FOLYKAZE:


I just can't wrap my head around that book.

Csonice1:

Honestly speaking, the plane was copied from the already existing.(Topic for another day).
But understand that God created someone that is better than a robot, and that-someone has the ability to build from the available raw materials.

(you ask questions but you hate them) Now take this; if a scientist could build a robot that has the ability to design a car, who receives the praise for a good car design?
A.Robot
B.Scientist
C.None
B.Both

Csonice1:
That's good!
Exactly my point, they violated a spiritual law through pride, lust, and ignorance.

jamesid29:



Definition 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.....

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.

jamesid29:
Yes, but are you trying to say temples are not religious sacred spaces for the gods?

jamesid29:
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.

jamesid29:
-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/

jamesid29:
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.

jamesid29:
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)

jamesid29:
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

FOLYKAZE:


You are only drifting into something insignificant to my question.

Is it God that designed airplane?




Violating spiritual laws? Is it God's plan that man should be be isolated, like a wild beast or fedal, exempted from civilisations?

FOLYKAZE:


You are only drifting into something insignificant to my question.

Is it God that designed airplane?




Violating spiritual laws? Is it God's plan that man should be be isolated, like a wild beast or fedal, exempted from civilisations?

Csonice1:


Your question has been answered. you are only repeating meaningless words: see to that ; I have no business with a domineering person devoid of understanding. I have answered every bit of your questions even though you're scared of mine. Good bye.
one day you will get to know the truth: whether in the body, or out of it.

MuttleyLaff:

Migdal Bavel
If you know you know, and whom no know, well, sorry, that's just the way the cookie crumbles

MuttleyLaff:
As the bible messages, the tower of babel wasn't a physical structure really built. It's a metaphor, although it's a rather odd one, for a star gate and warning against hubris that leads to nemesis.

You are an archetype of Nimrod and all defiance of Yahweh, as you are, do suffer the fate of Nimrod. Continue building your ego, my dear defiant fiend

FOLYKAZE:
I wish I can buy time to my side.... The bii tch is always making me chase her.

However, going by what you quoted, the spiritual significance of Etemenanki is that it serves as an abode for the Gods, even when there is no definite shrine dedicated to Marduk in there.

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;

"""This was the high sanctuary of Marduk, more prominent as a landmark than his sanctuary at ground-level, the massive E-sangil.... 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 """

Is Etemenanki two storey structure? You would expect me to take material filled with inconsistencies, lacking empirical evidences corroborating with ancient texts cannot be taken serious. As shown in the quote text above, Esagila is the real shrine or sanctuary, with overwhelming evidence to prove this. Nothing proves there is shrine in Etemenanki.

Hahaha
Everywhere can be temple or abode of the God's, but cannot necessarily be the shrine of a particular God.
Babylon is the gate of God, mean it is Marduk gateway from heaven into Earth, this doesn't mean the whole Babylon is shrine of Marduk or any particular Gods.

At the emboldened, stop fighting too hard. Visiting temple does not necessarily meann one is there to worship God.

jamesid29
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.

Marriage and court of law are sacred institutions, having no resemblance with religiosity.

Maybe Etemenanki is mere a sacred social (rather than religious) temple, serving as a monument where Babylonians celebrate new year festival.

Smiles

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.

who drew from the works of Ctesias of Cnidus, the scholar who founded on the Persian Royal Archives

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.
https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4450998/file/4463357.pdf
None of those claims were mine, I attached references and paperwork from academic fields. I don't know what you are on about here.

jamesid29
I 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

Wetin I won spin, chief?

That Etemenanki doesn't serve as astronomical spot for observing the stars. And that the design as shown by Esagila text depicts complex mathematics and engineering computation which aided architecture revolution today. Wetin I dey spin when I don offload all evidences to buttress my points? Sir?

MuttleyLaff:
Some of us haven't got a blooming clue of what Migdal Bavel aka the Tower of Babel is all about, that's why you get to read a clueless comment such as the immediate one above
me

jamesid29:

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

jamesid29:
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

jamesid29:
Weldon 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.

jamesid29:
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.

jamesid29:
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?

jamesid29:
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.

jamesid29:
Naa, 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

jamesid29:
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.

jamesid29:
ou sha pack English together .
Besides this part
Bros, what does this even mean?

jamesid29:
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

https://www.nairaland.com/6057405/tower-babel-insight-into-space/5#93123213

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.

jamesid29:
, 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.

jamesid29:
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?

jamesid29:
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.....

jamesid29:
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...

FOLYKAZE:


MuttleyLaff Budaatum, Emusan, Janosky, Maximus69 and all God soldiers on the forums

FOLYKAZE:


I have gone into compromise with you, way past argument. Etemenanki is the dwelling house of Marduk, going by Diodorus claim that Marduk has a room, occupied with beds where a virgin lady climb into to have sex with Marduk. But really, there is no evidence to all of these, nor there is evidence that Etemenanki serves as a shrine. The only known shrine is Esagila.

FOLYKAZE
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

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?

FOLYKAZE
https://www.schoyencollection.com/history-collection-introduction/babylonian-history-collection/tower-babel-stele-ms-2063

Temple though may contain shrine(s) or not, doesn't makes it equivalent to shrine. Esagila is the shrine of Marduk, not Etemenanki.

jamesid29
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...

