How Old Was Abraham When He Left Haran?

How Old Was Abraham When He Left Haran?

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Apparent Contradiction

There’s a seeming contradiction in the Bible concerning Abraham’s age when he left Haran. The apparent contradiction is as follows. If Terah died when he was 205 years old, but fathered Abram when he was 70, then Abram must have been 135 years old when his father Terah died (as Gen. 11.26, 32 suggest), not 75, as Gen. 12.4 indicates. For the story to work without any discrepancies, Terah would literally have to be 130 years old when he fathered Abram. But it seemed as if he were only 70 years old. Hence the apparent contradiction. Below are the relevant citations that appear to contradict each other.

—-

Genesis 12.4 (ESV):

So Abram went, as the LORD had told him,

and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-

five years old when he departed from

Haran.

Acts 7.2:

And Stephen said: ‘Brothers and fathers,

hear me. The God of glory appeared to our

father Abraham when he was in

Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.’

Acts 7.4:

Then he went out from the land of the

Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his

father died, God removed him from there

into this land in which you are now living.

Genesis 11.26:

When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered

Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Genesis 11.32:

The days of Terah were 205 years, and

Terah died in Haran.

—————

Apologetic Exegesis

The key passage is Gen. 11.26. The Hebrew text doesn’t explicitly say that *when* Terah was 70 years old he begat Abram. Rather, it puts it thusly (Gen. 11.26 KJV):

And Terah lived seventy years, and begat

Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Nowhere is it explicitly mentioned that Terah had all 3 children when he was 70 years old. Nor is there any direct evidence that these children were triplets, or that they were born on the exact same date, month, or year. The verse in Gen. 11.26 merely indicates that after Terah reached a certain age——namely, 70 years old——he began to father children. But exactly when these children were actually born is unknown. The only thing that’s clear from Gen. 11.26 is that they were born after Terah had reached a certain age.

It’s quite possible, for example, that some of his children could have been born when Terah was 130 years old. Nothing in the text would contradict the timing of such a birth. As long as Terah fathered at least one child after he was 70, the rest could have been born anytime between Terah’s 70th and 205th birthday.

The order in which the names of Terah’s sons are listed may not reflect the precise chronological order in which the children were actually born. The text is simply indicating their order of importance. Given that Abram is a key figure in the Old Testament and the common patriarch of the Abrahamic religions, he’s obviously mentioned first:

there is yet a question whether Abram was

born first as listed, or perhaps he is listed

first because he was the wisest similar to

Shem, Ham, and Jafeth where Shem was

not the oldest, but was the wisest. … the

Talmud leaves the above question open.

(Wikipedia)

—————

Conclusion

Actually, Abram could have been 75 years old when he left Haran, as the text indicates (Gen. 12.4). And maybe he did leave Haran “after his father died” (Acts 7.4) at the age of 205 (Gen. 11.32). There is no contradiction with regard to the dates. The assumed contradiction is actually based on fallacious reasoning and speculation. It’s based on an eisegesis, that is, a misinterpretation of the text. Readers often assume that the text is telling us that Abram was born *when* Terah was 70 years old. But that’s a conjecture. The text doesn’t say that at all. All the text says is that once Terah reached a certain age, he began fathering sons. But exactly when each and every son was born is unknown.

—

If the Bible Warns Against Future False Christs, then How Is the End-Times Earthly Messiah Not a Deception?

By Author Eli Kittim 🔎

—

False Christs & False Prophets

The New Testament warns that the end of days will be characterized by great deception. Matthew 24 tells us that many false christs will appear, saying “I am the Christ” (v. 5), and will deceive many. And many false prophets will also appear (v. 11). If they tell you “here is the Christ,” don’t believe them, for many false Christs & false prophets will perform great signs so as to deceive even the elect (vv. 23-24). In the text, Christ says (Mt 24.25-26 NRSV):

Take note, I have told you beforehand. So, if

they say to you, ‘Look! He is in the

wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, ‘Look!

He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.

But one may raise the question, “if the Bible warns against future false Christs, then how is the end-times earthly messiah not a deception?”

