Ancient conspiracy: Tower of Babel

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: the2ofusr1Yes, that is the current popular interpretation you would hear from a Pastor or at a bible study. But we can't count on the church to help us look deeper into the what the scriptures say, or in this instance don't say. It's mentioned so briefly with so little detail that it reads like it's missing important details almost intentionally. What I'm looking for is the non church taught view, you know, the real story. That's why I put it under religious conspiracies.

This is a fair enough idea, considering that even the scripture itself there looks like someone edited it.....i.e. not enough info. However consider that the commentary has to do with spiritual condition as the key demonstrator here of the intent to the passage. Man, namely a certain family, started right off after the flood with the bullcrap that persists to this day with the building of structures to impress himself and other men as an emanation of the power of the Babylonian control freaks.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: Punisher75
YHWH not being the Most High is not an idea it's a historical fact (based on the bible)that this was the belief of the ancient Israelites.
If you know this, how can you say you don't subscribe to "the idea" Do you not value the truth and make things fit your view? To know El Elyon is not YHWH you can read Deuteronomy.

I do not see it in the text.
Can you show me in the Text where YHWH is described as anything other than the most high God?
You are I assume with familiar what "YHWH" is correct?

I am going to assume the passage in Deuteronomy that you are talking about is this passage?

Deuteronomy 32-8-9?

Lets read;

8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.
9 But the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage.

Or we can translate it this way, which might be easier for discussion.

8. "When Elyon gave the nations as an inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, he set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.
9. For Yahweh's portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of his inheritance".

What you are seeing is not a weaker god and a stronger god. What you are reading is an example in the old testament of a monotheistic God at least being bipartite.

Question: How do we know that they are separate but still the same God?

Answer: Because when did God divide the Nations? In the tower of Babel narrative.

So lets go back there. and use the Masoretic text, since that is what we have done for the Passage in Deuteronomy.

Here we see the name YHWH being used as the one who set the boundaries of people according to the sons of God,
www.qbible.com...
and yet in Deuteronomy we are seeing Elyon being given that honor.

So what gives?
Easy, they are two persons, (as we can clearly see in Deuteronomy 32-8-9) and yet are the same person as their names are interchangeable as seen evidenced in the Babel narrative.

a reply to: Punisher75

That's the quote I use to prove my point, your version is a mistranslation. Let me show how it really reads: " When El Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided the sons of men, he fixed the bounds according to the number of THE SONS OF EL, but Yahwehs portion was his people, Jacob his INHERITANCE.

a reply to: Punisher75They are not one person, as you can see, Yahweh is one of the Sons of God. Inheritance is even an act of giving your offspring their share of your ownings.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: Punisher75

That's the quote I use to prove my point, your version is a mistranslation. Let me show how it really reads: " When El Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided the sons of men, he fixed the bounds according to the number of THE SONS OF EL, but Yahwehs portion was his people, Jacob his INHERITANCE.

Even if we want to you your translation It does not change anything, because of the Babel story.
The Sons of El are part of the divine council, not part of the Godhead.

originally posted by: areyousirius360
a reply to: Punisher75They are not one person, as you can see, Yahweh is one of the Sons of God. Inheritance is even an act of giving your offspring their share of your ownings.

No Yahweh is not one of the sons of god how do we know?
Lets read your translation again...

When El Elyon gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided the sons of men, he fixed the bounds according to the number of THE SONS OF EL, but Yahwehs portion was his people, Jacob his INHERITANCE.

We see the nations divided up among the Sons of EL (that would be the nations of man that are being divided up among the sons of God)
then we see the word "but" Yahweh's portion was HIS people, Jacob his inheritance.

The word "But" here is important, because grammar matters. The word "but" is separating the Sons of God from Yahweh.
So far as inheritance being a hang up, I think you are mistaken.
Why?
Because in your own translation you see the phrase "Yahwehs portion was HIS people" then a Comma, before "Jacob his inheritance." Again Grammar matters. What is a comma used for?

