The First Antichrist

[busterdog]

Interesting comments by Joseph Farah of Worldnetdaily:

Nimrod of Babylon was also known as Chronos (for whom the Philistines burned their children alive) according to and Zoroaster (means promised seed of the woman, according to some).

Nimrod wanted to be "like God" and built Babel for that purpose. That was the lie of Genesis 3, of course. That is the origin of "religion" in the pejorative sense. Nimrod of course anticipates many of the attributes of Jesus Christ as the "pseudo-Christ."

Ezekiel of course condemns this "weeping for Tamuz" and sun worship associated with the cult of Nimrod/Semiramus.

http://www.khouse.org/6640/currentbroadcast/

 

[Assyrian]

It doesn't want to play on my computer but I notice the site has the slogan
Bringing the world into focus through the lens of Scripture
Does the bible connect Nimrod with sun worship or weeping for Tammuz?

 

[busterdog]

It doesn't want to play on my computer but I notice the site has the slogan
Bringing the world into focus through the lens of Scripture
Does the bible connect Nimrod with sun worship or weeping for Tammuz?

Yes.

You can podcast it by the way.

I don't know what the guy's source was. Probably it was Alexander Hislop. Hislop makes the connection between Zoroaster and Nimrod. Zoroaster is identified also by some historians as a later specific Persian guy much after Nimrod. I don't know how Hislop makes the connection. I think I know how Saddam Hussein figured he was Nebuchadnezzar. That the connection is made at all intrigues me.

The other connection that is made is between Cronus and Nimrod. That is rather odd to see a titan tied to a historical king, but very interesting.

My limited study of the classics never really questioned the dark background of the Greek gods and mythical figures. They were kind of archetypes for human ideas. This history suggests that they were really very bent types of the worst human history, if not the perverse creations of emperor worship.

I also never heard about this:

Cleitarchus On Molech

Cleitarchus, an ancient historian, around 315 BC, gives this description of a fire god at Carthage. (Kronos is the north African name for Molech).

“There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier.”​

Diodorus Siculus On Molech

Diodorus Siculus, 90-30 BC, gives this description of a Carthaginian fire god.

“There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.”​

Plutarch On Molech

Plutarch, AD 46-127, senior priest of the oracle at Delphi, gives this description of the fire god.

“The whole area before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums so that the cries of wailing [of the children being sacrificed] should not reach the ears of the people.”​

 

[Melethiel]

Chronos is a Greek god.
Zoroaster lived much later.
I don't think that all the various ties are very credible, however, I would broadly agree (!) with this statement:

Nimrod wanted to be "like God" and built Babel for that purpose. That was the lie of Genesis 3, of course. That is the origin of "religion" in the pejorative sense. Nimrod of course anticipates many of the attributes of Jesus Christ as the "pseudo-Christ."

 

[Assyrian]

I thought it sounded like Hislop alright. Cleitarchus's identification of Moloch with Kronos is pretty typical of Hellenistic syncretism where all the religious beliefs the Greeks came in contact with were identified with their own gods. the Romans followed the same practice. For example down the road in the city of Bath the local Celtic goddess Sulius was identified by the Romans as Minerva and they built a temple of Sulius Minerva there. It doesn't mean Sulius was Minerva, or that Kronos was Moloch. From what I remember Hyslop's sources seem to be classical Greek and Roman writers, IIRC he quoted Ovid a lot. But what did Ovid know about ancient Mesopotamian history from a couple of millenia before?

All the bible tells us about Nimrod is Gen 10:8 Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD. Therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD." 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Nothing about him leading a rebellion against God, founding all the systems of pagan idolatry, or persecuting believers.

 

[busterdog]

I thought it sounded like Hislop alright. Cleitarchus's identification of Moloch with Kronos is pretty typical of Hellenistic syncretism where all the religious beliefs the Greeks came in contact with were identified with their own gods. the Romans followed the same practice. For example down the road in the city of Bath the local Celtic goddess Sulius was identified by the Romans as Minerva and they built a temple of Sulius Minerva there. It doesn't mean Sulius was Minerva, or that Kronos was Moloch. From what I remember Hyslop's sources seem to be classical Greek and Roman writers, IIRC he quoted Ovid a lot. But what did Ovid know about ancient Mesopotamian history from a couple of millenia before?