I will try to answer this question using an excerpt from my book, “The Little Book of Revelation,” chapter 11, the section entitled “THE CORPSE: A MISSING LINK IN BIBLICAL EXEGESIS,” pp. 237-238:

// However, we must challenge the reader to go further. Because if you do not understand the specific timeline of these end-time events, the biblical script will become very confusing. For example, Matthew 24:23 reads, “if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him.” Some argue that this verse exhorts us to distrust any earthly Messiah that might appear in the last days. But this is simply not true. For one thing, Christ himself appears for the first time in the last days! (Heb. 1:2, 9:26; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:9-10; Acts 3:20-21; Rev. 12:5). Not to mention that the Jews themselves are still awaiting the Messiah. Furthermore, Matthew’s gospel sets up the context of this exhortation in its proper chronological order. For instance, notice that Matthew first introduces Daniel’s prophecy of “the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION . . . standing in the holy place” (Matt. 24:15) as the backdrop for this exhortation. This event is set to take place when the antichrist will take “his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God” (2 Thess. 2:4).

Next, we are warned that when this event transpires, we should “flee to the mountains; . . . for then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall” (Matt. 24:16-21). But we must remember that Christ will most certainly die before the antichrist could reveal himself to the world (Matt. 24:28). Paul writes, “He [Christ] who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. And then that lawless one will be revealed” (2 Thess. 2:7-8). That Christ’s arrival precedes that of the antichrist is further demonstrated in John’s gospel, Jesus says, “I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me” (14:30, cf. Dan. 9:26). Hence, “the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION” serves as the context in which the previous exhortation was made. So during this particular time period, we are rightly urged to distrust any physical being that claims to be the Messiah.\\

—

The Day of Christ

Here’s another excerpt from “The Little Book of Revelation,” ch. 3, the section entitled “FIRST COMES CHRIST; THEN COMES THE ANTICHRIST,” p. 101:

// Christ, then, must be the first horseman of “Revelation,” whose “robe” (body) was “dipped in blood” (Rev. 19:11-13, cf. Rev. 6:2). This episode marks the first of several incidents that lead up to the cosmic apocalypse. We already know that the anticipated child born during the end-times is clearly the Messiah (Rev. 12:1-5). And more than that, we are now in a better position to understand the preceding events leading up to his foretold ascension: being “caught up” into heaven (Rev. 12:5). These include his incarnation, death and resurrection, when he “will arise” from the dead (Dan. 12:1) “to make the earth tremble” (Isa. 2:19). We are also told that the antichrist “will be revealed” during the interim in which Christ will be “taken out of the way” (2 Thess. 2:7-8). Hence, it was very much the scriptural intention to instill insight in its advocates so that they might firmly distrust those who claim “that the day of the Lord has come” (2 Thess. 2:2).\\

—

What Are the Biblical Grounds for Divorce?

The inspiration for this paper came from a Facebook “Eli_of_Kittim_Bible_Exegesis_Group” member.

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🔎

——-

Marriage: When One Spouse is an Unbeliever

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul discusses some cases about marriage. He explains that marriage is a remedy against fornication; that it is better to marry than to burn with lust (vv. 1-9). If we focus specifically on 1 Cor. 7.15, Paul is talking about married partners, where one is a believer and the other is not, and is giving biblical instructions as to how to handle that particular situation. Notice that verses 10-11 (NRSV) represent a *direct command* from God “that the wife should not separate from her husband … and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” Here, Paul makes it absolutely clear that the mere notion that one’s partner is an unbeliever (a heathen) is not yet ground for divorce!

By contrast, verses 12-13, which apply to verse 15, are offered “by way of concession, not of command” (cf. v. 6):

if any believer has a wife who is an

unbeliever, and she consents to live with

him, he should not divorce her. And if any

woman has a husband who is an unbeliever,

and he consents to live with her, she should

not divorce him.

In other words, this is not based on a command from God but rather on Paul’s advice for a suitable compromise. Paul asserts that if the unbelieving partner agrees to stay married, the believing partner has no legitimate right to divorce them. Why? Because the believer edifies and influences the unbeliever towards holiness (v. 14).

However, in 1 Cor. 7.15 there’s an exception. If the unbeliever doesn’t wish to stay married, the believing partner (the Christian) is under no obligation. He/she may get a divorce. For God called us to peace, not quarrels & fights. The “brother” (ἀδελφὸς) or “sister” (ἀδελφὴ) in verse 15 are obvious references to a “brother” or “sister” in the faith. It’s also clear from verse 12 that the so-called “brother” refers to the Christian *believer,* not to the unbeliever. So when Paul says, “in such a case the brother or sister is not bound” (οὐ δεδούλωται), he’s referring to the Christian husband or wife who is under no obligation to continue in this marriage (SBLGNT):

εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται, χωριζέσθω · οὐ

δεδούλωται ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ ἀδελφὴ ἐν τοῖς

τοιούτοις, ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ἡμᾶς ὁ

θεός.

