OFFICIAL: Biblical/Theology Discussion thread

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Geographically... Babylon(in Iraq) will eventually be a part of the European Union... I honestly think that the US will at some point before this happens be irrelavant. Or even maybe because of it. How that happens? You're guess is as probably as good as mine. I think its somewhat telling how Europe is becoming increasingly like one nation. The new Presidents(whatever) of Germany and France both seem interested in a European constitution making a modern day Roman Empire.

 

[PlanetFrnd]

Well, it's been interpreted to mean several different things and to be honest I don't know which is correct...

...Another possibility is that Babylon is Rome, which does make some sense considering many Jews in the first century when Revelation was written saw and referred to Rome as the new Babylon. The seven hills that surround Rome and that are mentioned in Revelation are one possible indication of what it represents. Hence the preterists favor this interpretation. Those who wish to declare the Vatican the seat of the beast also favor this interpretation.

This is the explanation I've heard the most, again, for historical relevance. It still baffles me that Revelation would survive the canonical selection process if it is a reference to the Roman empire...

Of course, Babylon could also be simply a symbol of the world government of the beast and the actual location is irrelevant. I probably favor this one the most as if you look at the entire description you also see the harlot sitting upon the beast. Drawing upon Old Testament prophesy and poetry, a harlot typically represented the apostate religion of ancient Israel. Hence, I believe the harlot represents those who claim the Christian title, but which do not hold Jesus as the resurrected messiah. They in turn will hold an alliance and be supported by the one-world government of the beast, which is symbolized by Babylon.

This is a common modern use of the word, especially when used in "revolutionary" context in which scripture becomes a metaphor for rhetoric (Moses&Pharoah, the old Prophets, Revelation, etc.). Especially popular in (roots) reggae music...

As for the United States, I really don't consider this one seriously. Those who make the comparison have to contort the text from its original context to such a degree that using such similar arguments the text could say anything. This is not to say that the United States could not be part of Babylon in the future (after all, it could be part of the one-world government), but to say that the Revelation given to John, who was then to share it with seven churches in 1st century Asia Minor, was specifically discussing the United States is rather absurd from my perspective.

Agree completely (believe it or not)

Whatever Babylon is supposed to reference in Revelation, it's important to remember that the Babylonian empire was a rival for the ancient Hebrews. To use Babylon (assuming its not literal) is an easy way to label an enemy metaphorically.

 

[Bleed S & G]

As for the United States, I really don't consider this one seriously. Those who make the comparison have to contort the text from its original context to such a degree that using such similar arguments the text could say anything. This is not to say that the United States could not be part of Babylon in the future (after all, it could be part of the one-world government), but to say that the Revelation given to John, who was then to share it with seven churches in 1st century Asia Minor, was specifically discussing the United States is rather absurd from my perspective.

Hmm, but the USA may have existed in the revelation, considering it was a time set in the future and here we are and there is a USA which would be considered a "babylon" symbolically..

but i like the rome description.. i guess bottom line is, we dont know

 

[buckeyegrad]

Hmm, but the USA may have existed in the revelation, considering it was a time set in the future and here we are and there is a USA which would be considered a "babylon" symbolically..

I undestand what you are saying, but I still argue that to say the United States is Babylon is to completely read the book out of its context. There is a saying in biblical exegetics that the books were written for us, but not to us. This in essence means that we are to follow and apply the teachings in the books, but if we are to understand what those teachings are we first have to figure out to whom they were written. Only by entering the minds of the direct audience of the book/letter can we really understand what is being said.

Regardless of whether the Revelation was given to John in c. 67 CE or in 95 CE, the audience of the seven churches in Asia Minor are going to be composed of individuals with a Jewish mindset. Hence to understand Babylon, we have to figure out what a first century Jew would associate with the name. The three possibilities are

Babylon = Babylon
Babylon = Rome
Babylon = gentile political power that sits opposed to Israel's

Of course, Babylon and Rome would both be historical examples of the third possibility. And yes, the United States could be a future example of the third, except for the fact that I don't see how we sit opposed to Israel's authority, neither have we ever surrounded or oppressed the nation. This is important in that Babylon is the kingdom of the beast in Revelation 13, which is said to come from the sea. This image mirrors the four beasts in Daniel's vision, which are the four kingdoms that will surround and rule over Israel. The sea is often a symbol for the gentile nations in Jewish prophesy and poetry (as opposed to Israel which is represented as the land).