Its a bit murky at this level of history. However, one does see a similar spirit running through these various stories. Sort of like John the Baptist being Elijah, which I am never quite comfortable with.

The ideas remain interesting even if you allow them to be tentative.

All the bible tells us about Nimrod is Gen 10:8 Cush fathered Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD. Therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD." 10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Nothing about him leading a rebellion against God, founding all the systems of pagan idolatry, or persecuting believers.

Well, the Babylonians themselves tell lots of stories that connect Nimrod with idolatry and persecution. The babylonian mythos resembles that of Kim Jong Il or Roman Ceasars, who claimed to be gods. It is not a proof certain, but darn few leaders are that arrogant without a considerable amount of innocent, and preferably righteous, blood on their hands.

Nimrod as tyrant is not concept that leaps off of the pages of Genesis, admittedly. But, he did manage to forge the first bit of an empire, which seems reflected in Genesis. Such things are not usually accomplished by a winning smile alone. I tend to think the safe money is with the Nimrod as a hunter of men's souls.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, the final world empire is a similar story. The end time empire traffics in the following: Rev 18:13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

One apparently can derive a hunter in despite of God from the text, but I am not scholar enough to defend it.

 

[Assyrian]

Odd though, that you interpretation of Genesis leans towards a highly metaphorical interpretation of 'a mighty hunter hunter before the Lord'

Do Babylonian legends even mention Nimrod? We have rabbinical mythology from about the time of Christ and Greek and Latin writers from around that time too. But the really ancient stuff we have, the Babylonian epics don't seem to mention him.

 

[busterdog]

Odd though, that you interpretation of Genesis leans towards a highly metaphorical interpretation of 'a mighty hunter hunter before the Lord'

A headhunter who doesnt keep the head -- is that a metaphor?

To an extent.

Nimrod is murky, and yes this bit of Genesis is not straightforward. In Hebrew, Nimrod means valiant or rebellious. Take your pick. http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05248&t=kjv

In the hebrew, the word "mighty" has the meaning, among other meanings, that Farah and Hislop attribute. Tyrant is one shade of meaning.

One argument from the creationists (Missler) is that God said to man, deliberately, to cover the earth. Ie, spread out. Dont aggregate in these unholy civilizations. You will remember in Samuel that Israel had two options: 1. to have a human King to make a name for themselves like other nations or 2. have God for their King. God told Israel that having a King would suck. (Not that the line of David wasnt used. God uses it all Rom 8:28) But, there are a few dots worth connection that would suggest that the first "mighty" man in the earth (post flood), building cities is, again, likely to be what kind of "mighty"?

Biblically, there is a clear issue between
"in my own strength" and "God as my strength." In some ways we have learned (or been allowed by grace) to be a rather accomplished people and strong in a material sense, and yet be sons of God. At this time, in this context, and as a matter of first mention in the Bible, I rather suspect that grace was not what Nimrod was likely to have been about.


DALET means pathway, to enter (letter value 4)

Literal meaning of the Letter; DOOR
Sound of letter (d)


REYSH means a person, the head, the highest (letter value 200)

Literal meaning of the Letter; HEAD OF A MAN
Sound of letter (r)



MEM means liquid, massive, chaos (letter value 40)

Literal meaning of the Letter; WATER
Sound of letter (m)

--------------------------------------------------------------


NOON means activity, life (letter value 50)

Literal meaning of the Letter; FISH DARTING THROUGH THE WATER
Sound of letter (n)

As a use of the iconographic values of of the letters, you certainly have the issue of chaos/sea, a guy who represents the way thereof and who is king over it. A bit of a Rorschach test, I am sure. But isnt that about what it all is? (ie, through the lens of scripture)

As for the "metaphorical" meanings here, obviously this suggests that there isn't any communication or information that does not contain metaphor. The question becomes at what level the meaning comes into the most precise focus. If one worships creeping things or the elemental properties of this world, they come into focus at one point. And one question is whether scripture succeeds in bringing them into focus in an inerrant sense.