Translation (v. 15):

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let

it be so; in such a case the brother or sister

is not bound. It is to peace that God has

called you.

The term δεδούλωται (dedoulōtai) means “enslaved” or “under bondage.” It’s a verb. Specifically, it’s a perfect indicative middle or passive 3rd person singular. Strong's 1402: it comes from doulos; to enslave (douloó).

Returning to 1 Cor. 7.15, remember that the Pauline recommendation that’s offered with regard to marriage is “by way of concession, not of command” (cf. v. 6, 12). In other words, the believing partner can legally divorce if the unbelieving partner doesn’t want to stay married, but this is not based on the Lord’s command but rather on Paul’s advice! That is to say, you can still try to salvage your marriage, seek reconciliation, and try to work things out, provided both parties agree. But if they don’t, and the unbelieving partner doesn’t want to remain married, the Christian partner is allowed to divorce them. That’s essentially what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 7.15!

We can speculate as to what this divorce entails, but Paul doesn’t actually spell it out for us. It can involve a number of issues. Some commentators think that the verse implies that the unbelieving party seeks a divorce on account of religion, and in hatred to it, and that they will not live with the believer unless Christ is denied. In that case, Paul exhorts us to let them depart.

Although that can certainly be one of the reasons for the divorce, there can be many others. The married life can be made intolerable if the unbeliever, for example, urges the believer to join in such acts as conscience cannot approve. Then there can be grounds for divorce.

Paul doesn’t tell us but leaves the question open because it applies to so many different situations and circumstances. One thing is certain. If one’s spouse is not a believer and wants a divorce, you are not under any obligation to remain married. But if the unbelieving partner wants to remain married, you are not allowed to divorce them. According to God, there’s only one ground for divorce, namely, infidelity. That’s the basic New Testament message concerning marriage!

——-

Remarriage

Later on in the chapter, another advice (v. 25) is given regarding remarriage, specifically the widow’s right to remarry (v. 39). Let’s take a closer look at the Greek text.

In 1 Cor. 7.39, the verb δέδεται is used, which comes from the verb δέω, meaning “to bind” or “to tie.” There’s also an alternative form of δέω derived from Ancient Greek, namely, δέννω ‎(dénnō)! And, of course, from this verb comes the verb δέδεται (1 Cor 7:39). Thus, *δέδεται* essentially means that someone or something “is bound” or “is chained.” The term δέδεται is a verb, perfect indicative middle or passive - 3rd person plural, with a ται ending! 1 Cor. 7.39 reads:

Γυνὴ δέδεται ἐφ’ ὅσον χρόνον ζῇ ὁ ἀνὴρ

αὐτῆς· ἐὰν δὲ κοιμηθῇ ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐλευθέρα

ἐστὶν ᾧ θέλει γαμηθῆναι, μόνον ἐν κυρίῳ ·

Translation:

A wife is bound as long as her husband

lives. But if the husband dies, she is free to

marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord.

So, a wife is allowed to remarry (a Christian) if her husband passes away.

——-

Conclusion

This is simply a brief study of 1 Cor. 7. Rather than drawing conclusions from a few verses, a further study is needed to see how the entire New Testament (in canonical context) deals with the issue of marriage. In other words, the exegesis might be correct, but there may be additional elements that are mentioned elsewhere that change the overall meaning of the text. We should never build a theology based on one or two verses. That’s why we need a wider study (in canonical context) in order to verify the exegesis!

——-

Why Cessationism is a False Doctrine

By Bible Researcher & Goodreads Author Eli Kittim 🔎

——-

Cessationism: God is Dead

Today, cessationists, like Justin Peters & John MacArthur, believe that God no longer communicates with mankind. It’s as if God is dead. Supposedly, he no longer performs miracles, or prophesies, or speaks. These people will often claim that if you want to hear God speak, read your Bible.