The other thing I would note about understanding the prophesy as a distant future being shown in Revelation, keep in mind that it says in 22:10

And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophesy of this book: for the time is at hand

This is contrasted with the prophesy of Daniel that ends

And he said, Go thy way Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end

 

[Bleed S & G]

Monday June 25, 2007
Israel braces for July war with up to five enemies

JERUSALEM ? Israel is preparing for an imminent war with Iran, Syria and/or their non-state clients.


Israeli military intelligence has projected that a major attack could come from any of five adversaries in the Middle East. Officials said such a strike could spark a war as early as July 2007.
On Sunday, Israeli military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin told the Cabinet that the Jewish state faces five adversaries in what could result in an imminent confrontation. Yadlin cited Iran, Syria, Hizbullah, Hamas and Al Qaida.

LINK

Tuesday June 26, 2007
Iran bombers attack Our Boys

IRANIAN forces are being choppered over the Iraqi border to bomb Our Boys, intelligence chiefs say.


Military experts claim this worrying move means we are at WAR with Iran in all but name.

LINK

Monday June 25, 2007
Bank of International Settlements: Credit Boom May Spark Depression

The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) is warning that the global economy could be on the brink of a major depression similar to the one that passed in the 1930s.

LINK

 

[Bleed S & G]

Zeitgeist - The Movie, 2007

Part 1 is religious, Part 2 & 3 is conspiracy theory.. but it is well put together

 

[Bleed S & G]

After watching that thing, and LV would love it, I'm kind of puzzled

Part 1.
Talks about how Jesus Christ and other Sun gods shared the same characteristics, "king of kings, lord of lords" virgin birth, crucified, 3 days and resurrected, walked on water, water into wine, fish, etc. and its with gods from ancient egypt, greece, pagans, there were tons of sun-gods that were the same as Christ and no historians have written about Christ, the 4 that have only mention "Christ" briefly according to this video, once or twice and never as Jesus only as the title "Christ"

Part 2.
9/11, the evidence here is astonishing and I've seen most conspiracy theories.. did you know most of the hijackers are alive? No debre in pennsylvania, no plane in DC and all video-recordings are top-secret along with the fact the supposed pilot couldn't fly any plane worth a shit let alone navigate over the freeway and obstacles and hit the pentagon, and twin towers: angle cuts on the beams, molten steel found days and weeks later at 2000 degrees (jet fuel reaches maximum of 500), the free fall collapse, the official "pan cake theory" doesn't hold and water because of the speed of the collapse, the dust, there were some 20 or 30 hijack exercise going on the same day making the scramble time on the fighter jets go from 10 minutes to 80 minutes.. a lot more evidence provided and all shown with newspapers, magazines, and tv news.. in 2001 NORAD ran tests using commercial air liners as missiles, one target was the WTC

Part 3.
Money, goes through how when we left England in 1776 it was because they forced us to use their money and buy it at interest creating instant debt. Jefferson and company warned against having a monopoly on money, and now the federal reserve does. JP Morgan got the bill passed and ratified w/o the proper number of states, most states violated their own constitutions doing so. Forced the people to turn all their gold in. Their is no law that says you have to file income taxes, it's 35% of what people make and it's a direct violation of the constitution. A film maker met Nick Rockefeller, he told the film maker theres going to be an event.. we're going to go into afgan and iraq and then venezuela, theres no real enemy so the war will continue on, the ultimate goal is to have a global system. Talks about the N American Union, between Canada, US, and Mexico and the Amero currency.. Bush signed the agreement without approval of congress or the people and this one I have read about in the news about a year or so ago.

It's out there, I don't know how much of it's true financially so I'm off to do my own research, but if its true it's total bullshit.

