Jamesid29's Posts
Nairaland Forum / Jamesid29's Profile / Jamesid29's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (of 14 pages)
 Religion / Re: Prophetic Fulfillment In Israel . Jews Are Preaching Jesus To Jews by jamesid29(m): 6:47pm On Sep 23, 2020 |
MuttleyLaff:Hummm, okay. When you have something actually worth reading, let me know.... |
| Religion / Re: Prophetic Fulfillment In Israel . Jews Are Preaching Jesus To Jews by jamesid29(m): 9:59pm On Sep 22, 2020 |
MuttleyLaff: Lol @bolded... This has got be one of the weirdest replies I've seen in a while. Sounds like something a bond villain would say. Anyways, I'll leave you to it then... |
| Religion / Re: Prophetic Fulfillment In Israel . Jews Are Preaching Jesus To Jews by jamesid29(m): 3:04am On Sep 22, 2020 |
MuttleyLaff:@bolded is the only bone of contention at the moment sir.
 ,Bro, The whole point of a public forum is for people to be part of a public discourse which includes joining public threads and mentioning people to air your thoughts. If you wanted a private conversation,you shouldn't be here.Secondly, you are basically interlocking as you said on another persons conversation yourself, because I do not see any special invitation extended to you by the OP before you joined this thread with your opinions and mentions. I'm pretty sure if we check other threads you are engaged in,we would find a similar pattern. I typed of someone deliberately calling someone an ethnic group she isn't, and you are going on about black and white. Who said anything about anyone looking at people of darker skin as less because of their skin colour? Are you trying to tell things, I already know or what?You literally said being identified as a Cushite was meant to be derogatory as calling someone a nigger, as stated by your comments below MuttleyLaff The question is, why do you think being identified as a Cushite is equivalent to being called a nigger today? - Where are you getting that concept from? - We all know why nigger is offensive. So how is being identified as a Cushite considered a racial slur equivalent to being called a nigger? - Why would Miriam not like a dark skinned person as you said above in the bolded? What would be the rationale? Now if you want to play a double whammy semantic conflating Cushite with Cushan and the proof-texting using Habakkuk 3:7 cards, that's cool The whole point of Hab 3:7 is to show that if Zipporah was the wife being referred to here,then we still have biblical basis to understand why she was identified as a Cushite...even the Septuagint renders Hab 3:7 as Ethiopia in its translation. As I said in my previous post though, the most natural way of reading the text would be to see it as a referent to a different lady. Smiles.. boss,when did I disagree that it doesn't equally refer to that region. You basically took this sentence "area South of Egypt down to East African origin" from my previous post [quote=jamesid29]Cush(area South of Egypt down to east Africa).[/quote] If we weren't in agreement on that, I wouldn't have made that statement. What was being shown is that even though that is the general territory,it's not always cut and dry and the Bible does sometimes place the land outside of Africa, and in this case interchangeable with Midian. There are many words that are only used once or once in context in the Bible so saying it's an isolated case is not good enough.Its the context in which it is used that determine how to approach it. Anyway,besides Habakkuk, the Bible and ancient sources do sometimes place Cushites in a wider area than just Africa. The table of nations in Gen 10:7(1 chron 1:9) list the descendants of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabta, Raama and Sabteca; and the sons of Raamah were Sheba and Dedan... Seba is located in Africa as expected by various sources even outside of the Bible ,but the other names of Cush's descendants are generally accepted to be located not in Africa but in the southern and southwestern part of the Arabian peninsula. Historically there was always a movement across the Red sea and the Sinai peninsula between Africa and Arabia. The biblical concept that informed the table of nations, therefore, that the people on both sides of the Red sea are ethnically related and descended from the same Cushite stock reflects this historical situation. We also see this conception in classical antiquity by people like Strabo and even Herodotus using the term Arabia to denote the area across the Red sea down to the Nile. The same conception is held in the Palestinian Targums which translates Cush in 1chron 1:8 as Arabia. Likewise, in Herodotus description of the various ethnic units of Xerxes army,he places the Cushites and the Arabs in one unit under on commander. Also 2chron 21:16 places Cushites as a neighbours to the Arabs. This people group are generally considered to be a semi-nomadic group located in the Negev or on the southern border of Isreal mentioned in middle Egyptian execration text. There are a few other biblical text that place Cushites outside of Africa. So basically Cush can generally refer to a people group on both sides of the Red sea in ancient times. The real question is where are you getting being identified as a Cushite as a racial slur equivalent to being identified as a nigger by a white person from? Contextomy at play here, when what I actually typed was "Miriam ... she deliberating called Zipporah, a Cushite. It is like, when racists, calls a black man, a nigger." The difference is clear in what I exactly typed and mean to what you chose to misrepresent what I typed to.As alluded to earlier,why would you think being identified as a Cushite be equivalent to being called a nigger? Is identifying Ruth as a Moabite in any way racist? If you, knowing you are a black man, a white person, direct to your face, point blankly decided, to call you, nigger. What comes to your mind about that person for unapologetically with intent to hurt, calling you a nigger, hmm? Knowing fully well you aren't a nigger. What would you say the person is or calling you a nigger? Would it be racist or tolerant person?There's no where in the text that says that the lady (whoever she was) was called a Cushite to her face (as you are trying to paint) or even confronted..Nothing in the text comes close to the scenerio you are painting. Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had married a Cushite woman); and they said, “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?” And the Lord heard it. Numbers 12:1-2 NASB Basically as I said earlier Intermarriage here would encompass any foreigner regardless of race. The identification as a Cushite was to identify her as not being native isrealite and not as a racial slur like calling a black person nigger, as is the picture you are trying to paint. Of course Miriam just drafted her in because she has been seething from day one that Zipporah had the Bridegroom with blood revelationWhere are you getting the bolded from? I guess you misunderstood the thought, as you broke that paragraph up, Here's the complete thought again unbroken [quote= jamesid29]Another thing to note is that, the text itself doesn't specify that it was Zipporah that was being addressed here. People just generally assume that it's her because we're told of her in Exodus 2:21,so basically she's just grafted into this story. But it does not necessarily follow though. The lady here could be a new wife of Moses (one of the people who came out with them from Egypt), this is the more straight forward way of reading the text. The scriptures itself gives very little information about Moses's personal and family life.[/quote] It doesn't have to. Just that the text itself in no way forces us to believe that Zipporah was the one being referred here. You've merely just reinforced one of my earlier points, that Keturah, just like Zipporah, are sets out of the most ignored significant women in the Bible, and that the Bible doesnt at all dwell or bother to waste ink on, giving an air impression of lack of interest, stand-offishness and/or indifference. Maybe because after all we lived/live in a patriarchal/ man's world and/or even patristic exegesis. ... Again boss, you are introducing something foreign into the text. The text was about Moses's siblings challenging his authority and that's what the text deals with. Adding racism(atleast the type you are advocating by equating it to modern forms of racism) and patriarchy into the text is reading something into the it that isn't part of it.
