MuttleyLaff:
I like how we have someone on here, who thinks he is a lot more smarter, wiser, clever, more knowledgeable, more informed than God is. I like how we have someone on here, who thinks he can teach God how to suck eggs. I like how we have someone on here, who believes all that God has done could be improved upon. I like how we have someone on here, who thinks God could have done better work at creation et cetera and so takes pleasure in reviling and slagging God off. Smh

FOLYKAZE:
Gen 11 exooses the inefficiency of God, his shortcomings, and lack of foresights, for thwarting a project which would expand his ministrations many years after.

Can't just wrap my head around it, that Muttley don't know Etemenanki Ziggurat is the Tower of Babel. It sickening, even more, that Muttley thinks the East direction implies ungodliness. To add salt to injury, muttley thinks human language was confounded at Babel, but concluded Shem and Japheth descents who were not in Babel or partook in the building of Tower, had their tongue magically confounded. He however lost along the line, when, where and how the descent of Shem and Japheth got their language confused since they weren't in Babel or partook in the building of the Tower.

Muttley baba! I hail

MuttleyLaff:
Now I am in dire need of an interlocutor, preferably an ardent supporter of 2 Timothy 2:15, to show in the Bible, where it is largely, plus clearly stated and done in detail, leaving no room, for confusion, guessing or doubt, that before the disruption, a physical structure tower, as in like, one made of straw bricks, whatnots and mortar, circa Genesis Chapter 11, ever was built. Now this request, needs to be done, without make claims outside what is black and white or even red, written in the Bible.

MuttleyLaff:


When are you going to throw your hat into the ring, roll up your sleeves, and do justice by responding to the above humble appeal?

FOLYKAZE:
Ok
Take you time tonight, read each words of Genesis 11 closely, and try to understand. Between the verses, you will find answer to your question. Please do that and get back sir

FOLYKAZE:


I honestly do not want to delve into the cultural or spiritual significance of the Etemenanki, as there is no concensus and evidences to strengthen the view.

This is why I tilted away from spiritual and cultural significance, and rather focuses more on space exploration and architectural revolution. You are the only person who see my taillight.

Check this out from Wikipedia;
Etemenanki has been suggested as a possible inspiration to the biblical story of the Tower of Babel.
According to archaeologist Harriet Crawford, "It is usually assumed that the ziggurats supported a shrine, though the only evidence for this comes from Herodotus , and physical evidence is non-existent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat

There is no evidence to show the Ziggurat serve as a shrine to Marduk.

However, there are enough evidence that the designs are not simple base but has imprints of advance mathematics and complex architecture designs which aid sky observations and city security.

jamesid29:
Well, that's a bit incorrect boss. Outside of the Bible and the history of Isreal, the civilizations that developed in ancient mesopotamia are pretty much well attested for today. Compared to other civilizations that wrote on parchment that have either been destroyed or lost, the mesopotamian region wrote on clay tablets that even survived destruction of entire cities. Today we have thousands of tablets(the library in the British museum alone has about 30,000 tablets) dating back to the 3rd millennium BC, so there's really not much question about the significance of the etemenanki(atleast not in academia).We not only have enough textual sources for the ziggurat itself but also for the accompanying temple Esagila .

I believe this is where the misunderstandings steam from. Having this mindset about the Bible and even other ancient writings would cause a couple of problems
1) Almost everything in the ancient world has spiritual significance. The idea of separating the world into spiritual and physical, supernatural and natural, is a modern concept.. ancient people didn't see the world in those terms. Removing that component from the text automatically means removing an important piece away from it and most likely reading something foreign into it.
2) Though the Bible contains many different types of literature (history, poetry, biographies, apocalyptic etc), at its very core, the Bible is a theological book. Every statement,every story, even the genealogies have a specific messaging that is being transmitted. Striping that out is to misunderstand what the text is trying to communicate.
3) All literature is written against the backdrop of the culture that it's been written in. This is very important, because to read any text with a different cultural context is to read something into it that was not intended by the author. To illustrate this:Let's say I write something to you and say "Mehn bro, that car dey fly". You automatically get what I mean cos we both have the same cultural backdrop, but someone living 2000 yrs from now can easily misunderstand that statement to mean we were talking about flying cars. This is just a very mundane illustration but i hope it helps get my point across. The context of the Bible is not the 21st century,it's not the Catholic church or the Reformation, the context of the Bible is the cultural backdrop of the biblical authors. Anything outside of that is to read something foreign into the text or to miss the point the text is trying to make.

There's alot more we can talk about how we approach the Bible and other ancient texts in general but I'm trying to limit what I write... what I can assure is that no one in the ancient world would look at a ziggurat and think of space exploration or astronomy. A ziggurat in the ancient world was part of a temple complex and was sacred space

Ok so let me try and put the statement into perspective. A temple is the abode of the deity but a shrine is where cultic rituals are performed (reenactment of sacred marriages etc). A temple might have a shrine in it but not necessarily(most ground temples have shrines). What is not being disputed is whether a ziggurat is part of a temple complex (that part is well attested for by many sources), what is being disputed is whether cultic rituals were performed at the top of the ziggurat or inside it. On one hand Herodotus is considered the father of modern history and his words carry weight but on the other hand,there's no surviving ziggurat at its full height to examine if there are any relics from rituals left behind.
You can read the whole entry of the quote you posted from Harriet Crawford's book to understand whats actually being debated "Sumer and Sumerians pp 85-88". Here's a link to where you can borrow the book for free https://archive.org/details/sumersumerian00/
Or you can also read the entire paragraph you cropped the link out from... it gives the entire context of what Harriet was saying.