 

[buckeyegrad]

After watching that thing, and LV would love it, I'm kind of puzzled

Part 1.
Talks about how Jesus Christ and other Sun gods shared the same characteristics, "king of kings, lord of lords" virgin birth, crucified, 3 days and resurrected, walked on water, water into wine, fish, etc. and its with gods from ancient egypt, greece, pagans, there were tons of sun-gods that were the same as Christ and no historians have written about Christ, the 4 that have only mention "Christ" briefly according to this video, once or twice and never as Jesus only as the title "Christ"

It's out there, I don't know how much of it's true financially so I'm off to do my own research, but if its true it's total bullshit.

I'm not going to address the other two parts as that it would be a waste of time, but that first part has to be either one of the most ignorant or most deceitful pieces of crap I've ever has the misfortune of hearing.

Of course, the first problem with the video is that there are zero references for its claims and therefore no chance for viewers to see how credible the claims are. As for its understanding of ancient religions and their relationships (or lack thereof), no credible scholar--even the secular ones--who are the experts on these subjects would take the claims seriously.

Here are a few articles debunking (with scholarly references and acknowledgments) some of the claims. [My favorites being that in tracking one of the claims, the ultimate source was a paper written by a high school student that lacked any references, and that another major source for the ideas of Egyptian connection of Horus comes from a man who died before hieroglyphs had been fully deciphered.]

PicoSearch: Cataloging Your Corner of the Web: Results
Tom Harpur. Pagan Christ. Recycled Garbage.
Osiris. Horus. Jesus. Not Triplets!

 

[billmac91]

the similarities in ancient mythology stories and stories out of the Bible have always been striking to me...I remeber hearing the Pandora's box story the first time in High School and thinking, "wow, that very similar to Eve taking a bite out of the apple"

I'm sure that movie took lots of liberties and jumped to many conclusions but there is lots of information out there addressing similarities between religions...there are many websites linking Christianity to Ancient Egyptian mythology that I've seen but obviously there are many people that debunk there research as well

I don't think theres any evidence out there that will change anyone's mind one way or the other though....either the faith is there or it isn't

 

[MaxBuck]

Well, it's been interpreted to mean several different things and to be honest I don't know which is correct.

One possibility is it will be the original Babylon in Iraq rebuilt and from there the beast will set up his reign. Interestingly, Saddam was set on rebuilding Babylon, the current government in Iraq seeks to continue his project, and Ahmadinajad has stated that he would like to over see the reconstruction of the city as well.

Another possibility is that Babylon is Rome, which does make some sense considering many Jews in the first century when Revelation was written saw and referred to Rome as the new Babylon. The seven hills that surround Rome and that are mentioned in Revelation are one possible indication of what it represents. Hence the preterists favor this interpretation. Those who wish to declare the Vatican the seat of the beast also favor this interpretation.

Of course, Babylon could also be simply a symbol of the world government of the beast and the actual location is irrelevant. I probably favor this one the most as if you look at the entire description you also see the harlot sitting upon the beast. Drawing upon Old Testament prophesy and poetry, a harlot typically represented the apostate religion of ancient Israel. Hence, I believe the harlot represents those who claim the Christian title, but which do not hold Jesus as the resurrected messiah. They in turn will hold an alliance and be supported by the one-world government of the beast, which is symbolized by Babylon.

As for the United States, I really don't consider this one seriously. Those who make the comparison have to contort the text from its original context to such a degree that using such similar arguments the text could say anything. This is not to say that the United States could not be part of Babylon in the future (after all, it could be part of the one-world government), but to say that the Revelation given to John, who was then to share it with seven churches in 1st century Asia Minor, was specifically discussing the United States is rather absurd from my perspective.

I thought you guys believed in a literal reading of the Bible. Why is Babylon not simply Babylon? If the scenario pictured in the Revelation to John has not occurred, why not, since it was to occur while its original readers were still alive? Doesn't that mean the Revelation is a parable (to at least some extent)? If that is so, then how can you be so sure the creation story in Genesis is not also a parable? You talk of "interpretation," but doesn't your insistence upon a literal reading of Genesis essentially render "interpretation" moot?