.... The events leading up to the narrative has never been up for debate boss.The conversation is limited to: MuttleyLaffAnd my original reply was jamesid29 |
| Religion / Re: Prophetic Fulfillment In Israel . Jews Are Preaching Jesus To Jews by jamesid29(m): 1:08am On Sep 21, 2020 |
MuttleyLaff:Smiles... Aaron and Miriam were petty and jealous, yes... but racist, naa (atleast not in the way you're thinking of racism). You see, ancient people did not divide races into black and white and look at people of darker skin as less because of their skin colour. That way of thinking is more of a modern construct that was especially intensified during the transatlantic slave trade as a justification for what they were doing. People didn't think like that in the ancient world,not even during the greco-roman period(skin colour really didn't play a role in the subjugation of people). What they did have though,was a sense of nationality. Especially for the children of Isreal,who considered and knew themselves to be a special people ( A chosen people of God). In that sense, anybody outside of that unique identity would be considered an outsider (even though they had multiple laws telling them to treat the resident foreigner just like they would treat a fellow isrealite). So here Cushite would refer to Cushan which was interchangeable with Midian (Hab 3:7) at the time... and not Cush(area South of Egypt down to east Africa). So yeah, Miriam and Aaron were being petty and trying to undermine Moses authority by using intermarriage to an outsider as an excuse, but being called a Cushite is not being racist in the same way of calling someone a Nigger. (That's more of a post biblical concept) Another thing to note is that, the text itself doesn't specify that it was Zipporah that was being addressed here. People just generally assume that it's her because we're told of her in Exodus 2:21,so basically she's just graft her into this story. But it does not necessarily follow though. The lady here could be a new wife of Moses (one of the people who came out with them from Egypt), this is the more straight forward way of reading the text. The scriptures itself gives very little information about Moses's personal and family life. In either case,the Bible doesn't seem to dwell on it, as their excuse was superficial anyway. The Bible mainly dwells on the real reason for the outburst (which was challenging Moses's authority/standing ) as seen by God's reply in Num 12:4-10 . |
| Religion / Re: Can you prove that your God is the real God? - A challenge to all religionists by jamesid29(m): 2:02am On Sep 11, 2020 |
Blabbermouth: budaatum: |
| Religion / Re: We Don't Beg Like Other Organisations, However We Need Your Money by jamesid29(m): 6:07pm On Sep 04, 2020 |
rottennaija:I can understand where you're coming from sir, but I don't believe ridiculing what other people hold dear is the right way to go about it sir. We are admonished to love our neighbor as ourselves so lets try imagining how it is when nonbelievers find every minut and little thing to try and ridicule the Christain faith in general(I remember there was a time in this section where the first page is always filled with such topics.) Maybe except when we are defending against people using/hiding behind the scriptures to commit horrendous acts or elevate themselves at the expense of others (even at that there are lines we don't cross), I believe it's always good to first approach these things with compassion and understanding, focusing on the main theological things and be open to having a conversation. Just my thoughts and even I'm guilty of this things hence why we remind ourselves of these things sir. God bless you |
| Religion / Re: We Don't Beg Like Other Organisations, However We Need Your Money by jamesid29(m): 3:47pm On Sep 04, 2020 |
Boss, this people do you anything personally? 4 Likes 3 Shares |
| Religion / Re: The Most Mysterious Doctrine - The Trinity of The Godhead by jamesid29(m): 3:39pm On Sep 04, 2020 |
Great writeup boss... it's simplicity in explaining such a complex topic is really outstanding. I'm not sure about those particular OT passages at the end of the writeup though but all in all its a great writeup. Thanks for sharing. |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 6:32pm On Aug 31, 2020 |
FOLYKAZE: .... which comprise?... Brosss no vex say I dey laugh but mehn,this conversation is something else.... The way you are trying to rope me and Diodorus together is actually comical. Na you talk say the ziggurat was used for space exploration because Diodorus said so, FOLYKAZENow na you are arguing against him but making it look like you're arguing against me. . The switch is just really really funny. And no the idea that Etemenanki was the abode of marduk doesn't come from Diodorus but from Babylonian primary sources as attested to a temple being at the top and ziggurats being a well attested fixture in mesopotamia(every major city in mesopotamia had a temple complex with a ziggurat to the patron god/goddess of the city and some cities even had more than one: like Kish had three). Brossss, stop digging in into something so trivial. Sir, can you help your "source," by presenting evidences he proclaimed that there are additional two stories sanctuary/temple at top the already seven stories Ziggurat structure, making it nine stories building in total? .... Brossss, when I said you should read your very own sources well, you said..... First of all the paper and the quote is from your very own linksThe paper is under the "more research details" link. Secondly, Andrew George is one of the foremost Assyriologist in the world, so except you want to say you know more than him, I don't see you providing any rebuttal paper that contradicts him. Temple though may contain shrine(s) or not, doesn't makes it equivalent to shrine. Esagila is the shrine of Marduk, not Etemenanki. Bross.... why are you using english to confuse yourself like this. Pls read this againjamesid29And esagila was a temple... and yes shrines can be very plentiful. Brosss , you sha made sure you keep digging in shaYou should read and understand the statement before posting it here. It reads that Visiting temple does not necessarily mean one is there to worship God. . Boss....Pls calm down and read this thing well.jamesid29Buddhism is fundamentally a nontheistics religion but even at that they still temples for spiritual purposes. You sha want to make shrine special and a temple into country club.. . This man...The drift wont work again. Court of law and marriage are both sacred institutions. The courthouse around the world are known as Temple of justice. These temples serves judicious and social responsibilities, with highly exception from religiosity.Which drift boss... . Marriage as a sacred institution comes the western worldview that marriage is instituted by God. That's why there's so much debate in the western world in the redefining of marriage laws...Court of law is not a sacred a institution, it's a legal institution sir. Courthouses are not known as temple of justice around the world sir, the people who say that use it in a metaphorical sense (just like saying land of greener pastures). Funny enough the people who use that phrase are mostly Nigerian journalists and a few Indian sources (two deeply religious nations)... Brosss, you went to Google to find loophole ... .And the temple of justice in the usa is just the name of the building in that was only built in 1920, so basically before then there was no justice in America... . Basically what you are doing is called a definition fallacy.This man. I just put temple of justice into Google, na so so Nigerian newspaper I dey see. You sha dey find loophole. In the absence of empirical evidences pointing to the spiritual function of Etemenanki asides that ancient folks celebrate new year festival around it, then the best word to use to capture other social functions is "maybe".Yes sir, Assyriologist FOLYKAZE... I'll be looking forward to reading your paper on this. I can actually recommend a couple of journals for you sir if need be Another funny thing the very page you did copy and paste for the @bolded "ancient folks celebrate New year festival around it" also has The Mesopotamian ziggurats were not places for public worship or ceremonies. They were believed to be dwelling places for the gods and each city had its own patron god. Only priests were permitted on the ziggurat or in the rooms at its base, and it was their responsibility to care for the gods and attend to their needs.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat You left that part out like say you didn't see it... This conversation is pure cruise....The way you even made the statement with all seriousness.... Needless to say, temples are not just sacred spaces, they are also secular spaces where political elites and kings draw political powers. It also serves as room of justices. And could be monumental edifice.As opposed to shrines that are what sir... What you call regular tower is know by the Babylonians as Ziggurat. Ziggurat implies a massive structure with a successively receding stories or levels. It has no spiritual undertone .... Pure cruiseWhen you arguing from christian standpoint, you see and attribute everything to a deity and supernaturals. ... Brossss, how did we go from ancient mesopotamia to 21st century christainity. I always knew sooner or later,something like this was coming. Remember me again who was it who dismissed Diodorus writings because he lived many years after Etemenanki was left in ruins, and wanted me to accept the work of Herodotus because he lived during the period when Etemenanki was standing.Brossss . I don't even understand what going on this one. You were the one that brought up Diodorus, you were the one that brought up Herodotus. Where did I force you to accept Herodotus? . The only thing I said was if you are going to discredit Herodotus, then you automatically have to disqualify Diodorus, now you are moving left and right. .. this man The legends narrated by Diodorus Siculus, who drew from the works of Ctesias of Cnidus.So now it's legend ,no more history... I'm pretty sure you never really bothered to checkup who Ctesias was cos if you did you wouldn't make such a statement. Basically what you are saying is that ,all throughout the reign of Cyrus the Great,no one thought of keeping an archive. . Pure cruiseAnyway this is the quote you are looking for: Ctesias was the author of treatises on rivers, and on the Persian revenues, of an account of India entitled Indica (Ἰνδικά), and of a history of Assyria and Persia in 23 books, called Persica (Περσικά), written in opposition to Herodotus in the Ionic dialect, and professedly founded on the Persian Royal Archives. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctesias You missed the professedly part. Basically what it means is that he claimed that his work was[b] based on [/b]Persian archives not that he was the one that founded it. When I say you're just copying and pasting things without really trying to understand the actual material, it sounds like I'm just trying to be..... I said in quite belowThe fact that you don't even know that it doesn't matter which building you are talking about shows that you really don't know this material boss. It seems you don't even know that Assyria and Babylonia are two different nations. Esarhaddon was Assyrian bross, not Babylonian. It was Sennacherib(Esarhaddon's father) who destroyed the city and temple when Babylon was under Assyrian rule around the 6th century,just as Isreal and it's temple were destroyed during Babylonian rule over Isreal. When Esarhaddon got enthroned after his father, that's when he got to restoring the city's religious centers even though he never got around to finishing it... Esarhaddon never claimed to be the first person to build the temple, he only claimed to be the one to restore it. Bros, there's a big difference between someone rebuilding something and someone building it for the first time. You only rebuild something that was destroyed. Na this English thing na hin cause problems wey you still dey argue temple Vs shrine since. Bosss you no know this topic well, leave am.