Let me just add one more thing, Wikipedia is a good place to start a research on a topic or just get general information.... but caveat lector.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

I think my previous answers covers this part.
Basically all major cities in mesopotamia had temple complexes that incorporated ziggurats alongside it atleast as far back as the 3rd millennium BC. This is attested well in many ancient literatures

There's alot we can talk about the theological statement being made especially when you read the parallel accounts in Babylon literature, but to not make my post overtly long(as its too long at this point sef), I'll just try and make a very condensed version of what was going on and just touch 1 or 2 points.
1) The name of the ziggurat is Etemenanki meaning :House, foundation platform of the heaven & the underworld (earth for our understanding)
2) The name of the temple is Esagila meaning: House whose top is lofty
3) Babylon comes from the Akkadian word babili meaning: gate of the god(it's unclear whether this etymology reflect the original meaning of the name or a secondary interpretation).
The statement being made here is that the city is considered as the center of the cosmos (The place where heaven and earth meets; God's space and man's space intersect).... .To understand how this works is to understand that a ziggurat was not built for men to go up to heaven but for God to come down to earth and to reside in their midst in the temple. In the case of Babel, they were doing this not to honour God but to make a name for themselves(it's a play on the meaning of Shem). They wanted to create a symbiotic relationship with God on their own terms(this already shows they had a flawed concept about God)... This is a design pattern in the Bible called a bookend, in this case Genesis 3 and Genesis 11(paradise lost and how men are trying to regain paradise on their own terms out of pride).
God does come down with his entourage, then not only does he scatter them since they refuse to do that on their own but also disinherits the nations (Deut 32:8 ) since they were bent on renegading against Him. He then calls a man out of the same mesopotamia in the very next story and promises to make his name great and through his seed bless all the nations on the earth.
From this man comes the nation of Israel (who were meant to be a priest to the nations; God never left the nations without a witness)... From them comes the first time God dwells with people since Gen 3(the tarbancle and later the temple), which was always the plan. Later comes Jesus Christ, through whose sacrifice launches the new temple and grafting of all the nations back into the fold. That's the story in a nutshell...
There's a lot more to be said but there are already some really good answers here. I believe O\femmanu1 has some good answers that can help fill in some of the gaps.
There's still some debate on whether the biblical account is a polemic against Babylonian conception of the world or whether it's aimed at humanity in general. In either case though, the major theological messaging doesn't change much.

A lot of ancient structures were not simple but were advanced architectural design from Egypt to Rome to China etc. That doesn't change what their purpose was for.

MuttleyLaff:
[img]https://s1/images/MuttAmin.gif[/img]
TKO cognitive decline!
Nothing other than a precious time stealer, precious time waster and precious time killer, all rolled into one. Yinmu. Mtcheew. KMT

FOLYKAZE:
[s]You have a lot to learn from jamesid29. You and Maximus69 have killed the vibes on this section honestly. See the topics making it to front page on Sundays, scanty and lacks deep contents. I believe you can up your game though.....

That aside, have you read the passage I asked you to read....? So we can progress[/s]

MuttleyLaff:
When are you going to start not taking things personally, hmm?. Only HSP (i.e. highly sensitive person) behave this way. It is not a disorder, but it is majorly a symptom display of superficiality.

Have you read the four few easy, simple, direct and straightforward questions, I'll like jamesid29 responding to, and respond to, by giving the answers back, in the same numbered format, order and style they are asked?

Do you know that, its a hardest thing of all, to find a Tower of Babel black cat, in a dark room, especially if there is no Tower of Babel cat, in the first place, to be found?

You're a fantasist with delusions of grandeur, a mere ideologue. I am waiting for you and jamesid29 to "fact check" me, which I know youse never will, because the absolute truth is "inconvenient" for youse to take in and your weak stomachs to comfortably retain

MuttleyLaff:
When are you going to start not taking things personally, hmm?. Only HSP (i.e. highly sensitive person) behave this way. It is not a disorder, but it is majorly a symptom display of superficiality.

Have you read the four few easy, simple, direct and straightforward questions, I'll like jamesid29 responding to, and respond to, by giving the answers back, in the same numbered format, order and style they are asked?

Do you know that, its a hardest thing of all, to find a Tower of Babel black cat, in a dark room, especially if there is no Tower of Babel cat, in the first place, to be found?

You're a fantasist with delusions of grandeur, a mere ideologue. I am waiting for you and jamesid29 to "fact check" me, which I know youse never will, because the absolute truth is "inconvenient" for youse to take in and your weak stomachs to comfortably retain

FOLYKAZE:
Don't make it personal, you always go for the neck, I don't know why this.

Why can't you be original or use another phrase, instead of mindlessly parroting same word and expression I used on you, hmm?

[img]https://s7/images/MuttleyLaffJagaban.jpg[/img]
I normally suffer "the-not-in-know" gladly, but someone like you, who, in the first place, should know certain things as like about the "Tower of Babel" et cetera and even more for refusing to know better, I come hard on. I make no apology for playing hard or even about going for the jugular.

