WHO IS BABYLON/HARLOT IN REVELATION?

summerville said:

Sargon the Magnificent seems to be a fiction.

Sargon 1 is from the Old Assyrian Empire from c. 1920 BC — c. 1881 BC.

Click to expand...

So say Revisionists.

Sargon The Magnificent is definitely NOT a work of fiction. It is a work of non-fiction, and includes much documentation. The fact that you would suggest it is a fiction, which it's also obvious you have not read it, nor even seen it, and had to look it up on Amazon, reveals your BIAS against it is suspect.

summerville said:

The Cylinders of Nabonidus refers to cuneiform inscriptions of king Nabonidus of Babylonia (556-539 BC).

These inscriptions were made on clay cylinders. They include the Nabonidus Cylinder from Sippar, and the Nabonidus Cylinders from Ur, four in number.

Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact you're not familiar with the research done in Sargon The Magnificent.

Davy said:

So say Revisionists.

Sargon The Magnificent is definitely NOT a work of fiction. It is a work of non-fiction, and includes much documentation. The fact that you would suggest it is a fiction, which it's also obvious you have not read it, nor even seen it, and had to look it up on Amazon, reveals your BIAS against it is suspect.

Click to expand...

She got it all wrong.. and I have no doubt its interesting. I read Kramer. He has the credentials and the track record.

summerville said:

So your work was top secret?

I went to Iran and Iraq fairly often from the early 1950s thru the early 1970s. … Not as an invader of course.

You source on Magnificent Sargon (1927) appears to have been an amateur's "theory".. If you are really interested in the subject read Samuel Noah Kramer's History Begins at Sumer.. He spent his whole life translating the cuneiform tablets.

Click to expand...

Are you of middle eastern descent?

Regarding Bristowe's work, it includes what Assyriologists themselves stated. Opinion is given just as other documentary types works do. But the evidence is still documented evidence. So you cannot just strike that out because of your personal bias, nor with category labels like the word amateur.

summerville said:

She got it all wrong.. and I have no doubt its interesting. I read Kramer. He has the credentials and the track record.

Click to expand...

Your opinion vs. mine. That's the only thing you have so far.

Davy said:

Your opinion vs. mine. That's the only thing you have so far.

Click to expand...

Furthermore, the fact that some brethren have been tricked to believe that the Genesis creation account originates from the Babylonian tablets simply because the Babylonian tablets are older, is another Revisionist trick. The Babylonian tablet creation account points to a pagan mystery interpretation of the creation, i.e, a tainted account. That point Bristowe brings out from the documented translations by the Assyriologists using their own words, which obviously the logical conclusion Bristowe proposes is not a popular idea among them. Doesn't mean it doesn't have weight based on what Bristowe documented from the Assyriologist's themselves.

Davy said:

Are you of middle eastern descent?

Regarding Bristowe's work, it includes what Assyriologists themselves stated. Opinion is given just as other documentary types works do. But the evidence is still documented evidence. So you cannot just strike that out because of your personal bias, nor with category labels like the word amateur.

Click to expand...

Nope.. I'm Dutch and Irish.. My family were original settlers in New Amsterdam.

Her theory is that Cain became Sargon 1. That is actually hysterically funny. She ignored the Ubiads..

The Ubaid period (c. 6500–3800 BC) is a prehistoric period of Mesopotamia. The name derives from Tell al-'Ubaid where the earliest large excavation of Ubaid period material was conducted initially by Henry Hall and later by Leonard Woolley.

summerville said:

Nope.. I'm Dutch and Irish.. My family were original settlers in New Amsterdam.

Her theory is that Cain became Sargon 1. That is actually hysterically funny. She ignored the Ubiads..

The Ubaid period (c. 6500–3800 BC) is a prehistoric period of Mesopotamia. The name derives from Tell al-'Ubaid where the earliest large excavation of Ubaid period material was conducted initially by Henry Hall and later by Leonard Woolley.

Click to expand...

Yes, Bristowe's theory is that Sargon I 'may' have been Cain. And no, it is not funny, which is a truly ignorant reaction to what is documented in that work.