 

[Bleed S & G]

I thought you guys believed in a literal reading of the Bible. Why is Babylon not simply Babylon? If the scenario pictured in the Revelation to John has not occurred, why not, since it was to occur while its original readers were still alive? Doesn't that mean the Revelation is a parable (to at least some extent)? If that is so, then how can you be so sure the creation story in Genesis is not also a parable? You talk of "interpretation," but doesn't your insistence upon a literal reading of Genesis essentially render "interpretation" moot?

I hope when you say you guys you're not including me.. very good point to make to those who do interpret the bible word for word.

The bold: says who? I'm assuming your using this quote as the basis:
"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" Matthew 24:34

Out of context sure, the verse before this one is:
"So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near?at the doors!"

The apostles did not come close to seeing all the signs that needed to pass, they did see certain ones though.. as did the rest of history

Secondly: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father"

Only the Father knows the time, so if Christ would have predicted it to be in 20 years he would have contradicted Himself.. all we have to go on is the signs that come to pass.

What this: "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place" really means, IMO, is that one generation will see all the events take place.

 

[GoBucks89]

I thought you guys believed in a literal reading of the Bible. Why is Babylon not simply Babylon? If the scenario pictured in the Revelation to John has not occurred, why not, since it was to occur while its original readers were still alive? Doesn't that mean the Revelation is a parable (to at least some extent)? If that is so, then how can you be so sure the creation story in Genesis is not also a parable? You talk of "interpretation," but doesn't your insistence upon a literal reading of Genesis essentially render "interpretation" moot?

Consider the following sentence:
"Pittman raced through the Irish defense like a hot knife through butter, and he didn't stop until he was handing the ball to the official in the end zone, just before he was mobbed by his teammates."

This seems like an apt description of our last TD in the '06 Fiesta Bowl. You'll notice that I used two figures of speech in the description. Pittman wasn't literally cutting the Irish defense, just running through the space where they should have been. And his teammates were not a "mob", they just wanted to congratulate him on his touchdown. Thus, you could say that part of the description represented figurative language, while other parts (Pittman raced through, handed the ball to the official) were literally true. So how would someone interpret this passage if he was from a place where they don't play football and he had to translate the English into his native language. He would look at the literal meaning of the words and see if it makes sense. Then he would talk to experts in the English language who might be able to shed some light on those curious metaphorical phrases. In the end, hopefully, it would be translated into his native language in such a way that it became clear that Pittman ran quickly down the field for a TD with little or no resistance from the bad guys in the gold helmets.

Bottom line: the presence of figurative language in some parts of the Bible does not invalidate the portions that are purely historical. The reader needs to discern by the language different styles of writing. No one here would have any trouble understanding that the touchdown run described above literally happened, even though I used some figures of speech to describe it. The Bible is more difficult, since it is written in different languages, but it's not impossible. That is the reason why the study of hermeneutics is so important.

 

[MaxBuck]

the presence of figurative language in some parts of the Bible does not invalidate the portions that are purely historical.

And of course, the decision as to which parts are figurative/allegorical and which are historical (and which are illustrative, I suppose) is left up to - whom, exactly? It seems evident to me that there can be no bright line defining which parts of the Bible need to be read as "FACT" and which are left open to interpretation as "FIGURATIVE." And if that is the case, the position of the Creationists is placed on very unstable footing indeed. What real theological basis can there be for believing the Genesis story to be literal fact, when:

1. The text is obviously at odds with scientific observation, and
2. Even Creationists agree that not all Biblical passages can, or should, be read as literal fact.

You have pretty much made my point, GB89; the fact that evolution is essentially proved scientifically (like it or not, it has been, to the overwhelming satisfaction of scientists), and the fact that the "young earth" has been disproved by a number of lines of evidence, does not invalidate the fundamental Truth of the Bible. Conversely, there is no need to believe the Creationist dogma in order to believe fully in the fundamental truth of the Bible.

 

[Oh8ch]

OK, it's the Onion. But it is so close to the heart on the issue of multiple religions I thought I would throw it in one of our ongoing religious threads...

Various Deities Still Sorting Through Victims Of Tragic Queens Bus Accident | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[Muck]

Why is Babylon not simply Babylon?

Speaking of Babylon...Saddam's rebuilt copy on top of the ruins: