Nimrod and the Tower of Babel represent humanity refusing to accept an externally imposed ceiling on what it can become, even in the face of impossible odds.
>>18665514What ceiling? Wasn't the whole reason they tried to build so tall because there was no actual physical upper limit to stop them and they wanted to be able to see if from very far away, so everyone knew where to gather?
>>18665524Yahweh literally says, in the Bible, that nothing would be impossible for them. God. Saying NOTHING would be impossible. Sit with that.
>>18665535>Sit with that.Sit with what? That you totally contradict OP's claims and admit there was no ceiling when they set out to build the tower and the odds were not impossible at all, but the exact opposite?
>>18665557My entire point was the ceiling was a false ceiling arbitrarily enforced by Yahweh. Are you slow?
>>18665524>What ceiling?The externally imposed ceiling. Pretty clear what OP meant. >>18665557>you totally contradict OP's claims and admit there was no ceiling when they set out to build the tower and the odds were not impossible at all, but the exact opposite?The tower is just a symbolic monument. Something which triggered Hebrew scribes so bad that they wrote polemic propaganda about the monument itself, and the capitol city into their most holy scripture. They held a grudge and harbored spiteful resentment against the neo-Babylonian empire, for being such a flourishing nation and for making Israel look like a backwater shithole kingdom by comparison. Israelites were prolific sore losers with a culturally-inherited main character syndrome, as they were writing the Old Testament & compiling it throughout the centuries.
>>18665569No, because the ceiling was not set until well after they started construction, so there was no externally imposed ceiling when they began for them to refuse to accept and as soon as it was imposed, they were forced to accept it by their nature. You are the slow one that doesn't seem to understand linearity and basic cause and effect and you seem to be retroactively coping since OP never said anything about the ceiling being false and instead implied that humanity just wouldn't accept the truth when they were forced to accept it in the story as soon as Yahweh imposed new rules that were never previously specified.
>>18665579>The externally imposed ceilingWhich was not imposed until after they made the plans, so it had nothing to do with why they built the tower.They came out of the Babylonian empire, the tower was built by their ancestors, so making them look like a bad family is like trying to make your own grandparents look like they established a bad family and just makes yourself look bad.
>>18665586>Which was not imposed until after they made the plans, so it had nothing to do with why they built the tower.As I said the tower itself is symbolic, a representation of humanities potential in working together. The Hebrew polemic description of Babylon is also symbolic, reflecting how it made the Israelites feel. They hated everything Babylon stood for, which is to say true ancient religion and a synthesis of philosophy not possible under Abrahamic rule, and a rejection of Israelite death cults. Hebrew scribes never were able to respect the law of the land and keep their shitty cults to themselves, always trying to proselytize everyone away from the imperial & ancestral religions of the kingdoms they shared. >so making them look like a bad family is like trying to make your own grandparents look like they established a bad family and just makes yourself look bad.Not really. Israelites painted themselves as the victims, and everybody else as the bad guy oppressor.
>>18665514Babylon was the first Imperium of Man
>>18665535>is that...humans working together to achieve a common goal?>I NEED TO PUT A STOP TO THIS RIGHT NOW
>>18665614>As I said the tower itself is symbolic,And in the story it symbolically didn't get finished, so they didn't refuse to accept any ceiling imposed on them that prevented it being built in the symbols of the story, they just moved on to something else instead, symbolically.>Israelites painted themselves as the victims,Yes of their own shitty family, genetics, and society, so at best they are still a bad tribe of traumatized weaklings who still can't ever finish what they start because they were taught everything all wrong as a joke by their more capable grandparents.