If you cant stand the pressure and/or sight of blood, then please wisely step back, gerrout and dont slam the door shut

FOLYKAZE:
Please read through Genesis 11:2-9 and you will find your answer therein. Please comply with my instructions.

jamesid29:

Well, that's a bit incorrect boss. Outside of the Bible and the history of Isreal, the civilizations that developed in ancient mesopotamia are pretty much well attested for today. Compared to other civilizations that wrote on parchment that have either been destroyed or lost, the mesopotamian region wrote on clay tablets that even survived destruction of entire cities. Today we have thousands of tablets(the library in the British museum alone has about 30,000 tablets) dating back to the 3rd millennium BC, so there's really not much question about the significance of the etemenanki(atleast not in academia).We not only have enough textual sources for the ziggurat itself but also for the accompanying temple Esagila .

jamesid29:
I believe this is where the misunderstandings steam from. Having this mindset about the Bible and even other ancient writings would cause a couple of problems
1) Almost everything in the ancient world has spiritual significance. The idea of separating the world into spiritual and physical, supernatural and natural, is a modern concept.. ancient people didn't see the world in those terms. Removing that component from the text automatically means removing an important piece away from it and most likely reading something foreign into it.
2) Though the Bible contains many different types of literature (history, poetry, biographies, apocalyptic etc), at its very core, the Bible is a theological book. Every statement,every story, even the genealogies have a specific messaging that is being transmitted. Striping that out is to misunderstand what the text is trying to communicate.
3) All literature is written against the backdrop of the culture that it's been written in. This is very important, because to read any text with a different cultural context is to read something into it that was not intended by the author. To illustrate this:Let's say I write something to you and say "Mehn bro, that car dey fly". You automatically get what I mean cos we both have the same cultural backdrop, but someone living 2000 yrs from now can easily misunderstand that statement to mean we were talking about flying cars. This is just a very mundane illustration but i hope it helps get my point across. The context of the Bible is not the 21st century,it's not the Catholic church or the Reformation, the context of the Bible is the cultural backdrop of the biblical authors. Anything outside of that is to read something foreign into the text or to miss the point the text is trying to make.

There's alot more we can talk about how we approach the Bible and other ancient texts in general but I'm trying to limit what I write... what I can assure is that no one in the ancient world would look at a ziggurat and think of space exploration or astronomy. A ziggurat in the ancient world was part of a temple complex and was sacred space

jamesid29:
Ok so let me try and put the statement into perspective. A temple is the abode of the deity but a shrine is where cultic rituals are performed (reenactment of sacred marriages etc). A temple might have a shrine in it but not necessarily(most ground temples have shrines). What is not being disputed is whether a ziggurat is part of a temple complex (that part is well attested for by many sources), what is being disputed is whether cultic rituals were performed at the top of the ziggurat or inside it. On one hand Herodotus is considered the father of modern history and his words carry weight but on the other hand,there's no surviving ziggurat at its full height to examine if there are any relics from rituals left behind.
You can read the whole entry of the quote you posted from Harriet Crawford's book to understand whats actually being debated "Sumer and Sumerians pp 85-88". Here's a link to where you can borrow the book for free https://archive.org/details/sumersumerian00/
Or you can also read the entire paragraph you cropped the link out from... it gives the entire context of what Harriet was saying.

jamesid29:
Let me just add one more thing, Wikipedia is a good place to start a research on a topic or just get general information.... but caveat lector.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

jamesid29:
I think my previous answers covers this part.
Basically all major cities in mesopotamia had temple complexes that incorporated ziggurats alongside it atleast as far back as the 3rd millennium BC. This is attested well in many ancient literatures

There's alot we can talk about the theological statement being made especially when you read the parallel accounts in Babylon literature, but to not make my post overtly long(as its too long at this point sef), I'll just try and make a very condensed version of what was going on and just touch 1 or 2 points.
1) The name of the ziggurat is Etemenanki meaning :House, foundation platform of the heaven & the underworld (earth for our understanding)
2) The name of the temple is Esagila meaning: House whose top is lofty
3) Babylon comes from the Akkadian word babili meaning: gate of the god(it's unclear whether this etymology reflect the original meaning of the name or a secondary interpretation).
The statement being made here is that the city is considered as the center of the cosmos (The place where heaven and earth meets; God's space and man's space intersect).... .To understand how this works is to understand that a ziggurat was not built for men to go up to heaven but for God to come down to earth and to reside in their midst in the temple. In the case of Babel, they were doing this not to honour God but to make a name for themselves(it's a play on the meaning of Shem). They wanted to create a symbiotic relationship with God on their own terms(this already shows they had a flawed concept about God)... This is a design pattern in the Bible called a bookend, in this case Genesis 3 and Genesis 11(paradise lost and how men are trying to regain paradise on their own terms out of pride).

jamesid29:
God does come down with his entourage, then not only does he scatter them since they refuse to do that on their own but also disinherits the nations (Deut 32:8 ) since they were bent on renegading against Him. He then calls a man out of the same mesopotamia in the very next story and promises to make his name great and through his seed bless all the nations on the earth.
From this man comes the nation of Israel (who were meant to be a priest to the nations; God never left the nations without a witness)... From them comes the first time God dwells with people since Gen 3(the tarbancle and later the temple), which was always the plan. Later comes Jesus Christ, through whose sacrifice launches the new temple and grafting of all the nations back into the fold. That's the story in a nutshell...
There's a lot more to be said but there are already some really good answers here. I believe O\femmanu1 has some good answers that can help fill in some of the gaps.
There's still some debate on whether the biblical account is a polemic against Babylonian conception of the world or whether it's aimed at humanity in general. In either case though, the major theological messaging doesn't change much.

jamesid29:
A lot of ancient structures were not simple but were advanced architectural design( from Egypt to Rome to China etc). That doesn't change what their purpose was for.

FOLYKAZE:


Ok

Take you time tonight, read each words of Genesis 11 closely, and try to understand. Between the verses, you will find answer to your question. Please do that and get back sir

petra1:


Why not quote it out.

petra1:
Why not quote it out.