As to the word Inheritance it has more than one meaning, and we can know its meaning via grammar.
here are a list.
1. something that is or may be inherited; property passing at the owner's death to the heir or those entitled to succeed; legacy.
2. the genetic characters transmitted from parent to offspring, taken collectively.
3. something, as a quality, characteristic, or other immaterial possession, received from progenitors or predecessors as if by succession:
an inheritance of family pride.
4.the act or fact of inheriting by succession, as if by succession, or genetically:
to receive property by inheritance.
5. portion; birthright; heritage:
Absolute rule was considered the inheritance of kings.
6. Obsolete. right of possession; ownership.

Again grammar tells us which to use.

originally posted by: Shane
As for, Noonebutme, I take your response to indicate, that somehow, you wish to suggest there is no Historical Accuracy to be seen within the Bible, yet have no evidence to offer to support this belief you harbor that demostrates your verbal insights.

I wouldn't say *no* accuracy. The old testament, no - zero accuracy. The new testament -- perhaps some in regards to names and places.

But, things like a burning bush, ark which carried 2 of all living things, a tower to God, walking on water, water to wine ? No. All made up.

Hence why I find it quite amusing when people try to debate why we have such a diversity of language by referring to the tower of Babel. There are many studies which show where language came from and how it has morphed into what it is today. But of course, I'm a science shill, aren't I?

It would be nice to see what is not accurate since from my prespective, I don't quite see it that way.

Well, do you think a burning bush is "accurate"? Or parting the red sea? Or a tower *so high* to the sky (which if course thats where heaven MUST be, isn't it?) that an eternal, loving, all powerful God became so P*SSED he caused everyone to speak different languages?

Or... language came about from an ever evolving process. Hmm. Which seems more "accurate"?

GENESIS 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
EZEKIEL 5:1 And thou, son of man, take thee a sharp knife, take thee a barber's razor, and cause [it] to pass upon thine head and upon thy beard: then take thee balances to weigh, and divide the [hair].
EZEKIEL 5:2 Thou shalt burn with fire a third part in the midst of the city, when the days of the siege are fulfilled: and thou shalt take a third part, [and] smite about it with a knife: and a third part thou shalt scatter in the wind; and I will draw out a sword after them.

The Events of Revelation are divided into two parts:
Part 1= Rainbow (Wind) then 40 Days of Tribulation (Temple Stones/UFOs ... Sign of Antipas/Antiparticle/Divorce)
Part 2 = Darkness then 5 Months of Antichrist Reign (Star Wormwood ... Encapsulation of the Earth ... Elimination of all Human Life on Earth outside of the USA)

2Corin11:24-25 and 1Chronicles 7:7=Theme of the Fall of Babylon can be corrected to the "Fall of the Ark" or the revelation period (1Samuel4:18 ... 40 Days to judge Aaron's Genetic Line and Clergy ... then the Antichrist called a "Daughter" (phrase Fallen Angel is not used) reigns according to Jeremiah 33:20-22)

originally posted by: noonebutme

Well, do you think a burning bush is "accurate"? Or parting the red sea? Or a tower *so high* to the sky (which if course thats where heaven MUST be, isn't it?) that an eternal, loving, all powerful God became so P*SSED he caused everyone to speak different languages?

Or... language came about from an ever evolving process. Hmm. Which seems more "accurate"?

Yes.

Burning Bush, Check
Red Sea, Check
Tower of Babel, Check
Speaking One Tongue, Check

Now I know your rolling on the floor laughing your ass off.

I believe Adam, is the introduction to sedentary life on this Planet and the beginning of agricultural activities, which Science points to as well, through it's dating to some 6 or 7000 years ago. The time of Adam, tiller of the Earth, and first livestock farmer. ever wonder what animals Adam named? Certainly wasn't platypus or ocelots, Chickens, Cows, Sheep etc....

The Races of this planet inhabited this earth long before Adam was ever noted, and likely that 6th Day, (an age or era) was about 14000 years ago. The recreation of man, in the image of God and the Sons of God, aka Modern Man.

David resided in Jerusalem. Solomon's kingdom was the largest empire in history and spanned the globe. The Lost Tribes of Israel have never been lost. They don't use terms like Iberian Peninsula for no reason. Iber means Hebrew. The King Line of Israel traveled through to Kingdoms which still exist today, The Monarchy of Espana, as well as the Throne of Scotland.
I believe the people of Egypt are God's People, and the Great Pyramid is a wonder in the midst and the border there of Egypt to the almighty God and heavenly creator.