Kabbalah, for example, attempts to distill the truth out of a certain level of use of these iconographs. One might become obsessed with the concept of Mem, the hebrew symbol, as a way to channel ocean power or Kali, the Hindu goddess of chaos.

An inerrant view of the use of metaphors brings them into focus not as elemental significance or powers in their own right but in a certain aggregation of concepts that squares with a narrative of the Savior King, for example. Note that the meaning follows the revelation.

Paul has something to say about elemental properties or spirits:

Col 2:8 Beware 991 lest 3361 any man 5100 spoil 2071 4812 you 5209 through 1223 philosophy 5385 and 2532 vain 2756 deceit 539, after 2596 the tradition 3862 of men 444, after 2596 the rudiments 4747 of the world 2889, and 2532 not 3756 after 2596 Christ 5547.

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

So, there certainly is an inescapable aspect of metaphor in all information, biblical or otherwise. But, one can aggregate notes in a circle of fifths, and sound like Bach. Or one can be the acid-tripping Syd Barrett (Pink Floyd) playing one bass note constantly until you get fired from the band. Then you choose which aggregation of concepts best fits that experience chaos/straightjacket/padded room or a crazy diamond. The former tends more toward the literal narrative.

As for Nimrod as metaphor for the antichrist, scripture says that there is a "spirit" of antichrist. So, I dont think there is a literal antichrist, but there are several examples.

1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Do Babylonian legends even mention Nimrod? We have rabbinical mythology from about the time of Christ and Greek and Latin writers from around that time too. But the really ancient stuff we have, the Babylonian epics don't seem to mention him.

I poked around a bit on Hislop's sources. Not easy. Here is another view:

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Semiramis.htm

The key concepts showing a development of idolatry are noted there.

Making Nimrod historically associated with Ninus or Semiramis is perhaps overselling the point. At bottom, it seems the main points are 1. who is the mother of harlots/idolatry; 2. what is the origin of the Spirit of Antichrist; and 3. is there a continuity of the Spirit of Antichrist? If you make the case there, much of the Bible is shown to be literally true, since there are not many historical claims at this level.

It seems the stories of Semiramus and Nimus are not so much the origins myths like Gilgamesh, but rather propaganda, like stories about Kim Jong Il. God seems to have a much bigger problem with such stories than with stories like Gilgamesh or Apsu and Tiamat.

That softens the claims about Nimrod a bit, if one doesnt swing for the fence historically speaking, it seems to come together fairly well.

I remember reading Ugarit and Minoan Crete, as an explanation for where the Bible came from. I couldn't see that Gordon was any better than I was at triangulating on a few sparse data points. He did go for the hard sell on the literal historical issues. All I saw was the Emperor doing an elaborate
"nakey dance", which is cute for a two year old after his bath if he is your kid, but not so becoming for most others.

King David also did a nakey dance of sorts. I dont intend to by shy either. But, I am thinking about how hard to sell the Nimrod idea and what parts of it are really important.

 

[Assyrian]

A headhunter who doesnt keep the head -- is that a metaphor?

Who mentioned headhunters?

The bible describes Nimrod as a hunter, someone who goes out and catches rabbits and deer. The same word is also used to describe game caught for the pot. If you want to turn a biblical description of someone hunting antelope into a description of 'hunting souls' then that it fine. But don't kid yourself that it isn't a metaphorical interpretation.

The word is used non literally once in scripture to describe getting out of debt Prov 6:5 save yourself like a gazelle from the hand of the hunter, like a bird from the hand of the fowler. Note the word 'like'. It is not literal it is a simile.

To an extent.