.... Brossss you go just dey post paper wey you no read. Pls whats the title of this paper you posted.Denied what, when and how? Abi you be the one battling to dismiss his claim on Etemenanki serving as astronomical viewpoint for observing stars? .... Yes sir , Assyriologist FOLYKAZE. This conversation is pure cruise Discovered in the 19th centuries but the embedded knowledge in it went through millenniums into the past among the scribes and priests. Scribes and priests then were astronomers, engineers, politicians, physicists, architects, economists, and literature scholars. The knowledge was within elite circles only, and only passed down to initiated members and successors. The bible told us Tower of Babel was the first tower in the ancient days, and the design was imprinted on that tablet.Oh so now we are in the realm of conspiracy theory.. . So they basically passed the knowledge down through a secret group all the way to modern architects but the tablet itself was lost. Makes sense sirQuick question. You said it was the tablet that sparked the architectural revolution but now it's not the tablet but the secret knowledge that has been passed down? Which one is it sir. Secondly sir, this secret group that sparked the architectural revolution with knowledge that was passed down before we discovered the tablet, are they affiliated with freemasons or two of them don't see eye to eye. Honestly sir, when you agreed that shrine and temple are entirely different, I had played along to fully see if you understand that position. .... No comment sir. I see,you don add "entirely" to the matter. It is well my oga..... Anything you say from here on out I agree sir. You seem to be an expert all by yourself.. Weldon sir, I know having all this information all by yourself is not easy sir |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Christ Is Not Different From The Father!!! by jamesid29(m): 9:31pm On Aug 29, 2020 |
MuttleyLaff:Sigh.... It is well. |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Christ Is Not Different From The Father!!! by jamesid29(m): 7:10pm On Aug 29, 2020 |
MuttleyLaff:Bro, what is wrong with you  ? How is this even a necessary reply in the conversation this far?For someone who still has a lot to learn & unlearn and on a subject, you yourself haven't figured out, you still feel comfortable to speak in such a manner.... It is well with you. |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Christ Is Not Different From The Father!!! by jamesid29(m): 4:57pm On Aug 29, 2020 |
MuttleyLaff: It is well |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Christ Is Not Different From The Father!!! by jamesid29(m): 10:54am On Aug 29, 2020 |
MuttleyLaff:Its not about limiting God bro, it's about staying within what God has revealed about himself through the scriptures. When the scriptures say God is infinite, it is uses infinite in terms of attributes (omnipotent, omnipresence etc) but not infinite in terms of Personhood(One God, 3 distinct Persons. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father, both the Father and the Son are distinct from the Spirit but all three are co-eternal ,pre-existent and the One God).
The difference is God is not the pillar of fire or the pillar of cloud, those things are pointers to the presence of God. But the Son and the Spirit are actually God, both pre-existent, co-eternal but distinct from the Father. As for the Angle of the Lord, that's actually a very interesting conversation. But as I told the other brothers earlier, I'm not trying to convince you or start a back and forth, I'm just pointing it out since this is a very important aspect of the faith. At the end of the day even though we might not be able to comprehend the full inner workings of God ,we can apprehend what has been revealed to us through the scriptures and In matters like this that is a foundational doctrine, it's really worth it to stay within what the Bible teaches. |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Christ Is Not Different From The Father!!! by jamesid29(m): 9:33am On Aug 29, 2020 |
MuttleyLaff: I get where you are coming from but the thing is, saying God is ∞-persons or not-known-number of persons beyond what the scriptures reveals to us. As believers, the scriptures properly interpreted is the final authority on all matters of faith and what it teaches is that, There is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons, the Father, the Son and the Spirit. Anything outside of that is falling into one extreme or another. |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Christ Is Not Different From The Father!!! by jamesid29(m): 12:11am On Aug 29, 2020 |
Ezekiel36vs28:God bless you too brother. Pls let me just point one or two things out boss. What you posted sounds like more like Modalism(Sabellianism: One God appearing in three different forms). This is one of the conceptions of the God the early church had to defend against. The Trinity is very different sir. Basically it's something like this: There is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father and both the Father and the Son are not the Holy Spirit. All three are distinct in person but one in essence. Not 3 gods, One God Yahweh. The first thing that trips people up is the use of the word Person. When we hear the word person,we think of me and you(Ade and Nonso for example). The thing is God is not like me and you, God is totally different from us. God is not just a Spirit, God is a unique Spirit. There might be many spirits in the world but no spirit is like Yahweh. He is species unique and the creator of other spirit. So right of the bat, any language we use to describe God will always fall short. The second thing is, the Trinity is something none of us would fully comprehend because none of us was with God in the beginning and no one has seen God in his full glory. How can a being be 3 distinct Persons but still one God? That would would be an enigma to us. But as I mentioned to our other brother, if God created such a complex universe with complex beings like us in it, then we should expect Him to also be unimaginable complex to us. But just as I cannot comprehend the vastness of the sea when standing at the shore but I can apprehend that what I'm looking at is a sea, we might not be able to comprehend the full inner workings of God but we can apprehend what has been revealed to us through the scriptures. It's really worth it to trace out the Trinity and what it truly is through the scriptures and come to place where feel comfortable with it in our hearts because it is very foundational to the faith. As I told Dtruthspeaker, I'm not trying to convince you that what I've said is the truth. In the end sir,scriptures properly interpreted is the final authority on all matters of faith... God bless you brother No vex say my reply long, I just started writing before I know am we done reach here |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Christ Is Not Different From The Father!!! by jamesid29(m): 11:06pm On Aug 28, 2020 |
Dtruthspeaker: No issues sir, I wasn't trying to convince you. My aim was just to point it out to you. As long as you have it at the back of your mind and some day you decide to pursue it to its end (because the identity of Christ is a foundational pillar of faith), our God is merciful to point both of us to the right path. |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Christ Is Not Different From The Father!!! by jamesid29(m): 8:48pm On Aug 28, 2020 |
Dtruthspeaker:Exactly sir. The Father, The Son and The HolySpirit are all distinct from eachother but at the same time all three are the One God(Yahweh),Not three different gods but one God. That's the complexity of the Godhead(three distinct eternal persons but one God Yahweh) and that's what is called the Trinity. No other being accepts worship apart from Yahweh. As I said sir, getting the trinity right is one of the foundations of the faith but it's also something that it's hard to get for alot of us. We all just have to go down that rabbit trail and trace it through the scriptures. And finally sir, we all need to be taught and we all need to learn from others as we look onto Jesus. That's why we have teachers , elders, pastors and eachother. As you see sir, I never provided any links or resources for you to read because I know God is more than able to lead you to the right ones if you ask. |
| Religion / Re: Jesus Christ Is Not Different From The Father!!! by jamesid29(m): 7:56pm On Aug 28, 2020 |
Dtruthspeaker:Sir, I can understand that the trinity is one of the things that is hard for alot of us to grasp but if you are trying to stay true to the faith, it's worth it to try and get a good understanding of it and how we can trace it from the old testament to the new. There's only one God Yahweh, revealed to us in three persons. I know that sounds mind boggling to us but if God created such a complex universe with very complex creatures within it, then it stands to reason that this God is way more complex than we can ever imagine. There's only one God and only this God receives our worship. Once you start seeing Jesus as a different separate God, that's a slippery slope... Again sir, it's really worth it to try and get what the doctrine of the Trinity is. @bolded... That's not what the scriptures says sir. Shalom sir 2 Likes |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 4:23pm On Aug 28, 2020 |
