Negro_Ntns: Logicboy,

you are frothing dayam too much.

1. if your protege meant BCE, as opposed to BC, the academician in him would have been alert to not trip the fuse and contradict his own earlier response faulting my position on biblical characters. He clearly meant what he said with the use of BC....and discredited himself. thank you though for the damage control....but be mindful of the biblical saying that; "let him cast the first stone who has not been guilty of the same sin". lol!

2. you said nigerian history is older than the bible. i need you to clarify this claim.
(a) do you mean it is older that the written record? or,
(b) that it is older than the historical events narrated in the bible?

3. VERY IMPORTANT: this is probably the first time we are encountering one another in a discussion. be civil....cut out all that insults and nonsense. I will overlook it for now but i will not accommodate it further without a fiery response.

Sorry for the insults



Nigerian history has been dated to beyond 4000bc. Jewish history starts after then. Pagan idols/utensils in Nigerian were dated to such times

Negro_Ntns: Logicboy,

you are frothing dayam too much.

1. if your protege meant BCE, as opposed to BC, the academician in him would have been alert to not trip the fuse and contradict his own earlier response faulting my position on biblical characters. He clearly meant what he said with the use of BC....and discredited himself. thank you though for the damage control....but be mindful of the biblical saying that; "let him cast the first stone who has not been guilty of the same sin". lol!

2. you said nigerian history is older than the bible. i need you to clarify this claim.
(a) do you mean it is older that the written record? or,
(b) that it is older than the historical events narrated in the bible?

3. VERY IMPORTANT: this is probably the first time we are encountering one another in a discussion. be civil....cut out all that insults and nonsense. I will overlook it for now but i will not accommodate it further without a fiery response.


Plaetton,

i go back to my original response which you picked on to start a derail. if i say nigeria pre-bokoharam, it should be clear without the need at first to give granular instruction that this is a delineation of timeline....viz, a restive period and a terroristic period. so i shouldn't have to break nigeria into colonial period, first republic, military coup, war, reconciliation....etc, to present at the entry point of a discussion everything that i intend to share. a discussion is an interactive participation, not a speech. you give a broadview, step back and let your opponent seek clarification or counter the point. you return with more context...and as the back and forth gathers its momentum the depth is revealed resulting in an enriched and enlightened discussion. i don't do copy and paste. i come with stamina and enough steam to outlast you in a debate on religious belief or lack of. i hope you have steam to withstand the mental pressure. now i will restate my first post.

the sacrifice of jesus, the cross, the walking on water are all symbolic and have a deeper spiritual meaning than mere physical senses can perceive and understamd. many of the themes and symbolism and mysteries of Christianity are remnants of Jewish mystical practices which were adopted legacies of pre- Mosaic times.

And all I am saying is that the term pre-mosaic means absolutely nothing. I am not just saying for argument sake.
First, Moses is not accepted as a bona fide historical figure.
The bible , from where we get the name Moses, does not tell anyone the date Moses supposedly lived.

Your statement would have made more sense and avoided response if you had phrased it thus:
....many of the themes, symbolism and mysteries of Christianity are remnants of Ancient Hebrew mystical practices, which, were themselves adopted legacies of ancient Babylon and Egypt".

Sorry Anony, I am only just seeing this topic for the first time.

I thought I have said everything I have to say on this matter. What else is there to add?

Negro_Ntns: i am not sure that civilization will be a good time marker to use in this regard since civilizations can span over different prophetic times.

but my reference is in point to nohadic time. this would be the earliest of any trackable social and cultural institutions of human history. that time period gave us the narration of productive work and social relationships and covenants.

hahahahahaha hohohohohohohoh kikkikikikikikiik

plaetton:

Yeah. I guess when talking about human history, we should as well be talking about Herculian times or era. Afterall, Hercules was a prominent hero in Greek mythology. There are even statues of him all over Greece.

or EMPEROR GENGHIIS KHAN or EMPEROR ASHOKA or EMPEROR ALEXANDER ! these great Pagan personalities of yore!

Negro_Ntns:

we will see how far your academic weight can stretch. egyptian, summerian, babylonian, akkadian.....etc are all biblical settlements and cultures. there is no way you can talk about human history and not reference the bible......no way!

DONT LIE! THE ABOVE MENTIONED WERE ALL PAGAN CIVILZATIONS! ONLY PAGANS ARE CAPABLE OF SUCH! YOUR JEWISH NUTCASES WERE STILL FIGHTING AMONGST THEMSELVES!

