The word BABEL is somewhat derogatory.
“Babel on” is an English expression which means “keep talking nonsense,
OR in a nonsensical way.” Another description would be “there is a
certain amount of confusion, loss of the correct, true ideas, way of thinking.”
What ever is NOT of The Truth, is Babel.
3 Likes
"1QOL, Humanity certainly does have a history of wanting to be god…like, the tower of Babel. They even think they can control the environent now. 
[/quote]
Patrick, Once again, I totally disagree. Man is able to control the environment only in the sense of ceasing his man-made destruction of same. Every reputable scientist on this planet agrees that we are the cause of the rapid escalation of the planets destruction. And don’t give me the “it’s a normal cycle…argument” Of coarse it is, but we have escalated that cycle 1000% by our destructive behavior. Even the Koch brothers, who funded the scientists who they paid to create doubt, have now come out and said they think they were wrong. As for the (I am removing my expletive) person in the white house, who gets his news out of the Enquirer, I will not even offer explanation.
Revelation is clear…“I will hurt those who hurt the earth”. This quote is exactly the same in the Greek. The deniers will answer to God who is the Creator. Don’t, for a minute, think He won’t bring it up in judgment.
Adventists have traditionally held onto certain interpretations of revelation made by its founding members. However, if you compare Uriah Smith’s commentary on Revelation, you will notice that over the years there have been significant changes in the SDA church accepted interpretation of Revelation, but certain historical interpretations eg. papacy and america in revelation 13 have not changed inspite of overwhelming evidence that prove that the interpretations are erroneous.
The land animal is clearly identified as a false prophet in revelation but this isn’t taken into account when determining its, identity in the lesson. Rev 16:13, Rev 19:20 and Rev 20:10
In revelation 13 we are told that the land beast all the authority of the sea beast and performs signs and it deludes those who had received the mark of the beast Rev 13:12-18
Rev 19:20
But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
Has America been prophesying about the future and end times like the land beast (false prophet) in revelation)? I do not think there is any moment in time that the US as a country has provided a prophecy about the future.
On the sea beast, the lesson states
These characteristics of the sea
beast all point to the papacy that grew out of the pagan Roman Empire.
But the above interpretation has a contradiction, In revelation 17:9 the angel states
Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.10 There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come.
The papacy did not exist when John wrote the book of Revelation, and yet the angel explicitly states that 5 heads of the sea beast have already fallen, which means the sea beast existed in John’s time.
**How should we read a book like Revelation and how we should deal with competing, even conflicting, readings. **
Are all readings valid? Are some better than others?
Why do different readers give different interpretations? How do we use multiple interpretations? How do we choose between conflicting interpretations?
To begin, we must admit that there is no agreement on such questions; they are as debated as the interpretation of Revelation itself. The various contributors to this volume would likely each answer them differently.
But for purposes of analysis, let’s imagine two poles on a continuum. On the one side we imagine people who believe there is only one right interpretation: what the author intended. The task of the interpreter is to utilize whatever tools necessary (linguistic, historical, literary, social)
to rediscover that meaning, which resides entirely within the text. In this
view the text completely controls meaning, and the validity of an interpretation is determined by its faithfulness to the text.
At the other pole we imagine people who believe all interpretations are valid, or at least partially valid and partially faulty.
No text is “self-interpreting,” and every interpreter brings a unique perspective that colors his or her interpretation. And while history may be of some use, we must remember that history itself is a reconstruction based on the values, perceptions, and goals of the historian. The goal of an objective interpretation based solely on the text is an illusion; there are as many readings of a text as there are readers. In this view the reader completely controls the meaning of a text, and the validity of a reading corresponds to its usefulness in a particular social, political, and historical context.
Each of these polar views has its points to make, but few readers live at the poles. Much more common, and certainly the view I find most persuasive, is a mediating position that finds meaning only in the continual interaction between the text and the reader.
Both text and reader constrain readings, but neither by itself compels a certain understanding. The reader must always make a choice of readings based on factors outside the text, but the text itself provides the evidence for the validation of such choices.
An excerpt from an article/book chapter, CHOOSING BETWEEN READINGS: QUESTIONS AND CRITERIA
by
David L. Barr
1 Like
Hi Lindy,
Thanks for your reply. The word in Greek.in Rev.11:18 is diaptherai. I would like you to look at the Septuagint of Isa. 24:5 and tell me that has to do with anthropogenic global warming! Likewise Rev.19:2. The inhabitants of earth have “transgressed laws, violated statutes, and broken the everlasting covenant.” THAT IS THE CORRUPTION OF THE EARTH BY ITS INHABITANTS for which they receive judgment.
I suggest you have bought in to a political narrative based on a computer model…not scientific fact that some choose to use to save the planet…by their conceived political ends. All scientist do not agree on the information the model is putting out and are uncertain of the degree of anthopogenic global warming. Anything else?
Regards,
pat
@Lindy
Ps. Please see my article in Ministry mag. In 2001 entitled "The environnent- Created and sustained by whom?
Patrick,
Your absolutely wrong. The text in Rev. 11 in the original Greek is not talking about people or nations or society. The word in the Greek for “Earth” is the ground. It is talking about the actual earth. And your wrong about the scientists as well. About 20 years ago the Koch brothers, being concerned about their oil empire being threatened by the climate change people, bought and paid for several scientists, not to say it wasn’t true, but to simply to plant doubt. They have been successful ever sense in their efforts to discredit real science. You just keep hanging on to your beliefs but when your children and grandchildren look back at your position, while they have live in extreme conditions, they will see you for what you are. That is, if the earth is allowed to last that long. Virtually every nation on earth except ours is very concerned about climate change. Remember, the Sabbath is a memorial to creation, so I would imagine that what God created is pretty important to Him as well.