FOLYKAZE:Lol, bros pls goan read this thing well. You still want to be arguing the difference between temple and shrine and what a temple signifies especially in the ancient world. Bros you've turn this conversation to cruise abeg What exactly do you want me to read? Scholar guesses that have no basis in the texts of the people who lived during when the Esagila and Etemenanki was in use? Read again;Lol, so now you know more than experts in the field that have spent a good chunk of their professional career studying this things. This one is not faith that you can say the Spirit revealed it to you boss. At the very least bring rebuttal from another paper. @bolded.... When I said you should read the papers carefully, you go think say na insult I won insult(see why I dey try die this matter since). The ziggurat itself wasn't two storeys, it's the temple at the top that was two storeys Abeg Read am well again https://www.nairaland.com/6057405/tower-babel-insight-into-space/5#93123213 HahahaWeldon sir .... Basically what you are saying is since a kings domain is the entire kingdom, his palace has no significance. It is well sir.... I wonder why people built temples in the first place then?See cruise When I was trying to explain ancient cosmic geography, you no won gree... Pls, no vex, read my replies to you on this topic again. At the emboldened, stop fighting too hard. Visiting temple does not necessarily meann one is there to worship God.Brosss , fighting hard?....@bolded, why you no read the whole thing boss. The statement you even pointed out actually had a Not in it, expressing a negation. Okay this is the whole statement again, pls read it in its entirety.
Marriage and court of law are sacred institutions, having no resemblance with religiosity.Brosss, why do you think people used to call marriage a sacred institution . What do you think the whole debate about the redefining of what marriage is, is all about?Maybe Etemenanki is mere a sacred social (rather than religious) temple, serving as a monument where Babylonians celebrate new year festival.So now we are on maybe... Bross. I neva hear of social temple in the ancient world before o... You sha don't want to gree . Like I said, you've already dugged in too deep.SmilesNaa, seriously, I personally was hoping for a well grounded conversation where at the end of the day, we most likely wouldn't convince eachother because of our theological differences, but at the very least we both walk away from the conversation knowing a bit more about each others point of view. Its just so funny that you left all the places where the real conversation is to pitch your tent on the most self evident part, digging so deep to the point of denying normal english. At that point, the conversation turn to cruise. If you had said you believed the tower was a regular tower,not a ziggurat, we won't even have started this conversation in the first place Herodotus works are highly respected. However, a cogent review of his life and work suggested that there is no evidence, not a single one, that there is a shrine on the top of Etemenanki; and that he has never visited Babylon or the temple in his lifetime, hence is works though importance cannot be fully relied on. Same applies to Diodorus Siculus , who drew from the works of Ctesias of Cnidus, the scholar who founded on the Persian Royal Archives, base in works much on mythical and legendary viewpoint, rather than historicity. But the points from both writers can be used, with new archaeological findings, to design a caricature of what the city was like in the past.Boss , you are basically arguing against yourself. You were the one who brought up Herodotus not me, You were the one banking your entire position on Diodorus(which I seem to recall warning you against),not me. Anything I've said about them was only in response to you bringing them up....I've only been using primary sources so I don't know why you are giving the run down on who they are. And also nope, we really do not need greek historians to reconstruct the city's life in the past. As I said from the beginning we have 1000s of surviving primary sources(from contracts to legislation to priestly literatures etc) to do that. You sha pack English together .Besides this part who drew from the works of Ctesias of Cnidus, the scholar who founded on the Persian Royal ArchivesBros, what does this even mean? More again, Esarhaddon claim was found on the wall of Etemenanki ruins, that he built/rebuild the tower basement. This corroborates with the letter of Mar-Issar, a scholar, whose first role was certainly that of a scribe, working for Esarhaddon in Babylonia.Boss. You sha no won gree.lol . The funniest part is you will be attaching documents and links that I highly doubt you even open but you go sha dey attach them to make it sound like you know the material well, then you will now say see academic. Nearly all of them disagree with any statement you are trying buttress,so why you keep pasting them is an enigma to me. You said Esarhaddon was the one who originally built it, now you have changed it to built/rebuilt(pick a side). Small time, you go change am to rebuilt alone. Bross abeg die this matter, as I said you know the buzzwords, you really don't know the material. I seem to remember telling you this jamesid29https://www.nairaland.com/6057405/tower-babel-insight-into-space/5#93123213 Wetin I won spin, chief? , Which evidence sir. You don deny the only evidence you have for even believing that (Diodorus the Sicilian) after I've pointed out what he really wrote. This is even after I warned you severally that his position is not reliable. Secondly the E-sagil Tablet sparking architectural design na hin funny pass. Something that was only discovered at the end of the 19th century and was only interpreted fairly recently. Or Boss do you want to say we've only recently started building highrise buildings? Bros this conversation has turn to cruise, as twitter people will say. Check all my conversations on nairaland, you'll never see me using emoji like this but mehn..... Aside: shrine v temple Think of it this way.... A shrine is like an altar, where you have objects or relics associated with the figure being venerated. A shrine can be to an ancestor(s), hero, saint, deity or any venerated person or cause and it can be anywhere ,in a temple,at a cemetery, in a person's house etc. But a temple is basically the dwelling place of a god(think of it like a king's palace). Because of the vast variety of religions ranging from nontheistic to theistic, form and function vary. But for theistic religions especially in the ancient world,this is the basic idea. This is the most basic way I can explain it without speaking too much english sir... 1 Like |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 6:59pm On Aug 25, 2020 |
FOLYKAZE: jamesid29Definition of abode 1: the place where one lives : HOME Synonyms: diggings, domicile, dwelling, fireside, habitation, hearth, hearthstone, home, house, lodging, pad, place, quarters, residence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abode Sir, if you don't still understand the spiritual significance of the dwelling place of a god, well..... Well there is no evidence of altar, shrine, idols, images of Marduk or centre of worship on the top of Etemenanki. Do you have contrary evidence? jamesid29- Andrew R. George Refer back to our previous conversation https://www.nairaland.com/6057405/tower-babel-insight-into-space/5#93123213 Pls read slowly this time and go through all papers attached therein(they are all peer-reviewed papers, not from Billy Bob on the internet).Most of them are from links you provided so it should have most of them by now. The book I provided you is a standard textbook used in students of comparative studies not just a random book. I suggest you read it also if you are really serious in studying the ancient near east. HaaaYes, but are you trying to say temples are not religious sacred spaces for the gods? Temple vs Shrine Temple and Shrine are both sacred places, but there is some difference between them in connotation. They both hold religious or cultural value, but they do not refer to the same place and, therefore, cannot be interchanged. Shrines, more than religious, have cultural values as they are more related to an individual who is considered important or holy by people. On the other hand, temples are purely religious places that are there for people that belong to their different religions. What is a Temple? The word temple refers to a sacred place for the believers of any given form of religion. It is a place which the believers of a particular religion accept as the abode of God. They often visit temples with a view to have the sight of God. Each religion has got its own temple. Even for