FOLYKAZE:
MuttleyLaff is my pal, not my student. If he want answers to a question, I will guide him into seeing the answer himself, rather than held him reciting A for Apple, B for Ball. Let him read Genesis 11:2-9, he will find his needed answers there.

MuttleyLaff:
What dont you understand in, here are a few easy, simple, direct and straightforward questions, I'll like you responding to, and respond to, by giving your answers back, in the same numbered format, order and style they are asked, hmm?

It is you. You give your answer(s), not me, because I am not out to find answer(s), that I already know nor find answers I am aware of, but I want you and jamesid29 to give me your unmistakable answers, to the four easy, simple, direct and straightforward questions, I'll like you both responding to, and respond to, by giving your answers back, in the same numbered format, order and style they are asked.

Is that too hard or too much a simple request to ask youse ni? I, being a fair minded person, have even been kind, charitable and generous enough, to leave behind four references to make life easier for youse to review before youse are set to give your answers

FOLYKAZE:


Mr, yes I assume you are an adult male human, can you please stop answering questions with another question? It makes you appear directionless like an headless chicken.

I asked, why should God be given glory for what he didn't do by himself? It's like giving the glory for inventing airplane to God, when in fact, it is the Wright brothers who designed and innovated airplanes.... Please address the question..

As for what you asked, life is not giving it is procreate through sexual reproductions or cellular replication. Chikena.


Now address the question; why should God be given glory for what he didn't do by himself? It's like giving the glory for inventing airplane to God, when in fact, it is the Wright brothers who designed and innovated airplane.

FOLYKAZE:

I am not offended. I am in the game way too long, and understand that when religious folks are cornered like you are, they either hide their head like ostrich or resort to argumentum ad hominem. We don see plenty.

FOLYKAZE:

It is God's plan, according to Genesis 1, that man should multiply and dominion world over.

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Multiplication and domination can only be achieved through integration and migration. These are characterised in Genesis 10. They integrated, procreate, dominate and spread out into different countries and nations. It is important to note that, part of their domination of the sky is in the city of babel and tower.

Most importantly, multiplication and domination is not forfeited in dwelling municipality and metropolis. I bet, you are living today in the city, instead of dwelling in the villa where you descended from.

Genesis 1 does not tell us if city dwelling is wrong, as city dwelling contributes to multiplication and domination of human.

So tell sir, these people wanted to become city dwellers but God wanted them to wander around like animals in the bush. Is it God idea that human should live in isolation?

FOLYKAZE:

There is no correlations. While both Gen 5 and Gen 10 contain genealogy, the former entails generations from Adam to sons of Noah, while the later details the table of nations descending from the sons of Noah.

In Gen 5, the generation were single persons, Gen 10 deals with nations and countries/race. The nations in Gen 10 already in different clan under different languages (notice; plural).

Genesis 10 indeed reveal that there are nations, descending from the sons of Noah, speaking different languages. If human lived in different nations, then they are not in anyway isolated. As a matter of fact, they easily multiply and dominate their environment through grouping as they did in Babel. Dispersion, as against city dwelling, isolation which regress multiplication and domination.

Ofemmanu1:

Jesus died for the sins of the world.
He died on the cross of Calvary.
He arose again on the third day.

Those three lines are real bro.
Evidences are all over.
Just think about it.

FOLYKAZE:


Space exploration is not rebellious. Building edifice and skyscraper is not evil. These only show our brilliance and innovative minds, and God suppose to appreciate that. Also should apologize for despising our ideas which have helped his ministrations.

A woman would set foot on moon in 2024. Imagine we have a base on moon. Imagine sex on the moon? The sky is not out limit, the vastness of space and universe is up to us to conquer.

A God should always have foresight. Omo buruku lojo ti re.

FOLYKAZE:


Oh well, you are opening more doors into the discourse, but the doorways lead to the room I desired to cool off.

The tablets and records found from the excavation of Babylon didn't puncture on the spiritual importance of Etemenanki. While the clay tablets found at the foundation base of the Tower tell us about measurements, and functions of each courtrooms, there is nothing spectacular in it attributing the tower as a worship centre of Marduk. The absence of evidence, signifying that Marduk is worshipped in Etemenanki stamped down all spiritual attributions to the tower.

The temple of Marduk in Babylon was called Esagila, "the temple that raises its head." It was built from the foundation to basement by Esarhaddon, king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. And the construction was fully completed by Nebuchadnezzar II. The temple comprises of a large court, containing a smaller court, and finally the central shrine, consisting of an anteroom and the inner sanctum which contained the statues of Marduk and his consort Sarpanit. Esagila is standalone structure, located at the south of Etemenanki. All rituals, rites, and occultic practises for Marduk happen only in Esagila, putting away any spiritual significance of Etemenanki.

jamesid29:
To understand how this works is to understand that a ziggurat was not built for men to go up to heaven but for God to come down to earth and to reside in their midst in the temple

Brilliant inputs, though I largely do not agree with it.

1. A phenomenon is like a coin, having two sides which is aptly defined on either sides, and can loose it substance from poor background. I once read a piece from Prof. Ze'ev Herzog, he is an Israeli archeologist, professor of archaeology at the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures at Tel Aviv University. Base on the summary of his work published in the Haaretz newspaper, he presented a polarity framework putting spiritual importance and archaeological understanding of the Exodus at two opposing sides. Factoring spiritual importance of the exodus present the account as truth, meanwhile archaeology evidences showcase the exodus is fiction. There might be spiritual significance to the Etemenanki project, but there is no evidence justifying spiritual essence of the building.