They have shut him out so thoroughly and to such an extent that it appears as if God doesn’t really exist outside the Bible. According to the cessationist movement (which by the way represents mainstream academic Christianity), God seemingly doesn’t have an independent existence outside the pages of Scripture. It’s as if he were a literary character that has been subordinated to biblical expediency. Existentially speaking, he’s not to be trusted or believed. For all intents and purposes, he doesn’t exist. It’s as if he died and left us his last will and testament. As the omnipotence-paradox riddle goes, it’s as if the Bible has become the stone that’s so heavy that even God can’t lift it.

Is Religious Experience Unchristian?

John MacArthur typically uses exaggerated caricatures of New Testament (NT) teachings to mock and ridicule *religious existential experiences.* But isn’t religious experience the foundation of our salvation, according to the NT? Romans 8.9 (NLT) says, “remember that those who do not have the Spirit of Christ living in them do not belong to him at all.” So how do you get the Spirit of Christ to live in you if not through an experience? Is it based on wishful thinking? Jesus says in Jn 3.3: “unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God.” So, how is one born again if not through some kind of an experience? And how does one develop a relationship with Christ if not through an experience? Jesus simply becomes an imaginary partner or a wishful thought or daydream? Is that what the NT teaches? And how do we get a new identity, according to Eph. 4.22-24? By reading the Bible? MacArthur clearly contradicts Scripture by implying that Christian salvation is not based on any “experience” at all. Yet, in Philippians 2.12 (NASB) Paul exhorts:

work out your own salvation with fear and

trembling.

——-

Should We Reject Supernaturalism?

The problem with cessationists is that they think that the process by which we “have Christ” is through reading the Bible. They pretend as if the supernatural dimension does not exist. It’s a fantasy world of imagination, at best, or the realm of the demonic world, at worst. So the Bible is wrong in pointing out the existence of the supernatural realm?

In order to shield themselves from the abuses and excesses of the Charismatic Movement (which has more often than not misattributed spiritual gifts or popularized false ones), they have inadvertently disassociated themselves from authentic gifts as well. So, they downplay and discredit all visions and experiences as if they were once sanctioned by God in antiquity but forbidden in modern times. But is Jesus’ promise limited to the apostolic age, when he says (Jn 14.21 NRSV), “those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them”?

In first Corinthians 12.4-11, Paul informs us that the spiritual life is accompanied by spiritual gifts that are *continuously* bestowed on the believers by the Spirit of God. He enumerates them as follows:

there are varieties of gifts, but the same

Spirit; and there are varieties of services,

but the same Lord; and there are varieties

of activities, but it is the same God who

activates all of them in everyone. To each is

given the manifestation of the Spirit for the

common good. To one is given through the

Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to

another the utterance of knowledge

according to the same Spirit, to another

faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of

healing by the one Spirit, to another the

working of miracles, to another prophecy, to

another the discernment of spirits, to

another various kinds of tongues, to

another the interpretation of tongues. All

these are activated by one and the same

Spirit, who allots to each one individually

just as the Spirit chooses.

Jesus demands regeneration, and Paul exhorts believers to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom. 12.2 NASB), not by simply reading the Bible and pretending to have an imaginary relationship with Jesus. How is Christ sufficient? By reading about him in a Book? That’s preposterous!

Justin Peters, a famous expository preacher, also insists that God doesn’t communicate with anyone today. He even offers a challenge to find a single verse either in the Old Testament (OT) or the NT where anyone ever mentions that the Lord spoke to them. For starters, Scripture is filled with the expression “the LORD says” (see e.g. 1 Kgs 12.24; 21.19; Jer. 23.38; Ezek. 6.3; 20.5; Mt. 3.17; Acts 9.4-6; 13.2; Gal. 1.11-12; 2 Pet. 1.18-19) and so on and so forth. The irony is that in trying to refute the notion that God talks to people, Justin Peters ends up demonstrating the exact opposite because, apparently, God talks to him. He exclaims (emphasis added):

THE LORD IS TELLING ME TODAY

to tell you that if you feel like the Lord

might be trying to tell you something,

then he’s not trying to tell you anything.

Let me get this straight: the Lord *told him* that he *doesn’t talk* to people? Hmm. Isn’t that an oxymoron? Then he shifts to a strawman argument in which the criteria depend on one’s *certainty* of who it is that is speaking. And he furnishes us with certain examples from the OT, stating that unlike modern examples, the ancient prophets knew exactly who was speaking to them. But earlier he emphatically stated that regardless of your level of certainty, God is not speaking to you:

If you want God to speak to you dear

friends, there’s one way, I guarantee you,

you will hear God speak: read your Bible.

