Christmas...I'll be back!

that's ok, take your time. ironically, i only posted because finally i'm not so dead from working like crazy during busy season at my job.speaking of which, i have presents to wrap. merry christmas and such.

---

not really, the lines about lucifer still mean a king of babylon and not satan
the hebrew name that is Helel son of Shahar, has nothing to do with satan, which in hebrew HaSatanvulgate 14:12 quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes
KJV:14:12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!vulgate Job 11:17 et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer
KJV:Job 11:17 And [thine] age shall be clearer than the noonday; thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as the morning.look at the two verses, notice what word they use in both vulgate and KJV?
lucifer!, but the kjv only uses it for isaiah, it doesn't use it for job!
what is my point? its a faulty view from the kjv to think that isaiah is talking about satan, when the kjv only keeps the word lucifer in isaiah but translates it in job, why do they do that?
to make up a myth about satan that isn't even the book!why would they bother not to translate lucifer, but to keep a belief alive?heres another
Vulgate Psalms 109:3: tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum ex utero ante luciferum genui te
KJV: 109:3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause.vulgate:Job 38:32 numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis
KJV:38:32 Canst thou bring forth Mazzaroth in his season? or canst thou guide Arcturus with his sons?wheres satan at? oh yeah its not in there to begin with!

Merry christmas spiderman. It's nice to be speaking with you again btw.Now enough with the pleasantries... Let's get a Hebrew to interpret this for us... bear with me.2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.Acts 23: 6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." 7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.) 9 There was a great uproar, and some of the teachers of the law who were Pharisees stood up and argued vigorously. "We find nothing wrong with this man," they said. "What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?"You can say what you want about Greek, Latin and Hebrew etc. Paul was a Roman citizen, and a hebrew by birth who had lived in Greece and new the languages. As he said, he was a Pharasee of the highest credentials. And he interpreted these things in this same manner I present to you. He was looking at it through the lens of the Holy Spirit which 'is the solution' that reveals the scripture's meaning, just like a solution to a puzzle.The serpent in Genesis is the same serpent that symbolizes satan elsewhere in the Bible. I don't even know how you can question it as the connections are easy to see once they are pointed out. That's what prophets (ministers) are supposed to do; point it out. The Genesis serpent is cast down to the ground (earth, or physical world) after masquerading as an 'enlightening' figure to Eve. It was simultaneously Satan's fall, as well as mankinds.God had given one command of the do not variety. And God was the light of the world. But another thought (spirit or 'angel') entered their minds eye. And it spoke of wisdom in direct contradiction of God.(btw here's an aside for another thread... Eve was given the name 'Eve' by her husband after the fall. When God created them, he called their name Adam. god created us with equality as men and women. It was because of what we had done that sexism now entered the scene.)The language of scripture changes to add texture and complete the picture. It does not change to create contradiction as you imply. And when we see additional changes in the form of translation, I think it is only the sovereignty of God that allows those changes to make even more clear (though more complex) the truth, in regard to the concepts being conveyed.The serpent is really an Angel. The fact that Venus was called Lucifer in the Latin is irrelevant, as it is the meaning of the name that conveys the concept.Now although the Devil, or Lucifer, or Beelzebub (or any of his other names) is a spiritual creature, he manifests himself through physical creatures so that he can influence the material world.Jesus knew this: You see? We are either followers of Satan or of God. That's not something we like to believe in this modern era because Satan has convinced us that we think our own thoughts and are autonomous(ah... the thought life! Where the spirit world enters the material). Both are spirits who claim to be God! One is the true light, and the other is a delusion. That is why Jesus said, 'I am the light of the world'.Consider his words here: There was a time before the fall of angels and men Spidy... before the great star (Lucifer) fell from the heavens with all of his angels and was cast to the ground. Where were you?Job 38: 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? 6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone-- 7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy? 8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb, 9 when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness, 10 when I fixed limits for it and set its doors and bars in place, 11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; here is where your proud waves halt'.That last line gives me goose bumps when presenting it to you in this setting and context. I don't think your disagreement is with me. It is with God. Err on the side of caution. Tread lightly!----------------------Now I am going to go into ground that is more of a personal interpretation than it is orthodoxy. But I believe it is correct and so do others. John and Isaiah understood it. So did David!When talking about the sea creature, we must keep in mind that mankind is that sea. So the language is symbolic even when it is used litterally. That's the hidden nature of parables. It's not hidden at all if you have the solution.Psalm 104: 26 There the ships go to and fro, and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there.Revelation 17:15 Then the angel said to me, "The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.The prostitute is all the mystery religions, the false systems. And 'the beast' (antichrist) who emerges in the fianl scenes, will hate her.I believe that this suggests that the antichrist (masquerading as light) will capitalize on the wars between religions and seek to put an end to the bloodshed. This will not suprisingly seem enlightening to many.The only problem is... Secular Humanism is no different than spiritual humanism (pantheism). It may call itself secular, but all philosophy is an attempt to reveal ultimate truth and is therfore theological in nature. Even if we claim to be unable to know ultimate truth and pin our warfare on the search for it, we've still made a claim. We're forced to prophesy something as true regardless of what it is! It's inescapable! It's just the way God set things up and reveals His ultimate sovereignty irrespective of how distant He may seem. He's been there the whole time, right at the very foundation of our thinking. After all... where did you think your thoughts come from?So the sea is mankind as a whole, the ships (or vessels, temples of the Holy Spirit) are the individual members of the body. That body is either in christ, or in the greater beast and army of evil only one member of whom will rise out of that sea to become the antichrist!The story of Noah also captures this imagery, as God shuts the door of the ark (an interesting point) just as none will be plucked out of Jesus hand after they are sealed by the Holy Spirit and 'delivered' out of the jaws of death.The ark tossing on the sea is ripe with symbolism and fits so nicely as an example of the complimentary spiritual meaning of scripture that underlies the appearent story. What's even more astonishing is when the stories are true lterally as well as figuratively. it's the overlap of truth, dimension after dimension that leaves me in awe. We don't even have to understand it all or believe that the flood was real in material terms. We just have to know that it's true!Jesus calms the sea, and in the midst of a tempest, saves His people from certain death! The Leviathan churns the waters, but God divides them and let's His people go free, all while bringing the waters back in upon the encroaching enemy!I think there was more I wanted to say in response to you reply, but the kids are up and wouldn't you know it? Santa came last night!Gifts should be recognized as such and a spirit of humility should surround us far more than it commonly does. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Why are you laughing? It makes perect sense.
You amy laugh still more when I show you that I can make a strong case for Isaiah to be prophesying Mary.Ane one that does fit the scripture in Hebrew and the vulgate.

Who are you talking to Anastsia?I was laughing at the ReverendDG!I already believe that Isaiah was talking about Mary.

Sorry, I guess I should more appropriately have responded to RevDG. Was he wrong in thinking that your interpretations were coming from Isaiah?Actually the whole thing is off-topic, but I would like a thread about it if it were interesting.