Buddhists, there are temples. They go to buddhist temple, not to worship Gods, but rather to do aamisa pooja that helps them in their path to nibbana(ultimate spiritual goal in Buddhism and marks the soteriological release from rebirths in saṃsāra). These temples differ from each other in terms of the method of construction, materials used in construction, appearance, and the legend behind their construction and the like. -Differencebetween Sacred[ sey-krid ] adjective devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated. -Dictionary The word temple comes from Ancient Rome, where a templum constituted a sacred (refer above for meaning) precinct as defined by a priest. - wiki Mesopotamian temples Edit The temple-building tradition of Mesopotamia derived from the cults of gods and deities in the Mesopotamian religion. It spanned several civilizations; from Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, and Babylonian. The most common temple architecture of Mesopotamia is the structure of sun-baked bricks called a Ziggurat, having the form of a terraced step pyramid with a flat upper terrace where the shrine or temple stood. - - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple At this point I don't think there's any way I can continue replying without sounding condescending to you cos at this point it's not just about explaining ancient culture and language to you but it seems you want to start denying basic english also and I don't believe there's any way I can keep replying you on things like this without treating you like a third grader. I can see you've began to deny Diodorus[your only source] now that I showed you that even he doesn't agree with you. As for the other things you raised, I see no reason to engage with them cos as I said in the previous post, you know the buzzwords but not really the material itself (the moment you mentioned Esarhaddon, it became apparent) Anyway it's fine sir... I was really hoping you would have dropped this topic since but you've dugged in too deep . I'm pretty sure you'd have to reply with your own spin and all. That's fine sir. All the best |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 4:48pm On Aug 23, 2020 |
FOLYKAZE:Your are welcome sir There are something I really want you to clarify. jamesid29 jamesid29I believe @ bolded are all self explanatory. And I also took all of this quotes from sources you posted. Refer above and below. 3. Do you agree with Diodurus Siculus that Babylonian temple astronomers called tupšar Enûma Anu Enlil computed the Astronomical Diaries by using the temple as the rises where they see into the sky?You are contradicting your own points here sir. You just called it a temple(https://www.dictionary.com/browse/temple) but still want to maintain that it's not....Anyways you're thinking of the wrong temple though Secondly the tupšar Enûma Anu Enlil are late Babylonian temple scribes (6th century BC their job was to predict omens for the king and state), the ziggurat precedes them by about a 1000yrs. They also flourished well into the ADs(75 AD and possible into the 3rd century AD), but the ziggurat fell into ruins around the 530BC.(basically another 500 - 800 yrs after) From what I can piece together sir, you do know the buzzwords but have never really settled down to really study the materials. Finally using Diodurus Siculus as your only source point isn't really a good idea. He lived atleast 500yrs after the ziggurat fell into ruins. We know almost nothing about him and his work Bibliotheca historica was a compilation of works from other greek historians ,not from any Babylon source either ancient or contemporary. Even modern historians review of his work only should disuaded you. But if you must know, here's the full paragraph of what he really said on the matter "In the middle of the City, she built a Temple [/b]to Jupiter, whom the Babylonians call Belus (as we have before said) [b]of which since Writers differ amongst themselves, and the Work is now wholly decay'd through length of Time, there's nothing that can certainly be related concerning it: Yet it's apparent it was of an exceeding great height, and that by the advantage of it, the Chaldean Astrologers exactly observ'd the setting and rising of the Stars. The whole was built of Brick, cemented with Brimstone, with great Art and Cost. Upon the top she plac'd Three Statues of beaten Gold of Jupiter, Juno and Rhea.That of Jupiter stood upright in the posture as if he were walking; he was Forty Foot in height, and weighed a Thousand Babylonish Talents. The Statue of Rhea was of the same weight sitting on a Golden Throne, having Two Lions standing on either side, one at her Knees, and near to them Two exceeding great Serpents of Silver, weighing Thirty Talents apiece. Here likewise the Image of Juno stood upright, and weighed Eight Hundred Talents, grasping a Serpent by the Head in her right Hand, and holding a Scepter adorn'd with precious Stones in her left. For all these Deities there was plac'd a Common Table made of beaten Gold, Forty Foot long, and Fifteen broad, weighing Five Hundred Talents: Upon which stood Two Cups weighing Thirty Talents, and near to them as many Censers weighing Three Hundred Talents: There were there likewise plac'd Three Drinking Bowls of Gold, one of which dedicated to Jupiter, weigh'd Twelve Hundred Babylonish Talents, but the other Two Six Hundred apiece; but all those the Persian" https://www.sarata.com/history/diodorus-siculus/library/page.58.html Jupiter is marduk(Bel), so boss even your only source talks about it as a temple to Jupiter with his statue and other worship relics. 4. Do you agree that Esagila tablet reveal the complex mathematics and engineering behind Etemenanki which aided architectural revolution of today? E-sagil Tablet is not the architectural design of the real ziggurat. It was either the design of on idealised abstract ziggurat temple or was mathematical exercise model for would-be(students) surveyor. Secondly the tablet was only discovered in the late 19th century and disappeared into private hands until fairly recently, so..... Well, no offense sir but I'll pass on that. The conversation has been like trying to convince a flat-earther that the world is round. But I truly do understand though. We all have ideas and precept that we hold onto dearly regardless of whether we know it's true or not. Its always an herculean task to make a shift in thought for any ideology we really need to be true(that's just part of being human). Its a shame we never really got to the fun stuff though( what the biblical story was passing across), but it's fine. Some other people might do a better job at that sef so I'll leave you guys to it. I do hope you get to read the paper on Deut 32 I gave you, It should be right up your wheelhouse. And you should also check the author out Dr Heiser (https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/newstarthere/ , https://drmsh.com/). I really think you would like his work. Happy Sunday and Enjoy your week. |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 6:13am On Aug 23, 2020 |
FOLYKAZE: What are we doing bro? why are we going back and forth on the exact same thing jamesid29: All the three so called evidences you presented arr misleadingHow, I actually provided you with the links of the actual papers. And this are actual peer-reviewed paper from an actual academic database. No matter how good you are, there's no way you could have read both papers fully between yesterday and the time of your reply. As a matter of fact, it doesn't prove Marduk is worshipped on the tower. The Tower does not hold Marduk's images, none is sacrifices done on it.I really doubt we are tracking the same thing. Ok, being petty for a minute ... The part the text is written on is Tablet 6 and not Tablets 4... Let's chalk that one to sleepy eyes. As for the volume 3 part, I don't know where you got that from. So to focus on your point on the text... a. In the translation you posted and another translation I posted above, Etemenanki was not mentioned.I literally showed you how we got the name to be called Etemenanki. jamesidpaper https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/3858/ b. The title tells us about the body of the poem, Marduk divides the gods, the gods built Esagila. It never mention EtemenankiAgain this part of the story is not titled broken because it's part of a continuous string of text. It seems to me you're not getting your info from the text but from some website or so.. and I can tell you, whichever site your getting your info from are playing fast and loose with the text. As for the name part, kindly refer above. c. The first emboldened statement indicates the Shrine, Esagila was proposed to be high. Not too high as a tower, but higher than normal low level structures.Nope, it's a wordplay on the meaning of the name" house whose top is lofty". At this point I'm literally copying back what you yourself wrote. d. The second emboldened statement tells us that the head of Esagila was raised high, and as such was called Ziggurat . Ziggurat implies a massive structure with a