Nimrod is murky, and yes this bit of Genesis is not straightforward. In Hebrew, Nimrod means valiant or rebellious. Take your pick. http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H05248&t=kjv

In the hebrew, the word "mighty" has the meaning, among other meanings, that Farah and Hislop attribute. Tyrant is one shade of meaning.

The 'rebellious' interpretation is based on reading his name as if it were Hebrew, which it probably isn't. Even if it were Hebrew you are taking the letters NMRD and interpreting it as the infinitive of the verb MRD, which is even more speculative. And so what if that was the meaning of his name? It is not as if God names him Nimrod and explains the meaning of the name for us in the bible, that way we get with Abraham. This sort of interpretation seems more like allegory to me.

One argument from the creationists (Missler) is that God said to man, deliberately, to cover the earth. Ie, spread out. Dont aggregate in these unholy civilizations.

If they were to fill the earth as Genesis commanded you would get dense population, and as we have now in our highly populated world, civilisations. The desire not to get scattered was in disobedience to the Genesis command, but so was the apostles staying in Jerusalem when the Lord commanded them to go into all the world. God is not anti cities. Look at his love for Jerusalem, and from what he told Jonah, Nineveh.

You will remember in Samuel that Israel had two options: 1. to have a human King to make a name for themselves like other nations or 2. have God for their King. God told Israel that having a King would suck. (Not that the line of David wasnt used. God uses it all Rom 8:28) But, there are a few dots worth connection that would suggest that the first "mighty" man in the earth (post flood), building cities is, again, likely to be what kind of "mighty"?

So if God didn't want Israel to have a kind like other nations, what makes you think he objected to other nations having kings? Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Biblically, there is a clear issue between
"in my own strength" and "God as my strength." In some ways we have learned (or been allowed by grace) to be a rather accomplished people and strong in a material sense, and yet be sons of God. At this time, in this context, and as a matter of first mention in the Bible, I rather suspect that grace was not what Nimrod was likely to have been about.

First mention is another of those non literal interpretation so popular among literalists. Anyway Nimrod is not the first mention of mighty men, of people building cities, or the first person to rely on his own strength rather than God's.

DALET means pathway, to enter (letter value 4)

Literal meaning of the Letter; DOOR
Sound of letter (d)


REYSH means a person, the head, the highest (letter value 200)

Literal meaning of the Letter; HEAD OF A MAN
Sound of letter (r)



MEM means liquid, massive, chaos (letter value 40)

Literal meaning of the Letter; WATER
Sound of letter (m)

--------------------------------------------------------------


NOON means activity, life (letter value 50)

Literal meaning of the Letter; FISH DARTING THROUGH THE WATER
Sound of letter (n)

As a use of the iconographic values of of the letters, you certainly have the issue of chaos/sea, a guy who represents the way thereof and who is king over it. A bit of a Rorschach test, I am sure. But isnt that about what it all is? (ie, through the lens of scripture)

As for the "metaphorical" meanings here, obviously this suggests that there isn't any communication or information that does not contain metaphor. The question becomes at what level the meaning comes into the most precise focus. If one worships creeping things or the elemental properties of this world, they come into focus at one point. And one question is whether scripture succeeds in bringing them into focus in an inerrant sense.

Kabbalah, for example, attempts to distill the truth out of a certain level of use of these iconographs. One might become obsessed with the concept of Mem, the hebrew symbol, as a way to channel ocean power or Kali, the Hindu goddess of chaos.

Glad you spotted the Kabbalistic nature of attaching symbolic meaning to Hebrew letters. I was going to bring it up in your Muwth Muwth thread. As interpretations go this is way beyond metaphor and allegory.

An inerrant view of the use of metaphors brings th em into focus not as elemental significance or powers in their own right but in a certain aggregation of concepts that squares with a narrative of the Savior King, for example. Note that the meaning follows the revelation.

Paul has something to say about elemental properties or spirits:

Col 2:8 Beware 991 lest 3361 any man 5100 spoil 2071 4812 you 5209 through 1223 philosophy 5385 and 2532 vain 2756 deceit 539, after 2596 the tradition 3862 of men 444, after 2596 the rudiments 4747 of the world 2889, and 2532 not 3756 after 2596 Christ 5547.