>>18665618>And in the story it symbolically didn't get finishedBecause it was written by people who wanted the reader to believe that narrative. Sore losers who hated Babylon. Of course they would tell you it didn't get finished and the builders didn't know what they were doing to begin with. They want to impose the idea that "everybody who worshipped other gods outside of the bible were all dimwits who couldn't even finish building a tower!". It's obviously propaganda. No historical accounts about Babylon from any other complementary sources describe Babylon like how Hebrew scribes did. >Yes of their own shitty family, genetics, and society>their ownIt wasn't theirs lol they didn't own anything or contribute to anything at all. >family, genetics and societyIsraelites were slaves, vile cultists, uneducated peasants and exiled losers who existed in the bottom rungs of Babylonian society. Israelites were a Semitic speaking people who only knew how to write in Hebrew and Aramaic. Babylonian society utilized Sumerian languages and cuneiform which the Israelites were too stupid to learn. The king and his council, priests, high government officials, wealthy landowners, professionals, and craftsmen all wrote in Sumerian language within Babylon. Israelites had no influence in Babylonian society, or any trace of notable contributions, so they devised propaganda out of spite once after the empire fell Dont underestimate Israelite main character + salty-loser syndrome. It's a vicious ancient personality disorder combo
>>18665626>Of course they would tell youSo then how is the story about the exact opposite of what it is about? Why do you admit it was written it to convey the exact opposite of what OP is claiming while still trying to cling onto treating OP as a truthful claim?>It wasn't theirs lol they didn't own anything or contribute to anything at all. Its blood-rights, they own their blood and their ancestors, you aren't strengthening their cause as you say they are attempting to do with the story, you are just making them out to be useless idiots who can't accurately tell a historical story.>Israelites were slaves, vile cultists, uneducated peasants and exiled losers who existed in the bottom rungs of Babylonian societyThis has nothing to do with the story of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel, you are just flailing with self-contradicting copes from post to post because OP is obviously wrong, yet for some reason you want to defend OP without actually directly defending any of OP's claims.
>>18665629>So then how is the story about the exact opposite of what it is about? Why do you admit it was written it to convey the exact opposite of what OP is claiming while still trying to cling onto treating OP as a truthful claim?Buddy, it's mythology. You have to be able to look at historical facts objectively, and see that the bible is just mythology not history. Nimrod didn't exist in real life. Babylon was a real place but Israelites were the lowest of the low in their society, couldn't even learn how to read or write the language everybody else used in the empire. >Its blood-rights, they own their blood and their ancestors,Okay? Their ancestors were uneducated peasants, blood ritual cultists who never caught up in development with their surrounding kingdoms. Israelites couldn't hold on to their kingdom for more than a century before losing it to superior civilizations again and again throughout history, being forced out into exile multiple times too. Their legacy is of being weak and stupid. >you aren't strengthening their causeThat's because I don't support schizophrenic mtyhology being written and presented as "real history". By all accounts, the Israelites were almost universally despised in ancient history. Nobody looked favorably on a cult who cuts foreskins off babies, believe it or not. >you are just making them out to be useless idiots who can't accurately tell a historical storyNow you're starting to get it. That's what every source of archeology outside of biblical scripture reflects. Hebrew scribes are liars, that becomes pretty obvious when you study history beyond the confines of biblical-narratives.
>>18665636>see that the bible is just mythology not historyObviously, but that isn't my problem, my problem is that you are bait and switching and trying to say the bible story says something specific, but then completely discarding the bible story for some other story you made up just to try to support OP's arguments which you don't even seem to believe are true yourself.>Their legacy is of being weak and stupid. Yes, and by changing the story it just makes them look even weaker and stupider than need be which doesn't make sense, but what does make sense is that you are making up a bunch of nonsense to steelman OP's retarded argument instead of just going by the story presented in the bible that completely contradicts OP's premises.>That's because I don't support schizophrenic mtyhology being written and presented as "real history".Except you clearly do since you are still trying to maintain OP's position.>Nobody looked favorably on a cult who cuts foreskins off babies, believe it or not. OP's argument had nothing to do with foreskin and your retarded arguments have nothing to do with the story of nimrod and the tower of babel, yes we have established that it is symbolic and representative, but nothing you claim about the story and what the story symbolized is actually related to how the story even goes.>Now you're starting to get it. I have gotten it the entire time, you are near equally as retarded in magnitude as OP, but OP is retarded at decoding representative symbols while you are retarded at repeating basic plot lines and documented events in the story.
>>18665514> be a Jewish goat herder> live in a desert, the highest building is your tent, everyone around speaks the same language> got deported to Babylon> a lot of people around, they all speak different languages> there are many tall buildings, there are even ruins of what used to be the tallest building>aha! they tried to build a tower to heaven, God destroyed it and punished them. That's why they all speak different languages!