successively receding stories or levels. Calling Esagila Ziggurat doesn't make it Etemenanki.Ok so here you're literally contradicted yourself on this one. e. The footnote (²), tells that the Ziggurat mentioned in Enuma Elish is Esagila. If it was Etemenanki, it would have been mentioned in the footnote.Nope, they are two distinct structure. One is the temple, the other one is the ziggurat. The full footnote(from the actual document you posted) links you to another paper for the full discussion. First of all, this paper is from the very same person who authored the other two papers I gave you links to. Secondly, the paper is actually on the same database I linked you too and here's what you get from the discussion: Turning to Tintir, we note that the compiler has given the title "Replica of Apsu" to E-sagil, but has reserved "Replica of E-sarra" for the ziqqurrat, E-temen-anki. This is probably to be explained by the consideration that Tintir is a list, and is thus inclined to an orderliness that may at times introduce artificial distinctions. One should therefore guard against supposing that these lines offer a refinement of the cosmology as expressed in the Creation Epic and Esarhaddon's inscription. From a cosmological point of view E-sagil and E-temen-anki are both the abode of Marduk, and thus hardly distinguishable. As such they can both be the "Replica of E-sarra" and the "Replica of Apsu". Further cosmological statements regarding the two buildings appear in inscriptions of Esarhad-don's successors:.... Kindly note that you removed the reference to E-sarra in your footnote but it's there in the actual document you posted. Here's the link to the paper the footnote leads you to https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/19287/ f. Enuma Elish didnt mention "a tower with its top to heaven", it simply says the gods raised the top of Esagila. Since it tops doesn't reach heaven, it is not Etemenanki.Hmmm, Etemenanki is only 7 stories high, that's hardly reaching heaven. 2. TOWER OF BABEL STELE doesn't specifically mentioned the spiritual significance of Etemenanki. I have read the complete details of the text on Schoyen Collection website still nothing speaks about Etemenanki been the worship centre of or serving as a shrine for Marduk.It literally says and I quote :clearly showing the relative proportions of the 7 stages including the temple on the top; Boss,Is it that you believe I don't read the links? Secondly You see the "more research details" link under the context subheadings? Well, that links to one of the very same papers I posted yesterday. Here's an excerpt from the paper concerning the ziggurat top The tower’s top stage is a temple, the Etemen-anki proper, known in Akkadian as b‹t ziqrati “the ziqqurrat temple.” This was the high sanctuary of Marduk, more prominent as a landmark than his sanctuary at ground-level, the massive E-sangil, but necessarily smaller. There is some evidence that the ziqqurrat-temple was a two-storey building, though both storeys may well have been the same length and breadth (George 1992: 433). The relief shows no roof-top structure protruding above the seventh stage, but the temple is clearly shown tall enough to accommodate two floors. The temple is depicted with a central doorway flanked by stepped projections that rise above roof-level. These tower-like structures are conventional in Babylonian temple gateways and known in Akkadian by the term dublu ⁄‰û “projecting pilaster” (George 1995a: 187). The central gateway matches the gateway midway along the bottom façade of the ground-plan engraved immediately above the ziqqurrat, and it is to this plan (and the plan on the stele’s shoulder) that we must now turn. Again, this is from a link from the very same page you just posted. Boss at this point we are going round in circles 3. Nothing in the Esagila tablet indicates the spiritual significance of the Etemenanki. The tablet can be divided into two. One part is about Esagila (the temple of the god Marduk in Babylon) recorded by the scribes are two courtyards built earlier than the temple. The rest of the tablet concerns the ziggurat, Etemenanki, and is extremely valuable for its reconstruction, presenting a complex mathematical analysis of how the tower should be.Again boss, are you posting this links with the mindset that I wouldn't check them. This is literally from the page giving a brief summary of what's on the tablet The text first gives a double description of the base of the multi-tiered tower built inside the city walls or ziggurat, then describes the main temple, and, finally, gives the measurements of the multi-tiered tower, called Etemenanki, "House of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth" - the "Tower of Bable" in the Bible (Genesis 11, 1-9). This tower seems to have had seven stories, built in the form of terraces, and was surmounted by a temple. Is there another meaning for the word surmounted? Also just read the paper in the linked page you posted https://www.schoyencollection.com/history-collection-introduction/babylonian-history-collection/tower-babel-stele-ms-2063 (under the more research details). It also dives into the E-sagil Tablet and gives commentaries on it. Please sir, You had wanted me to see spiritual significance of Etemenanki, when there is none. Even in your presented "evidences", there is no enough convincing evidence to prove that Etemenanki serves as shrine, or worship centre of Marduk. There is no evidence of spiritual significance of the tower. The absence of evidence, signifying that Marduk is worshipped in Etemenanki stamped down all spiritual attributions to the tower.At this point we are going round in circles... Kindly refer above. Firstly please let's have the picture of Etemenanki and Esagila here Here is the actual full picture of the image you posted:  I believe you can see the difference between the one you posted and the full picture. Let's just move on 1&3. From the picture, Etemenanki is the huge structure, and Esaliga is that little high building adjacent of the tower by the south. There is a stair from the Tower leading to Esaliga. Another stair leads to the large procession pathway. However, they are both standalone structure. Though connected, [/b]the Shrine is not inside or on top of Etemenanki.I believe I was pretty clear when I kept saying its a complex. Complex: composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite:... Dictionary.com . I was also pretty explicit in my post on what I was talking about:
2. Esarhaddon also known as Asarhaddon claimed he built Esagila, and his claim was corroborated with the writings on the wall of the shrine, as found by Stefan Maul. http://prelectur.stanford.edu/lecturers/maul/ancientcapitals.htmlI think you really believe I don't read this things... No such claim is made in it and I can guarantee you no one who knows the subject matter would even make such a claim. Why? Because Esarhad-don's father( Sennacherib) was the one who destroyed the Babylon and the temple in c.689 BC (Esarhad-don and his father were Assyrians). You can't be the first person to build what was in existence before you and was destroyed by your father. He and his successor did do a partial rebuild (political and religious reasons) but the rebuilding process only caught real steam after Babylon won its independence from Assyria and was finally completed by, Nebuchadnezzar II. Again this are very elementary stuff that wouldn't take more than 10mins to checkout.... It is well His claim that he built Esagila can be found in the decree he made below "Great king, mighty monarch, lord of all, king of the land of Assur, ruler of Babylon, faithful shepherd, beloved of Marduk, lord of lords, dutiful leader, loved by Marduk’s Consort Zurpanitum, humble, obedient, full of praise for their strength and awestruck from his earliest days in the presence of their divine greatness [am I, Esarhaddon]. When in the reign of an earlier king there were ill omens, the city offended its gods and was destroyed at their command. It was me, Esarhaddon, whom they chose to restore everything to its rightful place, to calm their anger, to assuage their wrath. You, Marduk, entrusted the protection of the land of Assur to me. The Gods of Babylon meanwhile told me to rebuild their shrines and renew the proper religious observances of their palace, Esagila. I called up all my workmen and conscripted all the people of Babylonia. I set them to work, digging up the ground and carrying the earth away in baskets (Kerrigan, 34). https://www.ancient.eu/Esarhaddon/ @ the bolded. Except there's another meaning for those words, you are contradicting yourself. Pls read the full article you posted again because truthfully I don't think you are reading the articles you're posting. Everything I just said in a nutshell is what's written on the article page in detail. @ the bolded : the actual quote is "The temple of Bel erected in the center of the city ... was extraordinarily high ... and the Chaldeans did their astronomical work there." You are playing fast and loose with the quotes bro. Anyway as I said before: jamesid29 Basically your entire belief is based on only one quote from the most unreliable source on that matter.... It is well. At this junction, we will be calling it a day. Truth is, it appears that you've only been pasting things you either didn't read or you really didn't want to understand(we all do that sometimes) . Either way there's no reason to continue at this point. I will say this though...If christainity is true and the Bible is the word of God to people then it stands to reason that it's one of the most important decisions anyone can make because it's offering salvation for free(I don't know of any other religion or ideology that offers that). I truly believe you should channel some of the energy you're using in trying to discredit it and honestly go down the rabbit trail to see if the claims it's making is true. |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 12:11am On Aug 23, 2020 |