Getting the picture.

And all of this is Old Testament. Nothing Paulian at all.

I hope this does answer your question because many in here will confirm, this is a very brief response. And I hope I didn't insult you, you can have and share your views anytime you wish. ALL deserve respect for the thoughts they have to offer on any topics and I trust you feel the same.

Ciao

Shane

a reply to: Punisher75ok dude if you don't believe me just Google Yahweh vs. El Elyon. I hate arguing when people don't listen. El Elyon is from the Canaanites pantheon of Gods as uncovered in Ugarit and other places. Scholars know it, my bible knows it, Jews know it(most) archeologists know it. The only people who love making up reasons for why the obvious is not the obvious seem to be Christians.

a reply to: Punisher75YHWH is or was not the Most High God. Your reading about things that happened thousands of years ago and trying to fit it into what you have been taught today. You can't change history by believing, the truth exists, just not in your mind.

a reply to: Punisher75You can't inherit something from yourself it doesn't work like that.

a reply to: Punisher75The divine council is older than Israel. They originally got their Gods from Canaan, who also had a divine council. Baal, Moloch, Marduk all biblical, all Canaanite. Asherah, Belial, all of them. El Elyon is God Most High. The old testament has 3 traditions, the Elohistic, Yahwistic, and priestly. Written in different generations and then combined and edited, with clues here and there that this is happening. Your bible butchered that verse to hide it even further, that SHOULD tell you SOMETHING.

a reply to: areyousirius360

Well this conversation has no place else to go I am afraid.
I have proven my case not just using my text but the text you provided, using logic, pointing out the grammar, and through dissection of the text virtually word for word. in return you have spent the last four post not even attempting to refute my claims, but rather making blanket statements, that are at the VERY LEAST demonstrably disputable, and suggested a "google" search.

I can only assume the point of which is to direct me to people who disagree with the Christian perspective. The problem is this. I have already read their arguments, and found them lacking.

You know perhaps you should read a book called "The Two Powers in Heaven" by Alan F. Segal
I would recommend this book for you in particular because he is a Jew.
As a matter of fact he thinks the view I have put forward is heretical. However because he is at least honest with the text and history, even he acknowledges that the view I have described is in fact the view as understood by the ancient Hebrew.
Interestingly enough he just thinks the ancient Hebrew were all mistaken, on their view of God.
He too is said to be an expert, after all he was a Professor of Scripture at Union Theological Seminary. Professor Emeritus of Religion and, Professor of Judaic Studies at Barnard College and he had also taught at Princeton University.

Or, maybe you could read Michael Heisers work on the Topic?
He received an Masters in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania, and an Masters and PhD in the Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
He has a few good books on the topic. He too holds to the view I put forward.

What is the point of mentioning these two men?
Simple, to claim that this topic is at all settled and the view you hold is objectively correct, because you found people on Google, is not convincing.

Claiming I am not listening because I don't agree with you is intellectually dishonest.

It is not that I am not listening, its not that I am not understanding, I simply don't agree with you, and as I look over the two men's bios that I posted for you I think I am in good company.

In short we are going to have to agree to disagree.
Have a Nice Evening.

a reply to: Punisher75Well it's not because I disagree it's because I know it's a fact. You could easily find this out in 5 minutes. You don't want to know.
The only thing that you've proven is a willingness to dismiss historical facts if it conflicts with your own religion, and a lack of respect for the truth.
Henotheism was not a word until it was learned that Israel didn't always have one God. And that El Elyon was a Canaanite God and father of the biblical Sons of God, of whom YHWH was just one, LONG before there WAS an Isreal.
I brought you to water, but you think you have drank all the water you need, so what am I supposed to do, but suggest you Google it.
Ten minutes it would take you to learn and if you don't want to do it, don't.

a reply to: Punisher75Yeah I don't listen to loudmouth publicity fiends and I didn't learn it from Google it is actually a footnote in my bible. Then I studied on it a long time.
Just because you found some guy who went to college who agrees with you don't mean nothing, I could find a hundred who don't, and Heiser is not very trustworthy to begin with.
If you think you're the first impossibility indoctrinated Christian I've dealt with think again. If you think you're the first christian who denied history for the sake of religion, again, wrong.
The issue is settled academically and the only deniers left are Christians, and people who make money off christians.

originally posted by: Shane
Yes.