2. The OP does not completely eliminate the spiritual virtue of the Tower, according to the Bible. However, the Bible didn't specifically mention that the tower is worship centre for tutelage deity Marduk. It didn't specifically mention the any spiritual essence or purposes of the the tower. I, rather stated that I tilted toward architecture revolution and space exploration, as pointed out by Diodorus Siculus in his work, Book II, 7-10, it is recorded that "The temple of Bel erected in the center of the city ... was extraordinarily high ... and the Chaldeans did their astronomical work there."
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/2A*.html

3. I had wish there is any evidence from the Bible, an account from the Hebrew, mentioning spiritual essence of the Tower. There is none also from the clay tablets of the Mesopotamians. The popular Esagila tablet only pointed to the spiritual significance of the Esagila temple, serving as the ritual centre for cult practices.

I had wish to read the referenced book, the link is broken, it is leads nowhere.

Esagila is the known temple of Marduk... Borsippa, another Ziggurat thought to be the the tower of babel, is a religious edifice in honour of the local god Nabu, the son of Marduk. Please tell us sir, what deity Etemenanki is dedicated to.

I know and agree largely with you on this. However, information sourced from wiki has not been debunked yet and very tenable for the moment

FOLYKAZE:

Please understand that Esagali is a distinct structure, serving the purpose of religious rituals, deity veneration and occultic practises of Marduk. It is sited at the south of Etemenanki, separated at some distance. Another Ziggurat is Borsippa, previously thought is the tower of babel, is a religious edifice in honour of the local god Nabu, son of Marduk. However, there is no information from Babylonia sources, Greek sources, archaeological resources, and Bible attributing or dedicating Etemenanki as the religious centre of worship of any known deity.

You mentioned many times, heaven (sky or astro), cosmos and yet did not see the astronomical imprints in the Tower. Did you not see the astrological essence too?

https://nekaal.org/observer/ar/ObserverArticle234.pdf

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1951IrAJ....1..197F

https://www.livius.org/articles/person/kidinnu-the-chaldaeans-and-babylonian-astronomy/

Please don't make it more complex than it is now. The only known temple dedicated for the worship of Marduk is Esagali. Deut 32 is another head aching subject when compared with Urgarit texts.

However, information from Babylonia sources, Greek sources, Hebrew sources, and archaeological evidences buttresses that Bible is a polemic against Babylon.

Esagali tablet is a neo-Babylonian mathematical text, spelling out advance mathematics and architectural designs, which helped Nebuchadrezzar II reconstructed Etemenanki.

https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/esagila-tablet

MuttleyLaff:
For where. The guy is not just only a vocal ignorant, but on top, is acting IGNORANT just for "... front page on Sundays ..." views!

Ignorance and arrogance are a lethal combination, so I am not surprised at FOLYKAZE et al, pontificating about the Tower of Babel and be so absorbed with it but unfortunately clearly and totally oblivious to the biblical fact, that the tower per se, circa Genesis 11:2-9 was never built



You and your high horse, hmm.

So, smh, when are you going to learn how to get down and/or jump off this high horse you've climbed yourself on, hmm? Awodi (i.e. black kite) that thinks, its an eagle and so wants badly, be identified as eagle

You, of course, ọrẹ mi, are my buddy, but I'll tell you this for free, you are also soot, that thinks its snowflake, smh. The readership can see right through you, that, you are nondescript soot, and so, a dangerous mixture of several carcinogenic chemicals

Judybash93:


Sex on the moon might not be the most enjoyable experience due to less gravity i presume.

FOLYKAZE:
Mr muttley, shey I offend you before ni? You are taking this personal.

Remember the question was first directed at jamesid29. I only interjected to save you, as asking kindergarten question can be embarrassing sometimes. I do not want to drill you.... Not today, not tomorrow. Please keep calm, take a deeo breathe.

FOLYKAZE:
This is just a discussion, Seun no dey pay us for posting, let's have fun ok?

FOLYKAZE:
If you had read through Genesis 11:2-9, you would saw Genesis 11:5

And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the children of men built.

New King James Version
But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built.

It states, they Lord came down to see the city and Tower which the son of men had built... They don build am, physical structure, standing gidigba in Mesopotamia for many thousands years.

FOLYKAZE:
Have I served you sir? Forgive if I offend you with my foot dragging

Judybash93:


Which evidence sir? I'll like to know

Ofemmanu1:



The followers of Jesus said he had risen from the dead. They reported that he appeared to them during a period of forty days, showing himself to them by many ‘convincing proofs’ (Acts 1:3, some versions say ‘infallible proofs’). Paul the apostle said that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of his followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and could confirm what Paul had written (1 Corinthians 15:3–.

A.M. Ramsey writes: ‘I believe in the Resurrection, partly because a series of facts are unaccountable without it.’[1] The empty tomb was ‘too notorious to be denied.’
Paul Althaus states that the resurrection ‘could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned.’

[2] Paul L. Maier concludes: ‘If all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement.’

Then how can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by a natural cause?

Based on overwhelming historical evidence, Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties.

The situation at the tomb after the resurrection is significant. The Roman seal was broken, which meant automatic crucifixion upside down for those who did it.
The large stone was moved up and away from not just the entrance, but from the entire massive sepulcher, looking as if it had been picked up and carried away.[4] The guard unit had fled. Justin in his Digest 49.16 lists eighteen offenses for which a guard unit could be put to death. These included falling asleep or leaving one’s position unguarded.

The theories advanced to explain the resurrection from natural causes are weak; they actually help to build confidence in the truth of the resurrection.