FOLYKAZE: Hmmm, the link was there to help you understand what heaven and earth means to an ancient person because you seem to think the space where heaven and earth meets has something to do with the astronomy. I believe I was clear with that here
Ok so as mentioned before, that quote comes from only Diodorus Siculus. But let me get something straight, the very same place that quote comes from also mention Herodotus who actually lived during the time when the the ziggurat was still standing and considered as the father of modern history as opposed to Diodorus who lived 100s of years after Alexander destroyed the whole thing. You were the very same person that said we can't trust Herodotus words by quoting a very minute part of an entire wiki paragraph and I didn't even argue with you on that we have other ancient mesopotamia sources that says that also, now wants us to trust the words of another greek writer (Diodorus) who lived 100s of years later and we have no other ancient source(not a single one) that attest to what he said and multiple ancient literatures that say otherwise? How does that work? Funny thing is, the very same webpage this quote comes from equally says The temple of Marduk in Babylon The text, copied from an earlier document, describes the temple of the god Marduk in Babylon as reconstructed by the kings of the Babylonian dynasty of Nabopolassar (625-605 BC) and Nebuchadrezzar II (605-562 BC). This temple was called Esagila, "the temple that raises its head". The text first gives a double description of the base of the multi-tiered tower built inside the city walls or ziggurat, then describes the main temple, and, finally, gives the measurements of the multi-tiered tower, called Etemenanki, "House of the Foundation of Heaven and Earth" - the "Tower of Bable" in the Bible (Genesis 11, 1-9). This tower seems to have had seven stories, built in the form of terraces, and was surmounted by a temple. https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/esagila-tablet Bro what are we doing?.... Now I see where you are coming from Boss,do you seriously think ive not read this stuffs before . . Ok so going through this one again is another long conversation so here's a paper that dives into Deut 32 and also touches on El and the other stuffs you mentioned.https://drmsh.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Heiser-Deuteronomy-32-8-and-the-sons-of-God.pdf I really do hope you read this one |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 2:24pm On Aug 22, 2020 |
Cc MuttleyLaff So for some reason, you've kept on mentioning me continuously on this thread even though I've not replied. 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. 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. 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. 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. Something to think about...it is well with us. |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 2:35am On Aug 22, 2020 |
FOLYKAZE:Previous post already deals with this I believe. 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?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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy2AQlK6C5k 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. https://nekaal.org/observer/ar/ObserverArticle234.pdfI'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. 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. 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 However, information from Babylonia sources, Greek sources, Hebrew sources, and archaeological evidences buttresses that Bible is a polemic against Babylon. I'm not sure what you mean here I believe I've touched on the E-sagil Tablet in my other post. And anything I didn't mention, you'll find in the articles link I posted for it. |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 1:10am On Aug 22, 2020 |
FOLYKAZE:I think the first thing to recognise is that Gen 1 -11 was discussing events at the dawn of human history. To answer your question, I'll give you three strands of evidence 1) Enuma Elish(the most popular literature from ancient mesopotamia). Here I'm quoting the part describing the building of the city, it's temple and ziggurat as a tribute to marduk as gratitude for defeating tiamat...I'm using William G Lambert's translation ..... "When he had directed all the decrees, Had divided lots for the Anunnaki, of heaven and of earth, The Anunnaki opened their mouths, And addressed their lord marduk, Now, lord, seeing that you have established our freedom, What favour can we do for you? Let us make a shrine of great renown, Whenever we arrive, let us rest within it. When Marduk heard this, He beamed as brightly as light of day. Build Babylon, the task you have sought, Let bricks for it be moulded, and raise the shrine!' The Anunnaki wielded the pick, For one year they made the needed bricks, When the second year arrived, They raised the top of Esagil, a replica of the Apsu. They built the lofty tower temple of the Apsu.(some translation just use ziggurat here) And for Anu, Ellil, Ea and him,they established it as a dwelling." Brief commentary:Two structures are described here been built by the gods in honour of marduk: the temple Esagil and the tower of Apsu(representing the watery deep; in my entry on E-sagil Tablet, we'll connect the name of the tower with the Sumerian name Etemenanki). The Bible does not directly mention the temple but the nuances in the text may hint not only at the tower(ziggurat) but also at the temple. We've seen that the name Esagila means " House whose top is lofty", thus in Enuma Elish, "the gods raised the peak of Esagila, such a description reflect that the entire temple compound reached the heavens; The biblical phrase , "with its top to the heavens", may therefore reflect familiarity with mesopotamia mythology and ideology. For a more detailed analysis see Babylonian Creation Myths Wilfred G. Lambert( sorry this one is a textbook,so no links... You can get it at bookstores though) 2) Tower of Babel Steele Inscription: "ETEMENANKI: ZIKKURAT BABIBLI: "THE HOUSE, THE FOUNDATION OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, I MADE IT THE WONDER OF THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD, I RAISED ITS TOP TO THE HEAVEN, MADE DOORS FOR THE GATES, AND I COVERED IT WITH BITUMEN AND BRICKS(Andrew George translation) " Brief commentary:A 604-562 BC Steele; The earliest extant architectural drawing of the tower with 3+24 lines in cuneiform script To the left: carving of the Tower of Babel from a side view, clearly showing the relative proportions of the 7 steps and a temple complex at its foot; To the right is the standing figure of Nebuchadnezzar II with his royal conical hat, holding a spear in his left hand and a scroll with the rebuilding plans of the Tower in his outstretched right hand; At the top is a line drawing of the ground plan of the temple on the top, showing both the outer walls and the inner arrangement of rooms. For a detailed analysis of the Steele, you can download Andrew George paper on https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/12831/ 3)The E-sagil Tablet: A 229 BC tablet giving the architectural design of the ziggurat complex copied out by a scribal apprentice called Anu-b∂l·unu. It details measurements of 7 stories and a temple at the top and a structural connection to the temple below. Based on detailed analysis in academia, it's generally held that the architectural design is not of the real ziggurat but of an ideal representative of what should be (something like the temple dimensions in the the book of Ezekiel). Or it might be a training in mathematical exercise for would-be surveyors. Quoting from Andrew George's paper on the E-sagil Tablet(I'll leave the link below) "The decipherment of the E-sangil Tablet confirmed most commentators in the view that the mythical Tower of Babel was a memory of a real building, a staged temple-tower that the Babylonians knew by the Sumerian ceremonial name of E-temen-anki ‘House of the Foundation Platform of Heaven and Underworld’. Apart from the E-sangil Tablet, the cuneiform evidence for E- temen-anki under this name comprises the inscriptions of royal builders, a mention in the poem of Erra, appearance in the litany of temple names of Babylon and other cities that regularly occurs in first-millennium copies of liturgical texts, and entries in scholarly lists of temples, temple gates and other sacred locations To these must be added (a) the reference to Marduk and Zarpan¬tu of é.te.me.en.an.ki (var. é.te.me.na.an.ki) in Late Babylonian copies of a cultic calendar (BRM IV 25 // SBH VII, ed. Unger 1931: 260-1) and (b) an entry in the list of seven seats of Marduk collected in one of the scholarly compendia of heptads: ·u-batdb∂l(en) ·á é.te.me.