Dantedasz:
HILARIOUS!!!
How this proves the existence of Jezebel or any of the other characters in the bible just beats me hollow. Then I realise this is RELIGION.

Your comment should fit your first word. If an archaeologist discover a seal containing the name Alexander and the seal has the characteristics of a king's belonging and after some study, it was concluded that it belongs to Alexander the Great. Would you make this type of response?

You don't need to allow your emotion reason for you. I find it hard to discard this discovery because the probability of it not belonging to the said person is extremely small. Most 'facts' that are accepted don't have this high probability, common sense dictates that this should fall into such category

Like it's being said; 'common sense is truly not common'

Topmaike007:
5k-6k years is not far abeg and same dinosaur did not devour Abraham and the rest..

I still stand on the existing protocol that it's million of years..

But Na God sabi jare

6k is actually far. It is not 138 years. Imagine kingdoms that have come and gone within a millennium.
All dinos were not carnivorous and according to the flood model, most would have died during the flood and the catastrophic nature of the flood would initiate a rapid burial, hence they can be fossilized. That is the best condition for an organism (or even a hat) to be fossilized. Again, man is ingenious; he can always prevail over any of the carnivorous dinos that may survived or formed through the rapid speciation that is expected in the creation/flood model.
There are many carvings and paintings that accurately describe most of the different species dino fossils that were found. What is the best explanation for that? ALL were coincidence or some were eye witness representation? After all, many legends have their accounts of dragons (not all spit fires anyway). Could they all be lying, when most can never meet themselves to tell such stories? What is the best explanation for that also?

For millions of years, the mainstream media has set itself to promote millions of years as fact and attack any evidence contrary. There is censorship in the media. The link below documents some of the examples of such censorship. I was struck with awe when reading the info in it as I couldn't believe my eyes. The report is well referenced with pictures of correspondence to prove it's contents. I hope you go through it make further research and decide for yourself (follow the evidence wherever it leads)
http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Pelecius:

Your comment should fit your first word. If an archaeologist discover a seal containing the name Alexander and the seal has the characteristics of a king's belonging and after some study, it was concluded that it belongs to Alexander the Great. Would you make this type of response?

You don't need to allow your emotion reason for you. I find it hard to discard this discovery because the probability of it not belonging to the said person is extremely small. Most 'facts' that are accepted don't have this high probability, common sense dictates that this should fall into such category

Like it's being said; 'common sense is truly not common'

Facts,common sense,reasoning, and RELIGION don't belong in the same sentence.
I repeat how does this your long epistle and the epistle in the original post FACTUALLY prove that Jezebel or any of the numerous characters in the old and new testament ever EXISTED??
You are already being controlled by raw emotions and when you cannot prove anything about your religion you have already resorted to passing subtle insults.

Religion is pure comedy!!!

kingxsamz:


What if I hear it from someone using a megaphone early in the morning in front of my house, who have refused to go? Or people coming to knock on my door every now and then? Or someone spitting in my face and disturbing my peace in the bus? Or me being told to repent and harassed in the market place? Or my kids being forced to study CRK in school? Who needs to apply common sense in this case?

Your problem is that you don't want to hear it at all, not about being forced. You wish to see it die and never be referred to. Your predecessors wished same and were silly enough to say so. They are dead and gone, the Bible, religion, Christianity continue to be expressed, applied and converted to. Don't kill yourself, it is insane to kick against thorns.

kingxsamz:


Like I said, you're trying to convince yourself.
Hence, you remind yourself that it's real.
Don't worry I was once like you.

Were you ever like me? Me too uncle samuel me too.

kingxsamz:


Have you stood before him before?
If no, then na super story you dey talk.

i just did now now.

emmyN:


I don't think Kemimarch16 is one of them, is she?

your mum should be the one to give best answer frog

Pelecius:

I knew someone will expose his fallacy and you did.
God bless you Sir

Amen. Some of us are here to defend our faith, put the fools where they belong, enlighten those who know nothing about Christians or Christianity and treat the Bleep up of any insane person the demons are using to insult us.