PAGAN 9JA:



DONT LIE! THE ABOVE MENTIONED WERE ALL PAGAN CIVILZATIONS! ONLY PAGANS ARE CAPABLE OF SUCH! YOUR JEWISH NUTCASES WERE STILL FIGHTING AMONGST THEMSELVES!

Dont mind this bible nut jare.

Imagine! ..that ancient Summer, Akkad, Babylon and Egypt were all biblical settlements.
What a load of crap.
Someone forgot to educate this fella that the old Testament books in the bible were compiled and patched together around 700 BCE or 650BCE (or bc , as it is commonly known), during the the Israelite captivity in Babylon.

fineworker: Please we should not derail on the aim of this thread. Let us all leave insults and unnecessary arguments and discuss the content of the thread so that we can learn from each other.

are you the class captain? let's have the names and religions of noise makers.

Logicboy03:

Sorry for the insults



Nigerian history has been dated to beyond 4000bc. Jewish history starts after then. Pagan idols/utensils in Nigerian were dated to such times

you cannot come up with a credible history line for nigeria pre 1914. do you see how. things get tangled up when relating historical timelines?

Negro_Ntns:

you cannot come up with a credible history line for nigeria pre 1914. do you see how. things get tangled up when relating historical timelines?

Heard of Kanem borno?

Heard of the history of igbo people?

Negro_Ntns:

you cannot come up with a credible history line for nigeria pre 1914. do you see how. things get tangled up when relating historical timelines?

And biblical ones are accurate?


hehehehehehheheheheh

When did Sauron land in middle earth?

Logicboy03:




Heard of Kanem borno?

Heard of the history of igbo people?

yes i have heard of them.... and yes i understand what you meant and where you were going with the suggestion. it is nit picking for me to be stressing on the brand rather than focusing on the substance. however i feel the need to make a point that you and plaetton are commitig the exact same error that you are pickig through on my position.

if pre mosaic does not convey an idea consistent with the timeline of what came before ten commandments and what evolved afterwards, and i need to be specific and mention whether this was babylonian, mesopotamian or egyptian in order to be understood by people qho pride themselves as academician and critical hinkers.........then i dont believe they in turn have the privilege to brand kanem bornu or igbo antiquity as a nigerian culture of 4000bc.

there ought to be protocol of understanding on how broad or narrow this discussion should be. it cannot be narrowed at your convenience but broadened for your opponent.

you feel me?

Negro_Ntns:

yes i have heard of them.... and yes i understand what you meant and where you were going with the suggestion. it is nit picking for me to be stressing on the brand rather than focusing on the substance. however i feel the need to make a point that you and plaetton are commitig the exact same error that you are pickig through on my position.

if pre mosaic does not convey an idea consistent with the timeline of what came before ten commandments and what evolved afterwards, and i need to be specific and mention whether this was babylonian, mesopotamian or egyptian in order to be understood by people qho pride themselves as academician and critical hinkers.........then i dont believe they in turn have the privilege to brand kanem bornu or igbo antiquity as a nigerian culture of 4000bc.

there ought to be protocol of understanding on how broad or narrow this discussion should be. it cannot be narrowed at your convenience but broadened for your opponent.

you feel me?

I must say, you are very consistent for being in error.

Timeline of the ten commandments and what evolved afterwards?


What ten commandments?
Surely, you can't be serious.

You must be mistaken this forum for sunday school.

Have you heard of Maat, the Ancient Egyptian code of ethics?
Look it up on google and compare.

The problem with you is that you continue to make references to non-existent, non-historical timelines.
We don't allow that on this forum.

If you want to use a timeline to make whatever point , use one that has historical validity.
Moses, Noah and now, the ten commandments, do not have any historical validity.

Like I said before,while you are on it, you might as well use pre-herculine, post-herculine, or other mythical or allegorical figures in your timelines to advance your points.

plaetton,

critical thinkers are non-conformists....they reflect, ponder, weigh, contemplate, imagine..... so far, you have displayed the opposite of these traits.

i am a student of truth, in chase of scholarship and enlightenement. none of the true philosophers and theologians on record used calendar dating to anchor memorable events in their works. they all without exception used personalities to mark time and events.