The Wrong Tomb
A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported the body missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to confirm the women’s statement must also have gone to the wrong tomb. We can be certain, however, that the Jewish authorities, who had asked for that Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent the body from being stolen, wouldn’t have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there.

If a wrong tomb were involved, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor of a resurrection.

Swoon Theory
Popularized by Venturini several centuries ago and often quoted today, the swoon theory says that Jesus didn’t really die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought him dead, but later he was resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection.

The skeptic David Friedrich Strauss – himself no believer in the resurrection – gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus merely revived from a swoon:

‘It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulcher, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to his sufferings, could have given the disciples the impression that he was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship.’[5]

The Body Stolen
Another theory maintains that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept (Matthew 28:1–15). The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything like that.

J.N.D. Anderson has been dean of the faculty of law and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London. Commenting on the proposition that the disciples stole Christ’s body, he says: ‘This would run totally contrary to all we know of them: their ethical teaching, the quality of their lives, their steadfastness in suffering and persecution. Nor would it begin to explain their dramatic transformation from dejected and dispirited escapists into witnesses whom no opposition could muzzle.’[6]

The theory that the Jewish or Roman authorities moved Christ’s body is no more reasonable an explanation for the empty tomb than theft by the disciples. If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it was, why didn’t they just produce the body when the disciples began preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem? Why didn’t they recover the corpse, put it on a cart, and wheel it through the center of Jerusalem? Such an action would certainly have destroyed Christianity.

Dr John Warwick Montgomery comments: ‘It passes the bounds of credibility that the early Christians could have manufactured such a tale and then preached it among those who might easily have refuted it simply by producing the body of Jesus.


In Summary.

Where is the body?!
The Roman empire as it Italians today can get anybody to talk if they desired.
Theyve fried men alive, performed unimaginable painful toutures on men..

BUT nobody talked!
All his disciples were murdered, mutillated, stoned to death and all sort BUT nobody says otherwise simply because the truth is
;Jesus had resurrected!

Now think about it.

jamesid29:
Cc MuttleyLaff
So for some reason, you've kept on mentioning me continuously on this thread even though I've not replied.

jamesid29:
For most people, after one or two mentions they move on, but not you. It seems you're either bent on picking a fight or you feel the need to showcase yourself.

You are too small to our number, for me to pick a fight with you. You are inconsequential, you are in no way important, for me, to feel having any ludicrous need to showcase myself. You are a small bore so please stop unnecessarily thinking too highly of yourself

If you really must know, why I keep the mentions on, it is because I have an aversion to amateurism, mediocrities, show of indifference(s), ignoramuses, lack of regard for truth especially lack of regard for easily fact-checked biblical truth, gratuitous detachment from biblical fact et cetera and so will often heavily and close markedly, as if like a ton of bricks, come down, on someone like you, an archetype of Nicodemus, teacher of Israel, yet dont know or understand these things (i.e. John 3:10) Smh KMT

jamesid29:
[s]Anyways, why have I not replied?
1) I've literally not had the time. As you can see alot of time has gone into the conversation with the OP

2) It was a bit presumptuous on your part to think you can roll out a list of questions and people will just start rushing to answer them. This is not a classroom and not everyone is trying to prove something on this platform. If you want to join a conversation, you should state your point/objections, or you ask a straightforward question if that was your aim. You don't list out a bunch questions with conditions and expect people to rush at it... Nobody has time for that.

3) Even if I had the inclination of engaging, the thought of chasing you up and down the conversation, you making wild claims that you can't substantiate and when you're caught in a corner, you muddy the waters, grasp at other irrelevant things and so on, isn't just appealing to me at the moment. Maybe on something more important but not on this. You want to believe that they only had the thought of building the city & tower but never got to the actual building part, that's fine by me[/s].

jamesid29:
NB: Springboarding on my third point above, You really need to learn how to control your emotions. You can't be blowing hot everytime even sometimes when there's no provocation.

jamesid29:
This pride thing you've got going on also is a problem that you need to think about working on. You need to realise that there's alot you don't and that's fine because it's part of the job description. Life is a constant series learning and relearning... It's ok to be wrong, we just go back to the drawing board and relearn. But once you let pride be your driving force especially when it comes to matters of faith, you not only limit yourself (it's hard to fill a cup that's already full), you are also a danger to others. Someone who does not know better might mistake your overconfidence for knowledge and when you're wrong about something important, you drag those people along with you.

jamesid29:
Something to think about...it is well with us.

jamesid29:


Conclusion: The believe that the temple and ziggurat of Babylon were created at the beginning of history lent them a mythological status. Enuma Elish presents the ziggurat and temple at the center of the universe lying between heaven and earth. Similar cosmic view of this also appears in other mesopotamia text like the other two I gave and some other priestly literatures. The name of the ziggurat alone Etemenanki: "THE FOUNDATION OF HEAVEN AND EARTH" already tells you that in the ancient Babylonian mind, this is the place where heaven and earth meets. This is where God's space and man's space intersect... It doesn't get more spiritual than that.

