Posted on 03/08/2021 10:00:01 AM PST by inpajamas
One: The Totalitarian Temptation
In the Book of Genesis we read that the first government mentioned was one that ruled over all the people of the earth. It was one Government with one supreme ruler, over one people: A Satanic kingdom over all mankind. And the name of the place was called Babel. It was the original ‘New World Order’. The book of Daniel as well as the book of Revelation reveal the last rule of the earth also to be the same. The ambition of Satan from the beginning to the end has always been the restoration of one kingdom over all, over which, through man, Satan reigns as a king in place of Christ. This is where the world we live in today is heading. But it shall not stand.
As for the Kingdom of Babel, an early account of this original one-world order appears in the first book of the Bible. Although few details are given in the Bible, we do gather that the people of the world were one people; and they proposed to build a tower to make a name for themselves that they “be not scattered”. And the name of the place was called Babel.
Other ancient historical records hold that this kingdom was ruled by a mighty man named Nimrod. However, the end of this conquest for unity resulted in the fears of the people being realized rather than inhibiting them. For their end vision of the tower was never attained, and the people were indeed divided and scattered abroad.
In book 1, chapter 4 of, Antiquities of the Jews, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, also wrote an account of this collectivist kingdom which provides us with more insight:
“. . . Now it was Nimrod who excited them to such an affront and contempt of God. He was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah, a bold man, and of great strength of hand. He persuaded them not to ascribe it to God, as if it was through his means they were happy, but to believe that it was their own courage which procured that happiness. He also gradually changed the government into tyranny, seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God, but to bring them into a constant dependence on his [government] . . . Now the multitude were very ready to follow the determination of Nimrod, and to esteem it a piece of cowardice to submit to God . . .”
The, "man is God" concept of a one-world government at Babel was based upon dependency, answered by the power of the people as a collective under an authoritarian rule to provide the needs and desires of the society; this concept is in a word, socialism. Josephus also states that the people felt insecure and were fearful of being independent and so sought the safety and assuredness that a collective social structure promised to give, (For they determined to build a tower and make a name for themselves that they “be not scattered upon the face of the whole earth)." Josephus also notes however, that this collective society being one of dependence upon an authoritarian government, “…gradually changed…. into tyranny”, and rejected reliance upon and faith in God.
History repeatedly affirms this result: as societies tend to the collective, they dismiss God as the author of life and happiness and become dependent upon the powers that be to provide all. Putting their trust in the hands of a controlling authoritarian to manage affairs and provide security, the controlling authority gradually garners and consolidates power under the pretext of the “common good” until subjects are powerless. The end result is a corrupt oppressive totalitarian society where the government sits as "God", arbitrarily determining what are the acceptable rights of the individual and the individual’s freedom to worship God or believe anything according to his own conscience.
As a form of government, ‘One’ represents the plurality of a totalitarian system. In any form it is fascist. It is a monopoly of power on top and the subjugation of all beneath. It is the cord binding the axe with the rods to create a fasces consisting of masters, servants, and slaves. It is a synthesis of all and the suppression of nonconformity.
While the ambition of one is to reign without challenge, the seduction of one is to submit to the ruling power out of insecurity—hoping to find sufficiency in servitude, security in submission and some reward in bondage. Throughout history, civilizations, societies, and cultures have endeavored to achieve oneness, masters and slaves alike. Within them all, regardless of their time or appearance, the same motivators were at work, often causing conflicts between them. These motivators remain unchanged by time even as societies, cultures, and civilizations come and go. It is only the face of things that changes.
Today also there are entities that seek the complete surrender or total demise of all others who are contrary to them. They may come presenting themselves as cruel and fearless conquerors, or humble servants of the people. They may come in the name of love or hate. They may be practitioners of barbarity or of sophistry. Their rhetoric may either threaten, or offer salvation. Regardless, this is the nature of the totalitarian, whether the means to achieve the end is force, or seductive deception, though ultimately, they all do both. Still, the motive is always the same, “We hope some day you will join us, and the whole world will live as ‘One’.
On the side opposing the totalitarians resides those who are committed to resisting tyranny at any cost. They are almost always outnumbered; yet, they are never broken. In the end, this aspect of an unfaltering faith is the crux of the story. For Christ will return in His power and Glory to gather his people and establish his heavenly kingdom forever as One.
https://christiansjewsbiblicalnews.com/one-the-totalitarian-temptation
Indeed. Fear not. We know how it ends. He’s coming back someday. Hopefully soon!
The requirement that altars be built with natural rocks rather than hewn stone or the bricks used for the Tower of Babel is another indication that we are intended to live free and independent lives.
So the biblical account actually makes no mention of government, contrary to the opening sentence. I'm opposed to one-world government - and also to adding to scripture what isn't there.
Babel now exists. It is the internet.
Not to take away anything from what you wrote; we should be individuals; not shaped by other bricks around us so that we fit in.
“So the biblical account actually makes no mention of government, contrary to the opening sentence. I’m opposed to one-world government - and also to adding to scripture what isn’t there.”
Read more carefully. Genesis 10 gives the table of nations descending from Noah’s 3 sons.
Genesis 10:8-12 NKJV
Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, “Like Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord.” And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land he went to Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (that is the principal city).
Kingdom here is “mamlakah” in Hebrew:
mamlakah: kingdom, sovereignty, dominion, reign
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4467.htm
Nimrod, a descendent of Cush and grandson of Ham, was a king over a kingdom that included Babel.
bkmk
Good advice for the article's author, who ascribed Nimrod's kingship over Babel to "Other ancient historical records."
“Good advice for the article’s author, who ascribed Nimrod’s kingship over Babel to ‘Other ancient historical records.’”
We know a lot of ancient history from extra-biblical records. Further, much of this history helps us to better understand the Bible, especially in difficult passages that might not make sense apart from historical context.
When I read an article like this, if something does not sit right with me, I take it as an opportunity to go back and read the biblical passage. That’s what I did in this case in response to the article and your critique.
At first, I wasn’t really sure if your point was correct. I suspected it was not, but I wanted to be sure. When I read the relevant passage from the Bible I had my answer. I would advocate this approach as it is more important than a singular point of fact under dispute.
Are you certain it is not there, or is it your eyes that cannot see it?
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.