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Now I never heard of the stoicheia being interpreted that way.

So, there certainly is an inescapable aspect of metaphor in all information, biblical or otherwise.
But, one can aggregate notes in a circle of fifths, and sound like Bach. Or one can be the acid-tripping Syd Barrett (Pink Floyd) playing one bass note constantly until you get fired from the band. Then you choose which aggregation of concepts best fits that experience chaos/straightjacket/padded room or a crazy diamond. The former tends more toward the literal narrative.

Scripture seems to use a healthy balance of literal metaphor and allegory. You can try to interpret it all literally, and end up with a sort of functional autism. You'll get by and not go to badly off the rails, but you will miss a lot of the rich meaning that the bible is really speaking. On the other extreme you can end up on the dark side of the moon allegorizing everything. But why do we need to choose between two dysfunctional extremes?

As for Nimrod as metaphor for the antichrist, scripture says that there is a "spirit" of antichrist. So, I dont think there is a literal antichrist, but there are several examples.

1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

But it is not enough to say they don't follow God, they must be an antichrist. There is more to being an antichrist than that, even if there are 'many antichrists'. In scripture there seem to be two main ways to be an antichrist, we have the model of Antiochus a pagan king persecuting the people of God and trying to make them turn away from God, and in John's epistle we have the false prophets operating within the church leading people astray. Now if Hislop is right and Nimrod did lead a rebellion against God, founding the systems of pagan idolatry to turn people from true worship, then of course he would qualify as an archetypal antichrist. But it is Hislop's claims about what Nimrod did that are the problem.

I poked around a bit on Hislop's sources. Not easy. Here is another view:

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Semiramis.htm

The key concepts showing a development of idolatry are noted there.

Making Nimrod historically associated with Ninus or Semiramis is perhaps overselling the point. At bottom, it seems the main points are 1. who is the mother of harlots/idolatry; 2. what is the origin of the Spirit of Antichrist; and 3. is there a continuity of the Spirit of Antichrist? If you make the case there, much of the Bible is shown to be literally true, since there are not many historical claims at this level.

It seems the stories of Semiramus and Nimus are not so much the origins myths like Gilgamesh, but rather propaganda, like stories about Kim Jong Il. God seems to have a much bigger problem with such stories than with stories like Gilgamesh or Apsu and Tiamat.

That softens the claims about Nimrod a bit, if one doesnt swing for the fence historically speaking, it seems to come together fairly well.

I remember reading Ugarit and Minoan Crete, as an explanation for where the Bible came from. I couldn't see that Gordon was any better than I was at triangulating on a few sparse data points. He did go for the hard sell on the literal historical issues. All I saw was the Emperor doing an elaborate
"nakey dance", which is cute for a two year old after his bath if he is your kid, but not so becoming for most others.

King David also did a nakey dance of sorts. I dont intend to by shy either. But, I am thinking about how hard to sell the Nimrod idea and what parts of it are really important.

Hislop built this huge structure based on pretty wild conjecture about Nimrod. Do you have anything that would stand up in court?

 

[busterdog]

Who mentioned headhunters?

The bible describes Nimrod as a hunter, someone who goes out and catches rabbits and deer.

The 'rebellious' interpretation is based on reading his name as if it were Hebrew, which it probably isn't.

Before anything stands up in Court, we have to know what the applicable standard is. There are occasions in which "having some reasonable basis in law or fact" is the standard.

But, the translations clearly contain the notion of a tyrant or rebellious.
"hunter" or king. So, all of my arguments have a reasonable basis.

Howeer

 

[Assyrian]

Without any evidence that Nimrod was tyrannous apart from the fact that some mighty men may have been tyrants? Were David's mighty men all tyrants? Is the bible telling us they were rebellious? Were Joshua's mighty men of valour rebellious tyrants? Was the angel condemning Gideon as a second Nimrod when he called him a mighty man? Do you seriously think that would stand up in court?