[en.an.ki] ‘seat of B∂l in E-temen-[anki]’ " "The use of language from academic arithmetic, 3 the interest in the combined area of two courtyards of the neighbouring temple E-sangil as material for a mathematical exercise, the presence in the same document of linear measurements based on different cubit-standards, and the presentation of the dimensions of the base of E-temen-anki as examples of how such measurements can be variously converted into area expressed in the respective capacity-surface systems, all these features indicate that the text is still more abstract and academic than an architect’s plan. " For a more detailed analysis see https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/3858/ 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. 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: To be clear though, like everything in the world, temple complexes are not born equal. Different cities,rulers etc different how it's done; but the idea is usually the same; There's a temple and there's a ziggurat. For Babylon Even though asides from the ground temple structure (esagila in this case), we have multiple literatures and drawings that point to a temple top also(Herodotus is not our only source as I've pointed out above , personally I didn't really want to spend my night combing through research papers (as I did above)...Hence why I wanted to stick to just to talking about only the complex as a whole(you don't find alot of this info in mass media and there's still alot of work and gray areas in this part ) The basic idea is this: The ziggurat is the meeting point between heaven and earth (the center of spiritual cosmic geography), the temple is where the gods dwell. As I pointed out in my previous post jamesid29:. Brilliant inputs, though I largely do not agree with it.I understand point here but maybe you misunderstood me or I didn't make my point clear enough. My point was not about accepting a particular literature as truth because it has spiritual connotations, but that to adequately understand a text, you have to factor in everything that is important to the author. 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."So two things here 1)This is where cultural background comes in. As I stated in my previous post, all literature is written against the backdrop drop of a specific culture. The more we understand the culture the more we understand the text. Example: Recently with the whole black lives matter stuff, Trump said "when the looting starts , the shooting starts". The whole of America went wild on how he why he would make such a racist statement. I didn't get the context for a while and everything was lost on me, but after some time I learnt that the statement has a long racial history that goes all the way back to the 50s. Everybody in America got it immediately but for me I had to cross the cultural divide to understand what was going on. Same thing happens with the Bible and any literary work for that matter. They can make statements that anybody within that culture would get automatically, but we have to cross the cultural divide to understand it. By situating the story in Shinar, mentioning the brick making, mentioning great renown, talking about a tower whose top reaches the heavens etc; everyone in the ancient world would get what's going on. The Bible is simple enough that a child can read it and get the big picture, but at the same time it's also complex enough that each generation will continue to rediscover new things,new insights etc. That's why some people like biblical studies.. 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) 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 believe some of my previous answers already cover this. Besides as I said before, everything in the Bible is making a theological statement. Even Taking vs4 at facevalue alone should already alert you that sometime else is going on here. Like someone I respect always says(concerning the Bible), "if it is weird, it is important". And if you're interested enough,you go down the rabbit trail. I had wish to read the referenced book, the link is broken, it is leads nowhere.Sorry... Just go to archive.org and search for Sumer and the Sumerians. A couple of books should pop up, it's going to be the first on the list. To borrow the book, you have to register... but it's free. The reference pages are 85 - 88. 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 believe my previous answers should cover this also, but let me just make a quick statement. Every city had ziggurat connected to a temple dedicated to the patron god of that city, in the case borsippa, the temple's name is Ezida. If you notice it's from the Talmud and subsequent periods the taught the tower was the Babel one, and that's because they didn't have access to the same info we have. Most of the literature and archeological finds we currently have come from the 19th century onwards so today we are pretty confident in which is Babel and which is not. They faced the same problems we are face now with Canaanite culture. There's still alot we don't know, but it's possible in the next 100 yrs there might be huge archeological finds or better tech that can reconstruct certain things which would open up better understanding of text. That's just how this things work. I know and agree largely with you on this. However, information sourced from wiki has not been debunked yet and very tenable for the momentI pretty sure if you read the entire wiki article or just even the the entire paragraph of the place you quoted from, you'll get a very different understanding that doesn't fit with what you've been trying say. I can quote multiple places from that article the fits everything I've been saying and the very same paragraph you quoted contradicts everything you are trying to make it say. The summary of of the whole article is that ziggurats are sacred spaces and are part of temple complexes usually built for the patreon god of the city. So there's really nothing to debunk. |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 1:00am On Aug 21, 2020 |
FOLYKAZE: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 . 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.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 Check this out from Wikipedia;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 There is no evidence to show the Ziggurat serve as a shrine to Marduk.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. |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 11:55am On Aug 20, 2020 |
Maximus69:By personal opinion I meant, your reply wasn't really an answer to my original question but more of evangelising |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 11:48am On Aug 20, 2020 |
FOLYKAZE:Yeah, you are right about it being a ziggurat and also that it's most likely the ziggurat named Etemenanki boss(I don't think there are many people in academia that would disagree with you on this). I think where the misconception steams from is that you misunderstand the cultural significance of a ziggurat and what it is built for. I believe if you take a dive into what it is and it's significance in ancient mesopotamia, it would change your reading of Genesis 11. |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 11:26am On Aug 20, 2020 |
Maximus69:Okay sir... But this is not an answer to my question though. I'm guessing you were passing across your personal opinion... which is also ok |
| Religion / Re: Tower Of Babel, An Insight Into Space Exploration And Architectural Revolution by jamesid29(m): 6:31pm On Aug 19, 2020 |
Cc FOLYKAZE... So following the conversation for a while , I must say, it's a bit refreshing to see a critic of the scriptures that actually takes their time to read what the text actually says rather than what they remember from Sunday school. So out of curiosity, since you already know what was been built at Babel was a ziggurat And the progress gave birth to what we know today as Ziggurat.Why do you still hold that God's action of scattering the people was because of their mere unity in building a tower? |
| Religion / Re: The Mind Of A Bible Researcher by jamesid29(m): 10:54pm On Aug 13, 2020 |
budaatum:Thanks for sharing.... Hopefully more people get more interested in stuffs like this. 1 Like 1 Share |
(excuse my language), nonetheless, all are still One.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (of 14 pages)
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 400 |