One debater who thinks no man has landed on the Moon (and who might be or might just possibly not be right, but if not, there are questions about the Allen Belt and if any of those having landed got cancer), made the point:
"God stopped the Tower of Babel but let man land on the Moon? Yeah, right!"
Point is, I am not at all sure Tower of Babel need to have been very much more innocent than landing on Moon.
The text does not say that the council of evil men was:
"let us make a city and a tower, which may reach to heaven"
BUT
Genesis 11:4 ... "let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven" ...
Now, what is the difference between "a tower reaching to heaven" and "a tower the top of which reaches to heaven"? None if the top remains attached to the tower. But some pretty great one if the top is detachable. If "the tower" was a ramp and "the top" was a kind of rocket.
If Nimrod planned to get way past Moon and over the fixed stars ... well, if so, what God has allowed even if moon landing is true is less than what he was stopping back then.
The thing is, if Göbekli Tepe was the Tower of Babel, it looks very much more like a ramp for rocketry than like a skyscraper.
That is perhaps why the know how was scattered and hence forgotten and why "space exploration" was delayed for some millennia, if my reconstruction about Tower of Babel is the correct one.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Justin, Philosopher and Martyr
14.IV.2016
New blog on the kid
Be my - local or otherwise - editor, if you like! : Soyez mon éditeur local ou plus large, si vous voulez!
Et pour tous ceux qui voient ceci sur les ordis - que Sainte Claire prie pour vous!
No comments:
Post a Comment