If you want God to speak to you audibly,

read it out loud.

(see YouTube video: https://youtu.be/7buV1Hj1pMA).

——-

Cessationist Deism

This is a deist understanding of God as a transcendent Being, wholly independent of the material universe, who isn’t accessible to creatures and doesn’t personally interact with them. So, the NT teaching that the Holy Spirit “will be in you [ἐν ὑμῖν]” (Jn 14.17, 23; cf. Rom. 8.9) is false? (cf. Titus 3.5; 1 Jn 2.27). Thus, “truth” (who is Jesus; Jn 14.6) is never inside but always outside of every believer? Of course not! In Rev. 3.20 (NLT), Jesus declares the exact opposite:

‘Look! I stand at the door and knock. If you

hear my voice and open the door, I will

come in [εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν].’

Usually, whenever a believer is regenerated by the Spirit they’ll experience at least one of his charisms (cf. Acts 2.2-4; Rom. 12.6-8). Moreover, there’s not a single verse in the NT to indicate that these phenomena were limited to the Apostolic Age. In fact, the exact opposite is true. In Acts 2.17-18 (NRSV), God promises to speak to believers “in the last days” (ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις):

‘In the last days it will be, God declares, that

I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and

your sons and your daughters shall

prophesy, and your young men shall see

visions, and your old men shall dream

dreams. Even upon my slaves, both men

and women, in those days I will pour out my

Spirit; and they shall prophesy.’

But according to cessationism, it seems that a personal relationship with Christ is equivalent to reading about him in a book. So, there’s no truth outside the Bible, no experiential relationship to God, no real spiritual insight, no miracles, no supernatural world, no signs & wonders, no changes in the personality, no religious experiences, no continuationism of the work & gifts of the Holy Spirit, nothing whatsoever. Wow! This is a form of deism, pure and simple: God doesn’t intervene in the affairs of men except through a book. Not only does this view contradict Scripture, it’s completely bogus and misinformed!

BIble Idolatry

The cessationist message seems to be that nothing happens inside of us experientially. Today, God only speaks through the Bible. They have made of the Bible an idol. And they have also broken the first Commandment: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Yet they worship the Bible! Jesus, however, poignantly rebukes such people in John 5.39 (NLT):

‘You search the Scriptures because you

think they give you eternal life. But the

Scriptures point to me!’

In short, according to cessationism, the Bible has replaced God. God can no longer speak apart from or outside the Bible. Scripture also trumps Jesus. His spiritual relationship to human beings is not direct; it is indirect via the Bible. Put differently, we no longer believe in Jesus or God (the Spirit; Jn 4.24) as realities or entities, which exist outside the Bible, with the ability to communicate and transform our lives. No! According to cessationism, they interact with us only in and through the Bible. Thus, we only believe in the literary “word” of God. These divine beings only exist inside the Bible and not apart from it. Cessationists are in love with a book, not the author of that book. Outside of that book, they don’t seem to know its author. They only meet him via that book! This is what the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura has produced. But this epistemology is completely bogus, as if God is incapable of speaking to us outside the Bible. As Jesus observes: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” (Mt. 15.8)!

——-

Conclusion

There are different types of cessationism. But even the most open-minded, which acknowledge that God *occasionally* works by supernatural means today, still limit the person & work of the Holy Spirit to a (bare) minimum. Yet every new birth is a miracle! For cessationists, belief, not experience, is the key. Therefore, we don’t need to “experience” or “know” Jesus intimately or personally. The old saying: “Taste and see that the LORD is good” (Psalm 34.8) need not apply. In this strange and demonically twisted scenario, the Bible is Lord!

This is the hallmark of a false doctrine. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the NT or with Christ’s command to love God above and beyond everything else, including books (Mk 12.30). It is not sanctioned by the Scriptures. And it is neither according to God’s word nor his will. It is a form of secularism: quasi-deism coupled with liberal theology. It’s a counterfeit Christianity! This idolatrous view is far removed from Christian teaching.

If we sum up full cessationism, and take it to its logical conclusion, it’s as if God & Jesus are simply *literary characters* in the Bible whose powers and abilities are confined and subject to the authors’ discretion. Accordingly, we don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus; we have a personal relationship with the Bible! We don’t know God apart from the Bible. That’s the cessationist message, namely, that Christianity is not a “spiritual” but rather a “literary” religion! They reduce apocalyptic & existential Christianity to literature!