Your honour, the plaintiff admits he is a cowboy, and clearly the word cowboy is used to describe shoddy builders and botched plumbing jobs. By his own admission the plaintiff is guilty of a breach of trading standards.

The only basis for the claim about Nimrod are Rabbinical legend and Kabbalistic interpretations reading meanings into the letters of his name. There is nothing in history, or in the literal meaning of the text, nor is there anywhere in scripture that hints at a figurative or allegorical interpretation of Nimrod.

 

[busterdog]

Without any evidence that Nimrod was tyrannous apart from the fact that some mighty men may have been tyrants? Were David's mighty men all tyrants? Is the bible telling us they were rebellious? Were Joshua's mighty men of valour rebellious tyrants? Was the angel condemning Gideon as a second Nimrod when he called him a mighty man? Do you seriously think that would stand up in court?

Your honour, the plaintiff admits he is a cowboy, and clearly the word cowboy is used to describe shoddy builders and botched plumbing jobs. By his own admission the plaintiff is guilty of a breach of trading standards.

The only basis for the claim about Nimrod are Rabbinical legend and Kabbalistic interpretations reading meanings into the letters of his name. There is nothing in history, or in the literal meaning of the text, nor is there anywhere in scripture that hints at a figurative or allegorical interpretation of Nimrod.

]

I dont think so.

I find the same dispute again and again.

On one hand a very CLEAR interpretive option, as ordinary reason and scholarship allows.

On the other hand, attributing doubt and stripping meaning out of scripture, because, in isolation, the language might allow it apart from all other considerations.

I dont deny that logic allows some options. I even suggested that this particular interpretation was not the most ironclad. But, why should you take issue when a well established, orthodox (Gesenius) supplies the alternative meaning of tyranny and rebellion and you want to compare it to kabbalah? Why? To what end? The alternate meanings of the words implies an interpretive choice. If you want to argue with Gesenius, that is your business. www.blueletterbible.com

 

[Assyrian]

]

I dont think so.

I find the same dispute again and again.

On one hand a very CLEAR interpretive option, as ordinary reason and scholarship allows.

On the other hand, attributing doubt and stripping meaning out of scripture, because, in isolation, the language might allow it apart from all other considerations.

There are no other considerations here, other than 'Jewish myths' of first century rabbinical legend, the Kabbala, and the Greek and Roman legends Hislop called on. There is nothing in the text that suggests he was a tyrant, or that mighty man is being used in a bad sense. Without evidence of his tyranny, or anything to back up the claim he was a rebel against God who founded pagan idolatry, why take mighty man in the bad sense, when the normal everyday use of the word fits? Nimrod is long dead, but you are accusing the man of some pretty terrible crimes. Don't you need a stronger basis than sometimes the word 'mighty man' is used in a bad sense?

I dont deny that logic allows some options. I even suggested that this particular interpretation was not the most ironclad.

But, why should you take issue when a well established, orthodox (Gesenius) supplies the alternative meaning of tyranny and rebellion and you want to compare it to kabbalah?

That is hardly fair Busterdog. You know the form of interpretation I was calling kabbalistic, an interpretation you admitted was kabbalistic, trying to find hidden meaning to the name Nimrod in the letters that make up his name. You have used that form of interpretation to support Hislop's claim. Now you say I am comparing Genesius to the Kabbalah?

Genesius mentions one instance of the 158 times mighty is used in scripture that it describes a tyrant,

If you read Psalm 52 it is clear from the context what is meant. Psalm 52:1 To the choirmaster. A Maskil of David, when Doeg, the Edomite, came and told Saul, "David has come to the house of Ahimelech." Why do you boast of evil, O mighty man? The steadfast love of God endures all the day. 2 Your tongue plots destruction, like a sharp razor, you worker of deceit. 3 You love evil more than good, and lying more than speaking what is right. Selah.