You 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.

jamesid29
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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

When you arguing from christian standpoint, you see and attribute everything to a deity and supernaturals.

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.

The legends narrated by Diodorus Siculus, who drew from the works of Ctesias of Cnidus.

Ctesias of Cnidus was an historian, who founded the Persian Royal Archives. This person have a lot of resources at hand.

I said in quite below


In the context of Esarhaddon, I was talking about Esagila, not Etemenanki.

It could be just a claim, but the fact is he made the claim and I stand by that claims. All ancient cities and structures were ascribed to Deity designs, Ile-Ife is a good example, as claim hold that Oduduwa established it. Legends could hold that Esagila was built by the Deities, but evidences from archaeological findings establish the Royal inscriptions by Esarhaddon, and letters from his scribe corroborating his claims.

Here is a fresh reference https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147232354.pdf

Denied what, when and how? Abi you be the one battling to dismiss his claim on Etemenanki serving as astronomical viewpoint for observing stars?

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.

Honestly sir, when you agreed that shrine and temple are entirely different, I had played along to fully see if you understand that position.

Maximus69:


FOLYKAZE, you will notice that the only purpose why most people like to talk is to justify whatever they choose to do, 99.99% of humans doesn't care about what will benefit Mankind as a whole!

The Bible is a book given to mankind for the readjustment of our thinking towards achieving a global family of peace, whoever can't present, point, show, tell, speak of a GROUP performing well in this respect doesn't understand the book at all!

This is not a paperwork where each person can just come and point to something for others to read in a book but finds it difficult to present something vivid (real) as a result of what we've learnt from the book!

The Babel story talks about how God disrupted the work of the human society back then by confusing their language, but today the same God is uniting OBEDIENT individuals throughout the earth and they're working together as one family again. Anything short of that will amount to mere fruitless arguments on paperwork!

FOLYKAZE:


The Babel account according to the bible is fabricated tale, it parallel with history.

Maximus69:
Well Jehovah's Witnesses have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was a real event!

Maximus69:
Subjects like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geography, Agricultural Science, Account, Commerce, Economics have textbooks but all the textbooks and studying could only be considered useless if it's just about theories, without any practical application which will lead to benefits!

Of course we're all reading the Babel story from an old book
but a global family of pseudo peace loving worshipers got their motivation and inspiration from reading, studying, meditating and applying what they found in the GB BOOK!

Maximus69:
I think you've been on Nairaland long enough to know all the rules!
So if you feel like responding to my post just calm down and try choose words wisely so as to avoid being barred by the moderators.
See you later!

Maximus69:


Well Jehovah's Witnesses have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was a real event!

Subjects like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geography, Agricultural Science, Account, Commerce, Economics have textbooks but all the textbooks and studying could only be considered useless if it's just about theories, without any practical application which will lead to benefits!

Of course we're all reading the Babel story from an old book but a global family of peace loving worshipers got their motivation and inspiration from reading, studying, meditating and applying what they found in the BOOK!

jamesid29:

.... 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,

Now 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.


.... 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 links

The 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.


Bross.... why are you using english to confuse yourself like this. Pls read this again


And esagila was a temple... and yes shrines can be very plentiful. Brosss , you sha made sure you keep digging in sha


. Boss....Pls calm down and read this thing well.

Buddhism 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...



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.



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

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....


As opposed to shrines that are what sir...


.... Pure cruise


... Brossss, how did we go from ancient mesopotamia to 21st century christainity. I always knew sooner or later,something like this was coming.





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




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 cruise
Anyway 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.....



The 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.





.... Yes sir , Assyriologist FOLYKAZE.
This conversation is pure cruise




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 sir
Quick 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.



.... 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

FOLYKAZE:


Tortoise story has some in grain of morality which are used for coexistence. The standard of the story doesn't change it nature from been fable

FOLYKAZE:
Hopefully Anti-spam bot won't ban me again for responding to this post. I will edit when I am at home

FOLYKAZE:
Tortoise story has some in grain of morality which are used for coexistence. The standard of the story doesn't change it nature from been fable

Maximus69:
Each person will live and get the benefits of what he/she believes! Micah 4:5

MuttleyLaff:
That's a sign warning you that you are swimming against the tide, critical thinking and informed knowledge

Research and relay information will tell and let you know that the Migdal Bavel was never physically built



We have verses in Old Testament (e.g. Psalm 9:17 et cetera) suggesting that the wicked go to Sheol but it actually was Yahushua Ha Mashiach aka Jesus Christ, in the New Testament, who with shedding more light on the subject, brought things into their proper and clearer perspective for us, when He shared the hyperbolic illustration of Sheol, with the story of the Rich Man, being elsewhere and then Abraham, with the Poor Man, being on a different side. Remember that, just like because you're telling a joke, it doesnt necessarily mean, the joke is devoid of some element of truth and reality in it, so is the case with the parable of the rich man and poor man, or even FOLYKAZE's tortoise story

FOLYKAZE:


As a matter of fact, findings has shown Jesus didn't exist. He was an invention of the Roman empire