And they further contradict both themselves and the Bible by stating that mystical, supernatural experiences do not exist today. So, this teaching involves not only an unwarranted epistemology——in which real, living, divine persons become reduced to literary characters——but also a self-contradictory eisegesis wherein they refute the very teaching they espouse, namely, the supernatural world of the Bible!

My question is simply this: does cessationism represent authentic Christianity? And, judging from the statements of its leading proponents, the answer is a resounding no! As 1 Thessalonians 5.19-20 (NRSV) says: “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise the words of prophets.”

—

Babel and Babylon Refer to the Same Place

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🔎

Definition & Location

Babel is a transliteration of the Hebrew word בָּבֶל (Ba-bel), while Babylon is derived from the Greek Βαβυλῶνος (Babylonos). In the Old Testament, the word “Babel” is most often translated as “Babylon” in Greek! But besides the linguistic connection, there’s further evidence that both Babel & Babylon are located in the exact same place. For example, Genesis 10.10 & 11.2 locate Babel in the land of Shinar (שִׁנְעָֽר׃). Astoundingly, Daniel 1.2 tells us that Babylon is also located in the land of Shinar (שִׁנְעָ֖ר)! This means that Babel and Babylon are synonymous or interchangeable terms!

The Septuagint & Most English Bibles Translate Babel As Babylon

The Hebrew term “Babel” is most often translated as “Babylon” (Βαβυλὼν) in the Septuagint (aka LXX; L.C.L. Brenton translation), an early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Below are the English Bible versions that *also* translate Babel as Babylon:

Gen. 10.10 (LXX, NIV); Gen. 11.9 (CSB,

HCSB, ISV); Ps. 87.4 (LXX & Most Versions);

Ps. 137.1 (LXX & Most Versions); Ps. 137.8

(LXX & Most Versions); Ezek. 12.13 (LXX &

Most Versions); Ezek. 19.9 (LXX & Most

Versions).

Even the JPS Tanakh 1917—-the Jewish Publication Society of America——often translates Babel as Babylon!

In the Greek, Babel is called Βαβυλῶνος, a term that is derived from the word Βαβυλών (Babylon). The Greek New Testament follows the Septuagint translation of rendering Babel as Babylon (see e.g. Mt 1.11-12, 17; cf. 2 Kings 24.8-10 LXX)!

Conclusion

So, if Babel & Babylon are one and the same, and if Babylon the Great——with its high towers & powerful economy——is said to be destroyed in the end-times (Rev. 18), then Babel’s apparent destruction (in Genesis 11) must also be prophetic rather than historical!

—

Know Thyself

By Author Eli Kittim

“Through the study of books one seeks God;

by meditation one finds him.”

(Padre Pio)

According to the Greek writer and geographer, Pausanias, the ancient Greek aphorism “Know Thyself” (γνῶθι σεαυτόν) was a maxim inscribed on the Temple of Apollo at Delphi. Throughout the centuries, people have studied the physical and metaphysical world through science and philosophy. But how can a person study himself or herself? By turning inward! In the Phaedo, one of Plato’s famous dialogues, Socrates explains that the senses are incapable of informing us about the true nature of reality, and thus are not to be trusted. One needs to look beyond the senses in order to find meaning and clarity. Socrates says to Simmias:

“Did you ever reach them [truths] with any

bodily sense? – and I speak not of these

alone, but of absolute greatness, and

health, and strength, and, in short, of the

reality or true nature of everything. Is the

truth of them ever perceived through the

bodily organs? Or rather, is not the nearest

approach to the knowledge of their several

natures made by him who so orders his

intellectual vision as to have the most exact

conception of the essence of each thing he

considers?”

Later in the Phaedo, Socrates begins to expound on what we today would call “silent meditation.” Remember, this is not India. This is 5th to 4th century BCE Greece! Gautama Buddha happens to be Plato’s contemporary. Socrates begins to describe the practice of meditation as follows:

“He who has got rid, as far as he can, of

eyes and ears and, so to speak, of the

whole body, these being in his opinion

distracting elements when they associate

with the soul hinder her from acquiring truth

and knowledge – who, if not he, is likely to

attain to the knowledge of true being?”