6500 B.C. is SECULAR DATING, not Biblical. If you want to talk about civilizations that 'supposedly' existed prior to 4004 B.C., maybe you ought to hop on over to some secularists forums. Anything beyond the date given in the OT for the man Adam is secular history, not God's history in His Word, The Bible.

FredVB said:

Do you know? Cain went with his wife to the east, and made a city named for his first born son, Enoch, Genesis 4:17. So this would have been the first city, and so there were cities before the flood, though I guess not on the scale of cities that came after the flood, starting with Babel.

Click to expand...

yup. That's the beginning of the ancient matriarchy. What woman could possibly have Abel's blood on her hands? I know Abel's blood is on Cains hands. All the blood ever shed on earth. Abel's blood. Cried out to God for justice just as those do in Revelation.

Davy said:

That would be saying the flood was not world wide, which goes against God's Word as written.

Click to expand...

Hi, human population wasn't spread out then. The flood could have been an area of the planet where the entire human population was living at the time. It would have been the whole world to them. Then as we spread out most civilizations would have remembered the flood and it would be a story recounted in their respective myths.

Davy said:

Furthermore, the fact that some brethren have been tricked to believe that the Genesis creation account originates from the Babylonian tablets simply because the Babylonian tablets are older, is another Revisionist trick. The Babylonian tablet creation account points to a pagan mystery interpretation of the creation, i.e, a tainted account. That point Bristowe brings out from the documented translations by the Assyriologists using their own words, which obviously the logical conclusion Bristowe proposes is not a popular idea among them. Doesn't mean it doesn't have weight based on what Bristowe documented from the Assyriologist's themselves.

Click to expand...

Bristowe has zero credibility. She has no credentials as a researcher or an expert on Babylon. In short, she was a joke.

Read Samuel Kramer. He did have credentials and 50 years of translating cuneiform from Sumer and Babylon. Sargon as Cain is actually hysterically funny if it wasn't so ignorant.. People who earn their living on the back of Christians often pull crap like that.

Davy said:

Furthermore, the fact that some brethren have been tricked to believe that the Genesis creation account originates from the Babylonian tablets simply because the Babylonian tablets are older, is another Revisionist trick. The Babylonian tablet creation account points to a pagan mystery interpretation of the creation, i.e, a tainted account. That point Bristowe brings out from the documented translations by the Assyriologists using their own words, which obviously the logical conclusion Bristowe proposes is not a popular idea among them. Doesn't mean it doesn't have weight based on what Bristowe documented from the Assyriologist's themselves.

Click to expand...

Not only that there were many generations of oral tradition before anything was written. What we find as the oldest written record is not evidence of the oldest or original account of the Genesis stories.

Davy said:

Yes, Bristowe's theory is that Sargon I 'may' have been Cain. And no, it is not funny, which is a truly ignorant reaction to what is documented in that work.

6500 B.C. is SECULAR DATING, not Biblical. If you want to talk about civilizations that 'supposedly' existed prior to 4004 B.C., maybe you ought to hop on over to some secularists forums. Anything beyond the date given in the OT for the man Adam is secular history, not God's history in His Word, The Bible.

Click to expand...

The Natufians were all over Palestine, Egypt and the Levant before 10,000 BC and they weren't wiped out by any flood.

Göbekli Tepe is 11,000 years old. It wasn't wiped out by flooding.. Granaries in Jordan are 11,000 years old .. they weren't wiped out by flood.. NO flood sediment.

Sidon, Byblos and Baalbek were never flooded..

China was NEVER flooded.

Cave drawing in France are 40,000 years old.. NO flood sediment.

Eloy Craft said:

Hi, human population wasn't spread out then. The flood could have been an area of the planet where the entire human population was living at the time. It would have been the whole world to them. Then as we spread out most civilizations would have remembered the flood and it would be a story recounted in their respective myths.

Click to expand...