What support is there from the description in Genesis that mighty man is being used in a bad sense, rather than its plain normal standard everyday meaning of a powerful warrior? If that meaning can be applied without any contextual support in the use of mighty man, why do we not use it for David and Joshua's mighty men, for Gideon?

Why? To what end? The alternate meanings of the words implies an interpretive choice. If you want to argue with Gesenius, that is your business. www.blueletterbible.com

No I am not arguing with Genesius but with a method of interpretation that plucks obscure meanings from dictionaries and uses them to support eisegesis, when there is nothing in the context to support the obscure meaning, nothing in the rest of scripture to support the interpretation, and when the normal meaning of the word fits perfectly well.

 

[busterdog]

T

That is hardly fair Busterdog. You know the form of interpretation I was calling kabbalistic, an interpretation you admitted was kabbalistic, trying to find hidden meaning to the name Nimrod in the letters that make up his name. You have used that form of interpretation to support Hislop's claim. Now you say I am comparing Genesius to the Kabbalah?

I don't think it was kabbalistic at all.

Genesius mentions one instance of the 158 times mighty is used in scripture that it describes a tyrant,

Genesius suggests tyrant as an option. The nature of Babel itself provides support for this meaning.

There isnt a way to rule out this meaning. THere is just no way.

What support is there from the description in Genesis that mighty man is being used in a bad sense, rather than its plain normal standard everyday meaning of a powerful warrior? If that meaning can be applied without any contextual support in the use of mighty man, why do we not use it for David and Joshua's mighty men, for Gideon?

The distinction between the kingdom of David and of Nimrod is rather obvious.

It is a permitted meaning.

The word Nimrod reinforces the meaning.

It is just the nature of language.

No I am not arguing with Genesius but with a method of interpretation that plucks obscure meanings from dictionaries and uses them to support eisegesis, when there is nothing in the context to support the obscure meaning, nothing in the rest of scripture to support the interpretation, and when the normal meaning of the word fits perfectly well.

The nature of Babel is not obscure. Tyrant is not an obscure meaning. Daniel 11 uses the meaning in the same sense, ie, Alexander.

The meaning of Nimrod is not obscure.

Several permitted meanings and words line up.

However, since Nimrod himself can be considered an "obscure" figure, the notion that these translational issues are "obscure" issues is maybe not that big of a deal. As long as we understand that some evidence is there. I don't think one should bother trying to make a hard sell on this point either for or against.

 

[Assyrian]

I don't think it was kabbalistic at all.

I don't know if you have come across the four basic modes of Rabbinical interpretation.

p’shαt - "simple" - which is the plain meaning of the writer.
Then there is
remez - "hint" A lot of prophecy works on this level. The seed of the woman does not actually mention Messiah or Calvary but it is hinted there.
drash or midrash - "(re)search" - allegorical interpretation.
Lastly we have:
sod - "secret" - looking at hidden mystical meaning of the Hebrew letters that make up the words of the text rather than the meaning of the words themselves. This is basis of the Kabbalah and it is the approach you use when you try to analyse the meaning of the individual letters that make up the words Nimrod, or in the other thread Muwth.

Genesius suggests tyrant as an option. The nature of Babel itself provides support for this meaning.

Where is the tyranny in Babel? Gen 11:3 And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly." And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth."
It all sound pretty democratic to me.

Nor does it say Nimrod led the construction of the tower or built the city of Babel. It says his kingdom began there, but it says he built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city Gen 10:11&12. Why would it say he built Nineveh but not mention him building Babel? Was he even around when Babel and its tower were built?

There isnt a way to rule out this meaning. THere is just no way.
The distinction between the kingdom of David and of Nimrod is rather obvious.

It is a permitted meaning.

Except proper exegesis is not about seeing what meanings you can get away with. You can play all sorts of games picking and choosing obscure meanings from dictionaries.
Mighty can mean: strong or brave, giant, excel...
hunter can mean: hunting, venison, victuals, food…
before can mean: before the time of, on the surface of, pleasing, to adore or worship…
So using your approach of 'permitted meanings' that you say cannot be ruled out, we can translate the passage
Nimrod was a mighty hunter before the time of Yahweh.
Nimrod was a excellent venison pleasing to Yahweh.
Nimrod was a strong food on the surface of Yahweh.
Nimrod was a brave hunter who worshipped Yahweh. It is bad exegesis.