The Bible gives us the right to do this. Proverbs 26:5

kingxsamz:


We have read it and concluded that it's full of sh!t.

.
You haven't and it shows in your speech. And you have not really taking time to ask yourself some candid questions as regard your life and existence. You are still a child suckling his mother's milk and that is why you still talk like a child.
Do you want to grow up into maturity? If yes, get to know God. I'm sure your parents know the true God but you have chosen to be ignorant.

See display of Atheistic foolishness on this thread.
The bible already prophesied it a long time ago, that scoffers will abound in the last days.

Pelecius:


Without attending to the previous guy’s post as it is just as fallacious as yours, must you always bring misinformation due to your hatred for Christianity? How many American Christians did you meet? How come you arrive at the conclusion that 80% of them are dumb?

You don’t need to be embarrassing yourself because of hatred for Christianity, yourself and every other wannabe atheist that bring misinformed and fallacious arguments. You were even asking if someone read the post for saying God is great. What is your point? How can you prove that the seal does not belong to one Jezebel if it is assumed that there are many Jezebel? What is the probability that there is more than one Jezebel who is a queen?

You believe millions of years just because you were told so (even with clear cut evidences which disagree with it), yet you are questioning someone if he read the post. The same question should be asked of you because you seem not to read the article for asking that fellow what you said.

I don't have time to reply to you. Wannabe intellectual you think you are smart but you're just another Christian dumbo.

anonimi:


Which God in particular


www.nairaland.com/attachments/6391004_image_jpeg9f360c5ab7736510df54c882e9dbf188


www.nairaland.com/attachments/9872468_screenshot20190630231453_jpeg514b0a215876001d7122526e8c122ad3

His name is YHWH, He created all things and He alone is God. Others are creatures and no God. I worship YHWH.

Dantedasz:


Facts,common sense,reasoning, and RELIGION don't belong in the same sentence.
I repeat how does this your long epistle and the epistle in the original post FACTUALLY prove that Jezebel or any of the numerous characters in the old and new testament ever EXISTED??
You are already being controlled by raw emotions and when you cannot prove anything about your religion you have already resorted to passing subtle insults.

Religion is pure comedy!!!

I'm not surprised with your response. Your question was answered already in the post and I used idea of probability and common analogy to explain why the discovery in the article is enough FACT to be relief upon to establish the existence of Jezebel. But you either don't want the Bible to be true in this regard (emotional response) or you don't have idea on the subject matter.
I asked a question concerning Alexander but you ignored it. Your response to the question will definitely make one to know where you stand as to my prediction about you as stated above.

I'm sorry if you find my initial response offensive. It was not to insult.
I hope you stick to the topic so I can learn from your argument

SegFault:

I don't have time to reply to you. Wannabe intellectual you think you are smart but you're just another Christian dumbo.

We all know that's not true. The time you used in typing this could be used for refuting my objections, but you were definitely exposed and have to resort to emotional defense.

'Wannabe intellectual'
I smile. It's nice you can even say that. I never claimed to be an intellectual anyway, I just don't go with uninformed comments. This is why I make my arguments in form of question whenever I want to expose a fallacy; like you did earlier.

'You think you're smart'
That's your statement anyway. How you came to that assertion is beyond me. I'd be glad if you should that to me

'...you're just another Christian dumbo'
Another claim, and committing the fallacy of 'begging the question'. We're just back to square of one. How did you come to such conclusion? What was your test for testing positive to being dumb?

Like I said, your hatred for Christianity will only allow you to not reason critically, but emotionally. And it may make you to resort to ad hominem whenever your claims are debunked. I hope you heed to correction

BananaPeel:
.
You haven't and it shows in your speech. And you have not really taking time to ask yourself some candid questions as regard your life and existence. You are still a child suckling his mother's milk and that is why you still talk like a child.
Do you want to grow up into maturity? If yes, get to know God. I'm sure your parents know the true God but you have chosen to be ignorant.