jamesid29:
Ok so, a couple of things we have to correct here.
1) The temple and ziggurat are inextricably linked. You can't have a ziggurat without a temple.
2)The temple and ziggurat was not built by Esarhaddon. In the Babylonian conception, this was done by the gods at the dawn of history but in reality it's safe to push them to the time of Hammurabi(1792-1750 BC). It was built upon by later kings, destroyed by rival nations, rebuilt by subsequent kings up until the time of Nebuchadnezzar II(who finished the enlargement and restoration work after 43yrs), and it was destroyed again after him around 538 BC. Alexander the Great wanted to rebuild it but he kinda made things worse because he took down the entire structure but never got to the rebuilding part.
3) Etemenanki was connected with Esagila by a triple gate. A larger gate in the east connected the Etemenanki with the sacred procession road(all this is confirmed by archeological works). I was very careful about my language in my previous post so you don't conflat my words. If you check my post, I was always specific that the ziggurat was part of the temple complex... Because it's usually a complex and not just one building.

jamesid29:
2) Diodorus lived in the 30's BC, 100s of years after the ziggurat has been destroyed. If we can't trust what Herodotus who lived when the temple tower was still standing says, we wouldn't trust Diodurus who lived long after it was destroyed. We don't have any ancient source that attest to it (and we have alot of ancient literatures)

jamesid29:



Ha, I see where some of the misunderstandings comes from;Because of the statement of heaven and earth. The thing is your thinking of it through the lens of a 21st century person. Ancient people had a different understanding of what that means... Its a different rabbit hole though.
Hope some of this materials might help..
https://bibleproject.com/explore/heaven-earth/
https://youtu.be
A very short video but this guys are quite good in compressing good scholarly work into 6min videos.
Also, the book(Lambert's) I mentioned in the other post drills down into.

jamesid29:
I've read them but I do not see any mention of the ziggurats being places for astronomical work.
They are just talking about how versed the Babylonians were in astrology and stuff, which is something well attested for in many ancient documents. Matter of fact Pythagoras theorem was developed in mesopotamia long before Pythagoras discovered. Its just a modern conception that ancient people were dumb cavemen, but nothing is further from the truth. Our brains are the same and they did alot of amazing things that still stumps us till date.
But again, we are talking about two different things.

jamesid29:
Well it's connected connected to the story. Its another design pattern of the Bible... the scholarly term is called intertextuality but I prefer to call them hyperlinks because they work like webpage links. Basically the biblical authors use certain words or string of ideas that hyperlink you to another part of the Bible and it keeps going back and forth. The thing is we usually tend to miss them because we were not taught how to parse them. Basically the Bible is one unified story from genesis to revelation ultimately pointing to Jesus.
In this case Deut 32:8 hyperlinks to Gen 11, then a couple of hyperlinks go throughout the Bible till we land at Acts 3 and the Pentecost story(which was basically the reversing of what happened in Gen 11).
Actually one of the reasons I'm rarely post is because when I think of all the matrix of ideas that needs to be written to drill down into giving an answer, I go just tire.
Like I mentioned before, the Bible is simple enough that even a child can read it and get the main idea and come to salvation but at the same time complex enough that you can spend a full year on just a couple of verses... I know of a lady whose entire theises was on just a one verse of the Bible "thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain".
Personally I don't know of any connection between Deut 32 and Ugaritic text though. Maybe you can pass along some sources

jamesid29:
I'm not sure what you mean here

MuttleyLaff:


What we needed to know/see about tower, whether it really was structurally or physically built, was revealed in Genesis 11:8-9, so just follow me through to the end, as I'll explain.

Now here are the cogent points FOLYKAZE:
1/ Isn't it ironic that neither you and jamesid29 have come back, to say if or not, you're familiar with the Hebrew word "amar"
2/ Isn't it strange, that if your answer was to #1 above, then why couldn't either of youse convey in words what "amar" means then?
3/ I am a honourable man, my word is gold. I promised that for every bible verse text you posit, I would counter with stronger bible text, that shows that no physical structure tower was built. This I intend to do and/or make sure I deliver on my word

You made a feeble attempt of providing bible text that largely, plus clearly states and done in detail, leaving no room, for confusion, guessing or doubt, that a physical structure tower was built. Your proof is a sorry looking at Genesis 11:5. The thing is had it being you and jamesid27 havent buried your heads in the sand, over the meaning and/or implication of the word "amar" as if like ostriches, you both wouldn't be enjoying a mutual masturbation and prolonged incongruous ridiculous and wildly unreasonable activity moved into the realms of fantasy on steroids

If you keep shading and indirectly sending away every person who challenges you, you will never grow. Some very few people, are in your life to sharpen you, but don't because someone is fanning your fantasy, make a very wrong person, your ally and/or best friend!

4/ Now here is the thing FOLYKAZE, I am a very coherent person, and so I am fully aware that inconsistency is a disorderly representation of a set of associated elements. Biblical consistency is very important, especially for an astute and ardent person who is a stickler to 2 Timothy 2:15

"³ And they said (i.e. ''amar'') one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.
⁴ And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
⁵ And the Lord came down to see the city and a tower,, which the children of men builded.
⁶ And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
⁷ Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
⁸ So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city (i.e. but unmistakably no mention of left off building a tower)
⁹ Therefore is the name of it called Babel; (i.e. the city but not the tower, also no mention again of tower) because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth."
- Genesis 11:3-9

The Bible follows the definition and rule of consistency in writing. You posited Genesis 11:5, I will add Genesis 11:4 to help you make up the consistency, now here is the clincher and me making good on my word, to counter whatever you bring forward, and that which I bring, is Genesis 11:8-9. As a clever, smart and cerebral person that you are FOLYKAZE, you would have thought something significant, audacious, bold, impressive in appearance, an eye-catching, spectacular, and imposing structure tower would merit a consistent mentioning in the winding down closing moments of the narrative, but alas, no it doesnt. What do we have FOLYKAZE?. What we have, is an inconsistency of a set of associated elements. The tower was not mentioned ever, going forward of Genesis 11:4-5, because just as I had from the onset advanced, it was a thought, that never saw the light of day, talkless had the chance to get feet off the ground and be built. God didnt waste time in scuttling the plan of building the accursed tower. The inconsistency is evident in Genesis 11:8-9. The silence of not mentioning the tower, speaks volume and corroborates the fact that it wasn't built.

