Comments on: Babylon Gets Bad Press

By: Kiskilili

Kiskilili — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 01:01:22 +0000

I don’t disagree that in the Bible Babylon became a symbol for wickedness and a foil for Zion. But the book of Daniel was written during the second century BCE, centuries after Babylon fell to the Persians, by people whose knowledge of Babylonian history was shoddy. Recall that the author of Daniel believed Nebuchadrezzar II’s son was Belshazzar; even the author of Kings knew Nebuchadrezzar II’s son was Evil-Merodach. In Daniel Darius the Mede conquers Babylon; cuneiform and classical sources, however, agree it was Cyrus the Persian. Daniel is a fabulous book. But it’s no more a primary source for Babylonian history or culture than the movie Shakespeare in Love is a source for Shakespeare’s life.

By: scott

scott — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:48:26 +0000

In christian biblical study, babylon stands for a state of confusion in Biblical truth. Read the book of Danial.

By: RS Teaching for Our Times Lesson « The Exponent

RS Teaching for Our Times Lesson « The Exponent — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:57:14 +0000

[...] 22, 2006. Filed under: Relief Society Lessons | Tags: Babylon, Elder Stone, Zion | After reading Kisikilli’s post on Babylon (which I wholeheartedly agree with), I feel a little sheepish posting this RS lesson I gave on Elder [...]

By: Kiskilili

Kiskilili — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 16:15:39 +0000

I’d like to believe I was called to bring a little Babylonian culture to the midst of Zion . . .

By: Kaimi

Kaimi — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:11:22 +0000

K.,

This one belatedly occurred to me — you know, Elder Stone recently gave a (very well received) conference talk titled “Zion in the Midst of Babylon.”

And here you are now, arguing the reverse — Babylon, in the midst of Zion.

And I think I agree with at least one of you. Maybe both. Which raises added questions: If Zion is in the midst of Babylon which is in the midst of Zion in the midst of . . . does it all become like those little Russian wooden dolls that fit inside each other, ad infinitum? Is it turtles all the way down?

By: John David Payne

John David Payne — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 22:54:31 +0000

Man, I thought this post was going to be about Iraq…

By: Kiskilili

Kiskilili — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:37:01 +0000

I completely agree, Amy–obviously the problem with Babylon was that they destroyed Jerusalem and took Israelites captive. But in addition to that, they were one of the other cultures against which Israel defined itself, and it didn’t help that they were bigger, stronger, older, and more powerful. It reminds me of the (fortunately waning?) effort to connect Catholicism to the Great and Abominable Church. Our biggest grievance against Catholics is probably similar–they’re bigger, stronger, older, and more powerful.

Nice omen, Septentrionalist. I’m not sure how Chinese “x” is pronounced (although I have a friend named Xiaoli–I just don’t think I pronounce her name right!). I think it’s something like Welsh ll.

I love it, Mark IV–watch for the Bouncer’s upcoming post on how the devil gets bad press. It’s a fair point! What makes us think Satan is the one leading us into sin and not just our own rotten selves?

By: Mark Butler

Mark Butler — Mon, 18 Sep 2006 01:49:52 +0000

Kiskilili,

I don’t think it was so much that Israel or Jerusalem were not evil in so very many cases, but rather that the wickedness of Babylon (among other nations and cities) was far worse, from their perspective at any rate. I do not think Babylon got stuck with the association for being an ancient day Salt Lake, but rather for being an ancient day Las Vegas, a literal Sin City. Yet who can deny there is sin in Salt Lake and righteousness in Las Vegas?

By: Mark IV

Mark IV — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:34:52 +0000

All I know about Babylon I learned from Age of Empires. Yesterday when I played against my son, I kept wondering if there was a secret level I was missing out on where they kept the whores who would tempt me with the wine of the wrath of their fornication. We people with boring lives need to get our cheap thrills somehow, after all.

But you’re right, Kiskilili. Babylon gets bad press because it is the stand-in for everything bad. I’ve wondered if the way we think of Satan doesn’t cause him to have a worse reputation than he deserves, too. If I know something is wrong, but I choose to do it anyway, how is it legitimate to blame it on the adversary, or the destroyer, or the father of lies? Our doctrine of agency requires us, I think, to quit blaming Mephistopheles.

By: Septentrionalist

Septentrionalist — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 22:59:47 +0000

Kiskilili, I’m sorry to hear you’re not a fan of hepatoscopy–perhaps it’s just because you’ve never tried. If you ever run across any practical courses on the subject in your studies, make sure you let me know! I have to admit, though, the misbirths are a good deal more fun. Here’s one I just dug up:

If [when viewing] a malformed newborn, its normal head is situated, but a second head protrudes from the middle of its mouth, a king will execute a king with weapons and his hand will conquer his towns, the areas around his towns, his walls, his land, and his neighboring lands.

It’s just baffling. Theoretically, you’d expect such a thing to have happened at least once for it to get recorded as an official omen. Crazy!

As for your quibble, I had in mind the rather clear prohibition in Deut 18:10–naughty by injunction (plus inherent yuckiness).

(Now that s-l interchange business is quite intriguing. Does that make Hebrew’s sin like the Chinese sound transliterated with an x? It’s between an ‘s’ and ‘sh’ with the tongue sort of curled back rather than flat. What about the samekh?)

Returning to the post (A-hem!), wouldn’t it be great to see a city with walls like Herodotus described of Babylon? In truth, though, it seems like we’re caught between demonization and hyperbole in what we learn of Babylon from antiquity.