>>18665640>you are bait and switching and trying to say the bible story says something specific, but then completely discarding the bible story for some other story you made up just to try to support OP's arguments which you don't even seem to believe are true yourself.That's not what I'm saying at all. Im saying that what's written in the bible is not supported by objective facts. OP understands this, but you seem to be struggling. >>18665640>by changing the storyWhat are you talking about?>you are making up a bunch of nonsense to steelman OP's retarded argument instead of just going by the story presented in the bible that completely contradicts OP's premises.>going by the story presented in the bibleWhy would I do that? I care about truth. I'm not going to believe a story which claims to be history without convincing evidence to verify those claims. We know for a fact that many things written in the bible are untrue, such as the existence of Nimrod in history. >Except you clearly do since you are still trying to maintain OP's position.You clearly have a religious bias and no amount of objective facts are going to change your mind. You should seriously study history instead of arguing apologetics for bible stories on the internet. Then again, based on your reading comprehension, I don't think you're intelligent enough to study history.
>>18665646>I still don't understand the symbols in the story, so I will superimpose my own made up timeline of reality to mock the obviously mythological story instead.
>>18665650>OP understands thisNo they clearly don't, they are quite obviously saying the story symbolizes human's inability to accept impossible odds to defy constraints.>What are you talking about?Your head canon where you are trying to rewrite the story to conform to your worldview instead of just accepting the story as it is written.>Why would I do that? That is what I keep asking and you keep avoiding, why would you ask me to explain your own motivations to you?>I'm not going to believe a story which claims to be history without convincing evidenceNobody ever asked you to, OP from the beginning was talking about what it represents and it was established very quickly in the discussion that we are talking about symbolic metaphors, not literal history. OP is still retarded when it comes to metaphors and you are still retarded for trying to fit this into literal history while admitting it is a mythological story from the outset.>You clearly have a religious bias I have never once tried to claim it is a literally true story and I have been talking about what it symbolized from the beginning, you are the retard who is trying to fit an obvious mythological story in to actual history instead of talking about what the story represents as OP mentioned from the beginning of the thread.I see you can't even justify your retarded arguments anymore and you are just going to shift to personal attacks, so have fun being retarded and fallacious.
Israelites got mocked for being unable to learn Sumerian cuneiform. It is not a Semitic language and so naturally the Israelites struggled with it in neo-Babylonia. All of the record keeping, land deeds, poetry, math and science was done in Sumerian. The builders of Babylonian civilization rightfully mocked a tribe of cultists who claimed to be "one and only gods chosen". Israelite bruised ego carried over into after the fall of Babylon.
>>18665658>>18665652
>>18665652The story is indeed a Jewish myth, which does reflect some historical facts. Just like myths (including the collection of Jewish myths called the Bible) often do.
>>18665661OP isn't discussing historical "facts", OP is making claims about the symbolic meaning of the story and you are too retarded to engage in that discussion without invoking head canon nonsense about millennia old history that is impossible to actually know.
>>18665656>you are just going to shift to personal attacksYou've been doing that for the last 4 posts before I said anything lmao. Have some self awareness. >they are quite obviously saying the story symbolizes human's inability to accept impossible odds to defy constraints.No retard they are saying the story represents an artificial ceiling being imposed on human greatness, through propaganda that reotroactively rewrites the way people perceive history. Babylon is demonized in the bible, written by people who were insecure and afraid of the Babylonian legacy of greatness, which they contributed nothing to on a personal tribal level whatsoever. >Your head canon where you are trying to rewrite the story to conform to your worldview instead of just accepting the story as it is written.The story is propaganda. If you can't see that for what it is then you're too stupid to be trying to have this conversation with us. >talking about symbolic metaphors, not literal historyBoth are part of this discussion, you fucking retard. The bible is mythology, which is written and intended to be read as "real history".
>>18665662As if a symbolic meaning is not a head canon
>the symbols mean what I want it to mean, and anyone who disagrees is WRONG!What a silly thing to turn into a competition lol
>>18665664>You've been doing that for the last 4 posts before I said anything lmao.No, my personal attacks serve as accoutrements to my base argument, you don't have a base argument about the symbolic nature of the story, so you just cast attacks instead.>No retard they are saying the story represents an artificial ceiling being imposed on human greatness, No OP clearly said that nimrod building the tower represents humans refusal to accept any artificial ceilings, but that isn't the case at all since the artificial ceiling didn't even arise until well after nimrod planned the build. OP was not demonizing anyone, he was hailing the builders as strong willed, you were the one that came along trying to rewrite the story and its "totally real completely factual history" itself just so you can demonize jews.>The story is propaganda. If you can't see that for what it is then you're too stupid to be trying to have this conversation with us. If you can't see that I have admitted that every time you brought it up, then you are retarded, the point of the thread isn't to figure out anyone who can see it is a mythological story is brilliant, but to try to interpret what the propaganda is symbolically trying to convey, retard.>Both are part of this discussionFeel free to cite where OP said anything about it being factual while also trying to wish away the fact OP explicitly reference representation instead of literalism.>The bible is mythology, which is written and intended to be read as "real history".OP didn't say anything about "real history" and was clearly just talking about what the story represents.