Burning Bush, Check
Red Sea, Check
Tower of Babel, Check
Speaking One Tongue, Check

Now I know your rolling on the floor laughing your ass off.

No, just.. genuinely shocked.

You are making incredible assumptions onto text that CLEARLY says God made man in his own image, starting with Adam. It DOESNT say, God is a single-celled organism and made THAT as the first person on earth. You are really stretching to defend the bible.

I hope this does answer your question because many in here will confirm, this is a very brief response. And I hope I didn't insult you, you can have and share your views anytime you wish. ALL deserve respect for the thoughts they have to offer on any topics and I trust you feel the same.

No, That's fine, I'm not insulted. I'm just genuinely shocked you believe this.

a reply to: noonebutmeEh, you don't have to believe in the bible to study and benefit from it. In college I am certain people study ancient literature just as deep. It's a brain exercise for some, for others the truth. But Christians also need to recognize the benefits of studying with an un-religous person who isn't indoctrinated and has nothing to gain from lying. That's the person who will learn the most when studying because they are free of bias(usually). But Christians get angry fast if disagreed with, so they can't do it. The need to be right is essential when seeking converts, and even solo Christians LOVE to "prove" people wrong, it's a joyous feeling. I've been a little like that myself. I like to be right too.

a reply to: areyousirius360

Listen, pal. It is not your place to tell people what to believe. That is a personal matter that needs to be addressed personally. I have my beliefs, Punisher has his, Noone has his, as you have yours. They are all choice we make and take ourselves.

At best, we can sow seeds and allow them to root if they where ever meant to. That will only occur if it is Inspired to do so, not berated.

I have seen conflictive individual assault by many in here, yet verbally assaulting them while trying to cram my position down their throats, could be a means to reply, it isn't the proper fashion, nor is it a very good example.

I agree, there are times Christians may be frustrated. Jesus got that way throwing the Money Changers out of the Temple. That was a response to an unacceptable act in his Father's House. And that's not an apology for what Jesus did. BUT arguing for the sake of arguing doesn't merit anything constructive.

The Genesis Word for God comes from:

430 'elohiym el-o-heem' plural of 433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative:--angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.

433 'elowahh el-o'-ah; rarely (shortened) >eloahh [el-o'-ah probably prolonged (emphat.) from 410; a deity or the Deity:--God, god. See 430.

It is Elohiym in the Genesis Account that is found in the every case where God is utilized in the English, with a few exceptions

Genesis 6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. here the word is from:

3068 Yhovah yeh-ho-vaw' from 1961; (the) self-Existent or Eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God:--Jehovah, the Lord. Compare 3050, 3069

3050 Yahh yaw contraction for 3068, and meaning the same; Jah, the sacred name:--Jah, the Lord, most vehement. Compare names in "-iah," "- jah."

3069 Yhovih yeh-ho-vee' a variation of 3068 (used after 136, and pronounced by Jews as 430, in order to prevent the repetition of the same sound, since they elsewhere pronounce 3068 as 136):--God.

It is Yhovah used in this instant, which seems to demostrate a personalization of God to the descendants of Adam by this time.

The another instance occurs in Genesis 15:2 where the Text shows the term God came from the above 3069 Yhovih.

And then there's Genesis 16:13 and Genesis 17:1 which come from:

410 'el ale shortened from 352; strength; as adjective, mighty; especially the Almighty (but used also of any deity):--God (god), X goodly, X great, idol, might(-y one), power, strong. Compare names in "-el."

352 'ayil ah'-yil from the same as 193; properly, strength; hence, anything strong; specifically a chief (politically); also a ram (from his strength); a pilaster (as a strong support); an oak or other strong tree:--mighty (man), lintel, oak, post, ram, tree.

Here, in both cases, the term used was El.

So as it revolves around the Babel Narrative, we are clear what the Original indicated. 'elohiym

Ciao

Shane