Please give me the word you are referring to both in English and Greek as well as the text. As well show me my error of commenting on diaptherai. I have 3 yrs of working knowledge with Greek as part of a M.Div… I am not a Greek scholar or professor of Greek. Your proficiency?
Who cares what the Koch brothers think? Not me. Are they scientist?
Roy Spencer Ph.D is hardly a quack!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/
1 Like
Seems like Rev 11 refers to harming the two witnesses…
Rev 11:
3 And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.”
4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands standing before the [b]God of the earth. 5 And if anyone wants to harm them, fire proceeds from their mouth and devours their enemies. And if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this manner.
Lindy, @Lindy
Did you even take time to look at Isa.24:5? Rev.19:2? They both portend judgments coming…but not directly pertaining to anthropogenic “global warming.”
You with certainty say I am wrong concerning the exegesis. Show me and present yours. I suggest you are
eisegeting your perceived narrative on the text
Patrick,
I don’t speak Greek. If you do, I am thrilled for you. But I have consulted in the past with a Dr. of Divinity about this very sentence in Revelation. He is fluent in Greek. He was my original confirmation of this word. He even used it in a sermon a number of years ago.
γῆν. gēn earth. N-AFS
What is most confirming for me are two things.
First is that I have software that gives me 12 different translations of the bible. They all say the same thing. In two of them is speaks of the ground. The people who translate scripture are a lot more knowledgeable than either you or I. And it is done by committee. It isn’t just one persons interpretation. Second, and of greater confirmation to me…probably not to you, is that the earth is in rapid decaing, climatic events are becoming more sever, and people that are a lot smarter than I am and I am sure are a lot smarter than you as well…say that we are doing exactly what Rev. 11:18 says. After all that is what Revelation is suppose to be for, to give us assurance that what was predicted 2000 years ago is real. We are destroying the earth. To say otherwise puts you in the same sphere as the readers of the Enquirer.
Remember this: There is no way that John, who wrote Revelation, would have had any understanding of how anyone could hurt the earth. In his time, it would have entailed someone beating the ground with a club. The fact that this text is there is no less than a miracle straight from the mind of God.
Believe what you want…your simply wrong and it won’t be too long at the rate we are going for everyone on this earth will know it. Unfortunately, when that happens it will be way too late.
Well, so what if earth is used. It is how it is used in content and context. The descriptive word and verb and participle mentioned above is destroy/ destroying/ defiling/corrupting the earth.
If he implied to you that primarily is related to global warming he is in error and did you a great disservice! Just aint there my friend!
Now , God does destroy the wicked and earth later by “global warming.”
We leave a footprint in everything we do on earth. We produce greenhouse gas with our cars. We pollute the waters with our detergents, medicines (toilets). Who owns a car? Does God judge us by whether we own a car or a washing machine?
@Lindy
Irene,
4The earth dries up and withers,
the world languishes and withers,
the heavens languish with the earth.
5 The earth is defiled (corrupted,destroyed -diaptherai , Sept.) by its people;
they have disobeyed the laws,
violated the statutes
and broken the everlasting covenant.
6 Therefore a curse consumes the earth;
its people must bear their guilt.
Therefore earth’s inhabitants are burned up,
and very few are left. Isa.24:4-6.
Wonder if Isaiah was portending God judging Israel for their planes, cars, washing machines and toilets and cattle making methane? Their CO2 global foot print was amazing almost 3000 yrs. ago! 
Regards
Just a question, Pat. Does earth mean land…eretz? Is that the Hebrew in this passage? IOW, was Isaiah talking about the holy land itself being polluted by the people’s unfaithfulness to the covenant? Would make sense, since its all over the OT, but just asking if that’s the case here linguistically.
While I have other thoughts about climate change and human abuse of the environment in relation to the responsibility that God originally delegated to humanity as stewards of the earth, I would agree that you simply can’t read this into passages like this.
Thanks…
Frank
Thanks for your question Frank. I pointed out from the LXX the same word along with earth/ land Gk.ge as in Isa.24 :5 and Rev.11:18. Ge simply means a part of the earths surface. Context to the recipients as to a particular people.
This prophecy likely first dealt with Israel’s sin/ breaking covenant and the coming onslaught by Assyria. It likely was a warning also to Judah of the same end from Babylon should they follow Israel’s course…
As to Rev.11:18 the warning/repetitive application of the results of sin/corrupting the earth by violation of the principles of the everlasting covenant.
Ultimately in Rev. it is Christ bringing forth judgment in Rev.19 against those nations gathered together against His people. Those “kings of the earth” that once destroyed His people are now repaid/destroyed by the King of Kings.
Thanks, Pat. In essence, what your saying still seems to apply to the land of Israel as being under the curse, manifested through invasion, destruction, and subsequent captivity, at least in the Isaiah text. It’s interesting how Jeremiah even uses images of the void before creation to describe the results of the Babylonian invasion and destruction of the temple, city, and defiling of the land.
One can’t simply read modern concerns, whether it’s climate change and environmental issues, or a general time of trouble for the whole earth, as Adventism has done by proof texting the passage in Jeremiah, into passages that just don’t mean these things.
Thanks…
Frank
2 Likes
They seem to fail to acknowlege reapplication of similar conditions and principles of many prophecies.
Consider also, those with this global warming narrative. How interested are they in the other aspects of God’s covenant to His people?
Usually a filter for my favorite cause not holistic cause of judgement warnings.
oops loaded to wrong strand…
1 Like