>>18665514It's a metaphor for humans turning themselves into divine beings/gods. Obviously if you literally build a super tall tower you are just going to end up in space, not in the spiritual dimension "Heaven"
>>18665666Its not because neither OP or myself are making any claims that the symbolism has any real world historical basis, so its not canonical, its allegorical.
>>18665673>the symbols in the mythology are actually statements of historical facts, but the facts in the story are wrong and it should have been written this way because I want them to have been^ is exponentially sillier than thinking that symbols have intentional meanings.
>>18665678The term "head canon" has nothing to do with historical basis or the lack of it. Head canon is one's personal interpretation of a fictional story.
>>18665684>The term "head canon" has nothing to do with historical basis or the lack of it.Maybe if you don't know that canon means authentic while head canon is a derogatory way to describe something in your head that deviates from traditionally accepted historical authenticity (ie canon). Since OP is not talking about authenticity of the story, but its symbolic representation, the discussion is not a matter of canon, so interpretations aren't head canon, they are allegorical interpretation instead.
>>18665690>head canon is a derogatory way to describe something in your head that deviates from traditionally accepted historical authenticityNo. Harry Potter fans have head canons. It doesn't mean they question the historical authenticity of the story (the absence of it, to be precised).
>>18665514>externallyAnd internally. It's a repetition of the Garden story where humans reach up before they're allowed to and they risk messing up their natural development.
>>18665681>thinking that symbols have intentional meaningsThat's the neat part of having stories authored by human beings, in context of the ancient historical time period where they were written. We can rub our brains cells together and speculate on the authors perspective (what were they thinking, what did they believe, what influenced them etc.) in context of history. How else are you supposed to figure out the meaning of the stories? We require context in order to draw approximate, reasonable conclusions about the meaning of what they wrote & what they intended the reader to conclude. Or we can do whatever >>18665676 this guy is doing, which is much less interesting imo.
>>18665697>It doesn't mean they question the historical authenticity of the storyIt means they question what is actually written by the actual historical author as the authentic story of the harry potter books which is the canon of the story of harry potter just like people in this thread are trying to rewrite the actual historical words written in the bible to something that is more pleasing to their sensibilities.
>>18665700>We can rub our brains cells together and speculate on the authors perspectiveThat isn't what is happening ITT thread though, someone is trying to rewrite the story or imply that there is a different babylonian version that preceded the bible and OP should be talking about instead of actually thinking about the biblical story itself and trying to interpret the symbolic logic it contains.>reasonable conclusions about the meaning of what they wrote & what they intended the reader to conclude.Which isn't happening in this thread since someone is just trying to discard the authors and their story to say their symbolism is meaningless because its just mythological nonsense from slaves rewriting a different story to make themselves look like the masters, even though the story still cucks them and makes them look pathetic, but thanks for admitting you can't even understand what the other person in the discussion is saying because the actual story and history isn't as interesting as your head canon, so you will just ignore the actual story in favor of whatever excitement you feel from making up nonsense about it on the spot.
>>18665725>someone is just trying to discard the authors and their story to say their symbolism is meaninglessThat's not what's happening in this thread...>mythological nonsense from slaves rewriting a different story to make themselves look like the masters, even though the story still cucks them and makes them look patheticWhat is so unbelievable about that concept, exactly? That authors (propaganda artists, frankly) would lie and embellish history in their own written mythology. Are we not allowed to talk about this and leave emotions aside? >the actual story and history isn't as interesting as your head canon>the actual story and historyYeah? You're almost there buddy.