….The distinction between the kingdom of David and of Nimrod is rather obvious.

And the bible never said anything bad about David? Is Babylon the only city to come under God’s judgment, or was the city of David judged too? The difference between David and Nimrod doesn’t tell us how we can interpet the same word applied to both. In fact some of David’s mighty men were down right nasty. But that is not what the word is talking about with either David and his men or Nimrod. If you want to work on a dictionary bingo that you think can’t be ruled out, then David’s character no more rules out obscure meanings either.

The word Nimrod reinforces the meaning.

We don’t know the meaning of the name, the bible doesn’t tell us. We don’t even know that it is a Hebrew name which is the basis for the speculative etymologies people come up with. Even if we did know the meaning we don’t know that it is significant. The name Peter is significant. Jesus gave him the name for a reason. But was his orignal name Simon significant? It was probably a family name, called after his old uncle Simeon (cf Luke 1:61). Was Paul significant? Or was Saul of Tarsus simply making use of his Roman privileges. How about Apollos, named after the Greek sun god?

Even if Nimrod means Rebel, and not Valiant or Leopard, or something in ancient Accadian, there is no significance to the name unless it is a name God chose for him, which the bible does not tell us. He could have been named ‘Rebel’ by an exasperated mother: “He’s not the Antichrist, he’s a very naughty boy’.

It is just the nature of language.

No its not. It is a lesson in how not to use a dictionary but that’s about it.

The nature of Babel is not obscure.

Are you talking about the allegorical meaning of Babel, Babylon the Great Mother of Harlots? Because I thought you wanted to read Genesis literally. Babel is a historical city as well as an allegorical symbol. It is best not to get the two mixed up. Daniel’s entire ministry was based in Babylon. Does ‘the nature of Babel’ mean Daniel was a false prophet too?

Tyrant is not an obscure meaning. Daniel 11 uses the meaning in the same sense, ie, Alexander.

This is Alexander the Great we are talking about here probably the greatest military genius in the history of the world. You don’t think the normal meaning of gibbor, a mighty warrior fits Alexander the Great? Yes the second half of the verse describes him as autocratic, but that doesn’t change the meaning of mighty in the first half of the verse. That word is telling us of his military prowess. I have had a look around a number of different translations and they all say mighty king, powerful king, strong king, heroic king, or warrior king. They don’t say tyrant.

The meaning of Nimrod is not obscure.

Of course it is, we don’t even know what language Nimrod is.

Several permitted meanings and words line up.

However, since Nimrod himself can be considered an "obscure" figure, the notion that these translational issues are "obscure" issues is maybe not that big of a deal. As long as we understand that some evidence is there. I don't think one should bother trying to make a hard sell on this point either for or against.

A useful sideroad to explore issues of bible interpretation though.
I came across an interesting link on the whole Hislop Nimrod issue. Ralph Woodrow who wrote Babylon Mystery Religion in 1966, following Hislop’s footsteps has since reexamined the issue have a look at http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2713769/k.B1E9/DC187.htm

 

[shernren]

What can I say? The path from literalism to kabbalism is well-trod. I once thought the academic coverage of this phenomenon in David S. Katz's God's Last Words was fanciful and over-reaching. But I have been proven wrong.

 

[busterdog]

What can I say? The path from literalism to kabbalism is well-trod. I once thought the academic coverage of this phenomenon in David S. Katz's God's Last Words was fanciful and over-reaching. But I have been proven wrong.

Well, that's a great insult if you can prove it.

I don't think you can.

ALso, are you talking about "kinda like" or the "same thing as" kabballa? The former allows you to fudge. Kabbalism suggests the latter. And as I said, you havent got the good to prove it.