......in the time of Xerxes
......during the reign of Alexander
.......in the war of King David
......in the year that Pharaoh honored the King of Abyssinia
.....in the journey of Attacus through the deserts

time markers were developed as a standard so all record will have uniformity of reference point. this does not necessarily mean that the event they relay is truthful and neither does it mean that it is false. numeric dating is nothing but a unit of measure. so chill your ego and stop betting all your hands on what you call " historical validity".

at best, date concepts are a theory. it is an approximation which holds to the understanding that in absence of anything else which could serve as a physical evidence of X, Y and Z being present at A, B and C at a time P,Q and R, a time factor of G,H and I is assigned and authenticated as place holders for the event. soon as an evidence is unearthed which changes any of these variables, then their relativity to one another is recalculated , locked and indexed as a new age or time marker or reference point.

you cannot say, in the threat of a dangling sword overhead, that an event assigned a 4000bc or bce indeed happened in that year. there was no calendar or virtual time machines in that age. the people of that time relied on true representation of time and days.....the "sun" and the "moon" and their accompanied seasons to share of the glory of mankind.

the unit of dating and time measure we use nowadays are valid and handsomely beneficial for our age. when we go back into the ancient archives it is not at all misguided to fall back to their time and date standard for written record. nothing is more truthful and valid than that.


------------------------------

Negro_Ntns: plaetton,

critical thinkers are non-conformists....they reflect, ponder, weigh, contemplate, imagine..... so far, you have displayed the opposite of these traits.

i am a student of truth, in chase of scholarship and enlightenement. none of the true philosophers and theologians on record used calendar dating to anchor memorable events in their works. they all without exception used personalities to mark time and events.

......in the time of Xerxes
......during the reign of Alexander
.......in the war of King David
......in the year that Pharaoh honored the King of Abyssinia
.....in the journey of Attacus through the deserts

time markers were developed as a standard so all record will have uniformity of reference point. this does not necessarily mean that the event they relay is truthful and neither does it mean that it is false. numeric dating is nothing but a unit of measure. so chill your ego and stop betting all your hands on what you call " historical validity".

at best, date concepts are a theory. it is an approximation which holds to the understanding that in absence of anything else which could serve as a physical evidence of X, Y and Z being present at A, B and C at a time P,Q and R, a time factor of G,H and I is assigned and authenticated as place holders for the event. soon as an evidence is unearthed which changes any of these variables, then their relativity to one another is recalculated , locked and indexed as a new age or time marker or reference point.

you cannot say, in the threat of a dangling sword overhead, that an event assigned a 4000bc or bce indeed happened in that year. there was no calendar or virtual time machines in that age. the people of that time relied on true representation of time and days.....the "sun" and the "moon" and their accompanied seasons to share of the glory of mankind.

the unit of dating and time measure we use nowadays are valid and handsomely beneficial for our age. when we go back into the ancient archives it is not at all misguided to fall back to their time and date standard for written record. nothing is more truthful and valid than that.


------------------------------

I agree 100%.
Xerxes and Alexander are well known and accepted historical figures. There are not picked from the religious lores/myths of any tribe.
That is the point I have been trying to get across to you.
Moses,Noah and the 10 commandments do not fit that criteria. They are contrived from the patch patch religious myths of an ancient tribe.

You are free to choose figures and events that have a historical validity.
That's all.

it is a step in right direction to see that we have an agreement ....this discussion will therefore be open, broad and challenging of previously held concepts.

plaetton:

I agree 100%.
Xerxes and Alexander are well known and accepted historical figures. There are not picked from the religious lores/myths of any tribe.
That is the point I have been trying to get across to you.
Moses,Noah and the 10 commandments do not fit that criteria. They are contrived from the patch patch religious myths of an ancient tribe.

You are free to choose figures and events that have a historical validity.
That's all.

......did they have a religion?

1. what is religion?
2. pre-mosaic and the ten commandments what religion did the cultures observe?

Negro_Ntns:

......did they have a religion?

1. what is religion?
2. pre-mosaic and the ten commandments what religion did the cultures observe?

I give up.
Lets return to the main thread.

did these people of earlier ages ....xerxes, alexander, pharaoh, cyrus.......did they have a religion or a belief system?

this question is consistent with the theme of this discussiion. dont give up, answer it.