Over 500 years later, the Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus would also base his entire philosophy on meditative silence. So, given that Socrates (Plato’s teacher, who coined the phrase “Know Thyself”) lived in the 5th century BCE, it is difficult to say if this contemplative practice originated in the East or the West. Let’s not forget that Plato is deeply indebted to an older mystical philosopher named Pythagoras (6th century BCE), who was probably one of the first great and well-known mystics in the west!

Plotinus follows Socrates’ advice regarding the path to self-knowledge and the philosophy of Being. He insists that the soul must discard all form, image, and thought. It is through concentration, away from the sense world, that we reach the “One” (i.e. God). And the self discovers this when it is annihilated. In other words, a person loses his/her identity during the supreme mystical union with the “One.” it’s as if the person has been “ ‘seized’ by an elemental force and swept into liberation by mystical frenzy” (Thomas Merton). Plotinus says:

“shut your eyes . . . and wake

another way of seeing, which everyone has

but few use.”

The “awakening” in the presence of the “good” is a result that is accomplished by removing multiplicity through the process of negation (which later became known as apophatic theology). That is to say, there is a detachment from the many to the One. The disciple must proceed by way of negation. Rather than positing what the One is, the practitioner gets rid of all knowledge and begins by contemplating what the One is not. This practice has been alternatively called “silence” or “stillness.” It is a way of putting away all otherness and reaching an ineffable union with the One (or God). In the mysticism of Plotinus, the student must not chase after the good but wait quietly til it appears.

Unfortunately, since the time of the Renaissance and the Age of Reason, the contemplative aspect of the Platonic tradition is no longer discussed in modern academia. Plato is often taught as a cold, rational thinker whose insights are solely derived from discursive thought. However, Plotinus thought that he was simply clarifying Plato’s teachings. According to Wikipedia:

“Plotinus was not claiming to innovate with

the Enneads [his book], but to clarify

aspects of the works of Plato that he

considered misrepresented or

misunderstood. Plotinus

does not claim to be an innovator, but

rather a communicator of a tradition.

Plotinus referred to tradition as a way to

interpret Plato's intentions. Because the

teachings of Plato were for members of the

academy rather than the general public, it

was easy for outsiders to misunderstand

Plato's meaning.”

Plotinus lived in Alexandria, Egypt in the 3rd century CE. Over 150 years earlier, another Platonic philosopher, Philo of Alexandria, had done the same:

“Philo of Alexandria had written on some

form of ‘spiritual exercises’ involving

attention (prosoche) and concentration and

by the 3rd century Plotinus had developed

meditative techniques.”

(Wikipedia)

According to Plotinus, the One is not simply an intellectual concept but rather something that can actually be experienced; an existential experience where one goes far beyond all multiplicity. The individual eventually reaches a state of tabula rasa, a blank state where everything is deleted, so to speak, while the person merges with the One. The self is dissolved, completely absorbed into the One. But in order to reach this stage, “the Proficient’s will is set always and only inward” (Enneads I.4.11). This process eventually leads to ecstasy:

“The essentially devotional nature of

Plotinus' philosophy may be further

illustrated by his concept of attaining

ecstatic union with the One (henosis).

Porphyry relates that Plotinus attained such

a union four times during the years he knew

him. This may be related to enlightenment,

liberation, and other concepts of mystical

union common to many Eastern and

Western traditions.”

(Wiki)

In Greek, Henosis is the term for mystical "union.” In Platonism, and particularly in Neoplatonism, the aim of henosis is union with the ground of being or absolute reality: the source or the One (τὸ Ἕν):

“Henosis for Plotinus was defined in his

works as a reversing of the ontological

process of consciousness via meditation

. . . toward no thought . . . and no

division (dyad) within the individual (being).

Plotinus words his teachings to reconcile

not only Plato with Aristotle but also various

World religions that he had personal

contact with during his various travels.”

(Wiki)

Plotinus, and his successor Proclus, influenced many great philosophers and theologians, such as Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Husserl, Heidegger, Barth, Bultmann, and others. Plotinus’ meditation is not unlike that described in Ps. 62.5, which reads: “For God alone my soul waits in silence.” According to Wikipedia, “Plotinus' final words were: ‘Try to raise the divine in yourselves to the divine in the all.’ “ Meditation, therefore, is the method by which we not only grasp the essence of true Being, in the Platonic sense, but also how we find the sure way of salvation, in the Biblical sense:

“Be still, and know that I am God!”

(Psalm 46.10)