>>18665738>That's not what's happening in this thread...It is though >>18665579>triggered Hebrew scribes so bad that they wrote polemic propaganda about the monument itself, and the capitol city into their most holy scripture. They held a grudge and harbored spiteful resentment against the neo-Babylonian empire, for being such a flourishing nation and for making Israel look like a backwater shithole kingdom by comparison. Israelites were prolific sore losers with a culturally-inherited main character syndrome, as they were writing the Old Testament & compiling it throughout the centuries.>What is so unbelievable about that concept, exactly? It is not that it is unbelievable at all, its is that it doesn't answer OP's question about the symbolism of the story as presented at all, it just sidesteps it all to insert questionable historical "facts" that are completely outside the scope of the story and its meaning.>lie and embellish history in their own written mythology.Ok, but what do the lies and embellishments about their ancestors building a tall tower actually represent, this is what you don't seem to understand and can't seem to answer since you just want to change the subject to jews bad instead of what did the jewish authors mean by making their own ancestors look bad.>Yeah? You're almost there buddy.No I am definitely there, you are quite obviously lying about the story and embellishing the history surrounding it to form your own mythology instead of just discussing the meaning of the original mythology as it appears in the book.
>>18665745>it doesn't answer OP's questionOP didn't pose a question.>what do the lies and embellishments about their ancestors building a tall tower actually representBabylonians were a polytheist people. Israelites were a monotheistic people living as exiles who built temples which they couldn't defend.>you just want to change the subject to jews bad instead of what did the jewish authors mean by making their own ancestors look bad.Nobody is saying that. You're being retarded>you are quite obviously lying about the story and embellishing the history surrounding it Where is the lie, then? You started out insisting historical context doesn't matter, only the symbolism does. Now you're appealing to the history only in order to re-frame what I've been saying this entire time. You clearly don't know show about Babylonian history, or the history of the Israelites, otherwise you wouldn't be sperging
>>18665772>OP didn't pose a question.Ok, then it doesn't address OP's statement or answer the question of what ceiling exactly OP was referring.>Babylonians were a Ok, but the story doesn't actually separate them into your head canon, the babylonians were treated as the ancestors of the israelites.>Nobody is saying that. It was said it in the post I just quoted when presumably you were ranting about Hebrew scribe being triggered so bad because they were shithole sore losers rewriting the story of the tower, you disingenuous retard.>Where is the lie, then?Where is the evidence then?>You started out insisting historical context doesn't matter, only the symbolism does. No I didn't say it doesn't matter, I said it isn't related to OP's premise.>Now you're appealing to the historyNo because as I have said the entire story is mythological and it is physically impossible to actually know what happened that many millennia ago, so we can't reliably interact with any history narrative about the tower of babel, we can only try to dissect the symbolism presented in the book.>You clearly don't know show about Babylonian history, or the history of the IsraelitesNeither do you since all we really have are a bunch of competing myths that were written centuries after the fact which is why you have to sperg about how its just mythology when trying to talk about the symbolism of the story even though your narrative is also mythology, but mythology written many more centuries after the fact.
>>18665535Ok but did yawheh say that yawheh said that?
>>18666186Did yawheh say that yawheh said that yawheh said that?
>>18665514It was a reaction to the flood. They were trying to have a man-made mountain that could keep them safe from divine judgment.That suggests that they wanted to repeat the sins that caused the flood in the first place. God never planned to flood the world again, instead he will destroy the world with fire. Sodom and Gomorrah are a foretaste of that. The Faustian spirit to know all and innovate all has apparently led to a means to create nuclear destruction and a massive surveillance apparatus. Why is this preferable to um not doing that?>>18665616Just an FYI, despite the pagan depictions of God the Father in Rome, there is no depiction of him allowed by the Orthodox Church. You are literally being influenced by demons to attack your creator. Job lost everything and still refused to do this. The fact that you have internet access and free time says you probably have less of an excuse than him. I would stop posting these images on here and repent.
>>18665780>it doesn't address OP's statement or answer the question of what ceiling exactly OP was referringIf you're retarded and haven't read much history, for context, then sure.>Where is the evidence then?Go look for it. You will find it. You're not going to take my word for it so go look for yourself. There is a mindblowing amount of verifiable history about ancient Israelites and Babylon. >No I didn't say it doesn't matter, I said it isn't related to OP's premise.You don't actually know what OPs premise is. You're just attacking anybody who comes to a different conclusion. And you're not as educated as the people who you're attacking either lol>all we really have are a bunch of competing mythsThis is how I know you're retarded, and haven't studied the history of the things being talked about in this thread. Educated yourself and come back