Negro_Ntns: did these people of earlier ages ....xerxes, alexander, pharaoh, cyrus.......did they have a religion or a belief system?

this question is consistent with the theme of this discussiion. dont give up, answer it.

he had to "give up". he ran out of gas.

plaetton:

I agree 100%.
Xerxes and Alexander are well known and accepted historical figures. There are not picked from the religious lores/myths of any tribe.
That is the point I have been trying to get across to you.
Moses,Noah and the 10 commandments do not fit that criteria. They are contrived from the patch patch religious myths of an ancient tribe.

You are free to choose figures and events that have a historical validity.
That's all.

Which is quite odd considering many of you expect us to take the idea of evolution seriously even when there is no scratch of historical or archaeological evidence to back this up.

davidylan:

Which is quite odd considering many of you expect us to take the idea of evolution seriously even when there is no scratch of historical or archaeological evidence to back this up.

Fake biologist

Negro_Ntns: did these people of earlier ages ....xerxes, alexander, pharaoh, cyrus.......did they have a religion or a belief system?

this question is consistent with the theme of this discussiion. dont give up, answer it.

Perhaps they did.
So?

davidylan:

he had to "give up". he ran out of gas.

More than running out gas, I get dizzy with the kind of circular arguments that you are known for.
I make my points and I move on.

Deep Sight:
Sorry Anony, I am only just seeing this topic for the first time.

I thought I have said everything I have to say on this matter. What else is there to add?

Lol, nice of you to show up eventually when the thread is already at the brink of disintegration. Anyway you seemed to be of the opinion that accepting Christ is petty for such a magnanimous God to insist on. What I want to defend here is what it means to accept Christ and why it is not petty, but absolutely necessary.

I'll start by listing some of the points about God that we both agree on. If I misrepresent you in any way, please point it out.

We both agree that

1. God is a maximally great being.
2. God is the eternal first cause.
3. God is a person (more like super-person actually)
4. God is the Intelligent Designer who gives order to the Universe
5. God is the basis for morality and the absolute moral law giver.
6. God is perfect.

For now, let us not assume that God is Jehovah rather let us use the generic God concept of a maximally great being (MGB).

If you agree with these please indicate so that we proceed. If you don't agree with the above or want to clarify your positions, please do so or alternatively give us what your concept of God is so that I don't put words into your mouth. Once you've done this, we shall proceed having gotten a fair description of God out of the way.

I await your reply.

davidylan:

Which is quite odd considering many of you expect us to take the idea of evolution seriously even when there is no scratch of historical or archaeological evidence to back this up.

And this is coming from a biologist?
Wonders will never end!
I hear this kind of stuff at motor parks and mami markets.

No one forces you to accept anything. You are free to believe in santa clause till eternity.

plaetton:

And this is coming from a biologist?
Wonders will never end!
I hear this kind of stuff at motor parks and mami markets.

No one forces you to accept anything. You are free to believe in santa clause till eternity.

Every rational person on NL religion section knows that Davidylan is a fake biologist.

Probably a trainee lab assistant or chemical supplier.

plaetton:

More than running out gas, I get dizzy with the kind of circular arguments that you are known for.
I make my points and I move on.

I wasnt making any arguments so i wonder what circular arguments you were particularly worried about. I for one have largely refrained from posting so much around here because of the number of times i have to reach for the sick bucket.

plaetton:

And this is coming from a biologist?
Wonders will never end!
I hear this kind of stuff at motor parks and mami markets.

No one forces you to accept anything. You are free to believe in santa clause till eternity.

You are free to provide us your proof abi.

Logicboy03:

Every rational person on NL religion section knows that Davidylan is a fake biologist.

[b]Probably a trainee lab assistant [/b]or chemical supplier.

correct!

davidylan:

I wasnt making any arguments so i wonder what circular arguments you were particularly worried about. I for one have largely refrained from posting so much around here because of the number of times i have to reach for the sick bucket.

I thought it was because you're an eediot.

Wait for it, personal attack, abi? A biologist who's never seen any evidence for evolution certainly qualifies as one, no? What's that, why haven't we seen the crocoduck? Wtf are you a scientist? *smh*

Do feel free to enjoy your folly though

wiegraf:

I thought it was because you're an eediot.

Wait for it, personal attack, abi? A biologist who's never seen any evidence for evolution certainly qualifies as one, no? What's that, why haven't we seen the crocoduck? Wtf are you a scientist? *smh*

Do feel free to enjoy your folly though

Lol, care to show us where he talked about a "crocoduck"? Or did you just make that up to serve as an excuse for you to launch an ad hominen attack?