Notice in Genesis 11:8, that city is mentioned, but unmistakably, no mention of left off building a tower. Also notice in Genesis 11:9, its the city, that is called Babel, not the tower, and also, no mention again, of tower. Very inconsistent indeed and not stating the same set of associated elements throughout. This is for a very good reason, because the tower was not physically built.[/size]

No, not all, you havent in the least served or offended me, but all you and jamesid29 are doing, is just playing to your fantasies, whims and caprices. I am sorry if either of youse are offended at me, for being blunt and not calling a spade a hoe, so pardon me FOLYKAZE, for using your "it is what it is" catchphrase

Csonice1:


Let me establish a few points here.
Life is given; even Eve knows more than you on that topic (genesis4). if you were to be on a life support, you have to be very, very arrogant if you don't acknowledge the provision of anyone who could pay for whatever it takes to keep you alive. Your success was only possible because he/she was there for you.

A young man was called upon to honour those who were behind his success and he said(fuming angrily) :
"Dad, mum, you have no hand in my success, all you did for me was to give birth to me, cater for my basic needs, buy books for me, take me to school, help me with topics that I could not understand in class, (in other words you did all that good parents do for their children) but you neglected one part; you didn't write the exam for me! I wrote it myself.... I will not acknowledge your...!!
(The principal took the mic from him and apologized to the audience: perhaps the euphoria has gotten into the poor child's brain)

God has always been faithful on His own part; and has failed in none. The problem is the stiff-necked character of those who don't love him.

It takes great understanding to give Glory to God. David walked in this dimension, from the killing of the bear, lion, Goliath, and his victories in life, even his offering: and God rewarded him for it.

1Chronicles29:11-16
11 Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.
12 Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might; and in thine hand it is to make great, and to give strength unto all.
13 Now therefore, our God, we thank thee, and praise thy glorious name.
14 But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee.
15 For we are strangers before thee, and sojourners, as were all our fathers: our days on the earth are as a shadow, and there is none abiding.
16 O LORD our God, all this store that we have prepared to build thee an house for thine holy name cometh of thine hand, and is all thine own."

In later in history; ancient Babylonia we see a man, nebucadnezzer, who did not Glorify God; making the same mistake of humanity in Genesis11:1-9, we all know what happened to him.(read Daniel4)


I didn't expect you to be offended either, but to be enlightened. In as much as I have to be modest, I also have to be honest.
A man went drunk to a feast of people of great authority, power, wealth and influence. He didn't go there to rejoice with them that celebrate but to ignorantly throw accusations at the hosts ; they could have done worse to him but they said" all that we've been saying are not understood by him, for he is drunk and doesn't know what he is doing.let's gently lead him outside the gate"
When the man stood up @ the gate he said " I've been doing this for so long... we don see plenty"
How funny!


Firstly, I thought I said "start from Genesis1" not read only Genesis1.(well I will still check to make sure)
God's plan for humanity was blessing; multiplication and dominion; infact he put them in the best place ever, they failed him but he still had mercy on those who turned to him;and humbled those who are lawless
by thwarting their plans ( so that they won't ask: why didn't He stop us? Since,He has foresight and power and we were ignorant).

Humanly speaking; only one natural disaster can wipe off your entire model city dwellers.
However, God has no business with your city dwelling theory, it makes no difference where you live.
They we're not the first to build cities neither were they the last. Cain built; he was not queried for it, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, etc even today.
I think humans can do better than wandering like animals; because they aren't animals; but the image of God in wisdom: they've already proven to you that they can do better than what you think; their destiny is not to lurk in an archaic ziggurat.
If it was space exploration that they were after as you claim, a wise man could have told them to explore the Earth first; they don't know anything about the Earth and they are talking about astronomy. They were like an ignorant man kept in a room furnished and nice, but his ambition kept him oblivious of his own home and got him jumping accross the neighbors fence. What he was going to steal was not the problem; he may not even steal enough to make him rich. But his ingratitude needs to be corrected.



Biblical genealogies are like separate books on their own, they are focused and not limited by events recorded in other chapters.While Genesis5 went back to CHAPTER1, Genesis10 went far into chapter 11. [ If what you mean is that all events in Chapter10 happened before chapter11; you might as well read 1chronicles3 & CHAPTER4.]. Let me also establish that Genesis11:1-9 is like a flash back, a reminder of why things are the way they are; and in verse 10 genealogy continues; a lot more detailed,traced down from shem(10:21) to Abraham
Now, concerning multiplication and dominion: you have no part in this. No knowledge whatsoever, even scientifically speaking (genetics to be precise). Neither do you have the knowledge of the spiritual.

I have told you the problem with their ambition; I don't think it's necessary to repeat it again. However note this;
Cain and Abel sacrificed, but only one pleased God; through faith, pure motive, and to the Glory of God.

FOLYKAZE:


Hahahaha

Now address the question without telling me moonlight tales why should God be given glory for what he didn't do by himself? It's like giving the glory for inventing airplane to God, when in fact, it is the Wright brothers who designed and innovated airplane.

Secondly, these people wanted to become city dwellers but God wanted them to wander around like animals in the bush. Is it God idea that human should live in isolation?

Please answer these two questions as a gentle man with few words