I wasn't there at Buffalo Bill's camp when the Pawnee Indians brought the huge bones of giants for him to see, and then told him about the flood the Great Spirit brought to destroy them. However, I tend to believe it, just as Buffalo Bill wrote it in his autobiography. There have been many American newspaper articles back in the later 1800's and early 1900's about discovery of large skeletons (some at tall as 11 feet) found in so-called Indian burial mounds. Regardless that evolutionists of the Smithsonian Institute today try to hide that info, because many of those old newspaper articles I've read involve the Institute's own worker's quoted witness of the giant bones. All this strictly is about the Americas, showing that the flood was in the western hemisphere too.

Eloy Craft said:

Not only that there were many generations of oral tradition before anything was written. What we find as the oldest written record is not evidence of the oldest or original account of the Genesis stories.

Click to expand...

And that's debatable, because if Sargon I indeed was actually Cain, and ancient Sumer was the Biblical "land of Nod" where Cain migrated to, then it means the Babylonian tablet creation account is just 'another side' of the story, Cain's account that he got from God's Eden. In that case, the Genesis account is likely the older, and more accurate. Reading the Babylonian account, which is like reading some pagan 'mystery school' philosophical treatise, also confirms it is a corrupted account, and not accurate like the creation account in God's Word is.

Davy said:

Doesn't change the fact you're not familiar with the research done in Sargon The Magnificent.

Click to expand...

I am sorry.. but Sargon as Cain is utterly ridiculous. If Cain was Sargon, the earth is only 4,000 years old. You should put your foot down and not tolerate such nonsense.

Davy said:

And that's debatable, because if Sargon I indeed was actually Cain, and ancient Sumer was the Biblical "land of Nod" where Cain migrated to, then it means the Babylonian tablet creation account is just 'another side' of the story, Cain's account that he got from God's Eden. In that case, the Genesis account is likely the older, and more accurate. Reading the Babylonian account, which is like reading some pagan 'mystery school' philosophical treatise, also confirms it is a corrupted account, and not accurate like the creation account in God's Word is.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. Cain would not have a first hand account plus his retelling would include the baggage that comes with family conflict. estrangement , guilt and sin. Cain would have alot of psychological and spiritual forces enfluencing his perception. Perhaps even an nefarious agenda.

Eloy Craft said:

I agree with that. Cain would not have a first hand account plus his retelling would include the baggage that comes with family conflict. estrangement , guilt and sin. Cain would have alot of psychological and spiritual forces enfluencing his perception. Perhaps even an nefarious agenda.

Click to expand...

That baggage would include Bel worship too, because Sargon I the Summerians called 'son of Bel' (per Bristowe from the Assyriologist's translation). That's where idol worship started in world history.

There's also another way one can 'know' the Genesis account is more accurate, but I'm not going to go into that here.

summerville said:

There have always been Ziggurats all over the ME.. They were used as watchtowers during the day and signal towers at night.

The tower of Babel story is probably an allegory for the loss of literacy when a civilization collapses.

There are ancient cities that were not interrupted by flood.

Egypt, the Levant, Turkey and the Arabian peninsula have no flood sediment footprint.

Click to expand...

Babel with its tower gets dismissed, but it is more than mere allegory. It was the beginning of civilization after the worldwide flood. The flood waters rose hundreds of feet. No city could have been uninterrupted through the time of that flood, those cities that are considered so old were still begun after the flood. The layers below them are from the global flood, and all the catastrophe with it.

Eloy Craft said:

What woman could possibly have Abel's blood on her hands? I know Abel's blood is on Cains hands. All the blood ever shed on earth. Abel's blood. Cried out to God for justice just as those do in Revelation.

Click to expand...

It was not a woman. Mystery Babylon, depicted as a harlot, is representative of something larger than anything those who look at it have been ready to consider. It is not a matriarchy, nor religious institute, nor one mere city. It represents all cities of civilization ever. The cities of civilization will face their collapse in coming time. Believers are not supposed to remain with it, and weren't supposed to be there. Before the flood, there were early cities, though small, they were not what remains of cities that are now found are left from, those antediluvian cities started with the one from Cain.

Cain settled in China.