Seems like you folks wake up in the morning to say trash.
Like I said, we've read it, and concluded that it's bullsh!t.
Imagining calling yourself mature and also believing in a sky fairy daddy Santa Klaus.
Clown.

Image123:


i just did now now.

Go and see a doctor. You're not feeling too well.

Pelecius:


We all know that's not true. The time you used in typing this could be used for refuting my objections, but you were definitely exposed and have to resort to emotional defense.

'Wannabe intellectual'
I smile. It's nice you can even say that. I never claimed to be an intellectual anyway, I just don't go with uninformed comments. This is why I make my arguments in form of question whenever I want to expose a fallacy; like you did earlier.

'You think you're smart'
That's your statement anyway. How you came to that assertion is beyond me. I'd be glad if you should that to me

'...you're just another Christian dumbo'
Another claim, and committing the fallacy of 'begging the question'. We're just back to square of one. How did you come to such conclusion? What was your test for testing positive to being dumb?

Like I said, your hatred for Christianity will only allow you to not reason critically, but emotionally. And it may make you to resort to ad hominem whenever your claims are debunked. I hope you heed to correction

You think I have time for you. like I haven't talked with many Christians online, I remember an atheist that wrote a journal on wattpad, what I read cleared the air. In fact why am I wasting my time.

Image123:


Your problem is that you don't want to hear it at all, not about being forced. You wish to see it die and never be referred to. Your predecessors wished same and were silly enough to say so. They are dead and gone, the Bible, religion, Christianity continue to be expressed, applied and converted to. Don't kill yourself, it is insane to kick against thorns.

Then don't cry when you're criticized or insulted.

Pelecius:

I'm not surprised with your response. Your question was answered already in the post and I used idea of probability and common analogy to explain why the discovery in the article is enough FACT to be relief upon to establish the existence of Jezebel. But you either don't want the Bible to be true in this regard (emotional response) or you don't have idea on the subject matter.
I asked a question concerning Alexander but you ignored it. Your response to the question will definitely make one to know where you stand as to my prediction about you as stated above.

I'm sorry if you find my initial response offensive. It was not to insult.
I hope you stick to the topic so I can learn from your argument

Alexander the great is a historical fact. He existed because there are numerous written books about him and it is a proven fact that he was a general,a conqueror and a ruler of various countries.
Jezebel on the other hand is NOT a historical fact. She only exists in the old testament like other figures like Noah,Moses and Abraham. There are no corroborating writings about her except in the Bible which is not a reliable source in my humble opinion.

SegFault:

You think I have time for you. like I haven't talked with many Christians online, I remember an atheist that wrote a journal on wattpad, what I read cleared the air. In fact why am I wasting my time.

Hope you know what they call 'fallacy of appealing to authority'?

Alright, you engaging Christians don't prove that they are dumb especially, when they disagree with your fallacious claims.

1. You still didn't explain the procedure you employed in determining if someone is dumb or not.
2. Worse, you didn't tell us how you came to the figures you gave earlier.

Maybe the definition of dumbness have changed

So if somebody living in 4002 Find a comic book about superman.. It will validate the existence of superman.. Is orite..

Make una continue

Dantedasz:


Alexander the great is a historical fact. He existed because there are numerous written books about him and it is a proven fact that he was a general,a conqueror and a ruler of various countries.
Jezebel on the other hand is NOT a historical fact. She only exists in the old testament like other figures like Noah,Moses and Abraham. There are no corroborating writings about her except in the Bible which is not a reliable source in my humble opinion.

Thanks for your warm response

Now you said Alex is a historical fact because there are numerous written BOOKS about him. Great.
Now, I would love you to tell me the criteria that is used to determine if a BOOK can be regarded as a historical document.

Your response to that will help us in deciding if your nice opinion is correct

Pelecius:

Thanks for your warm response

Now you said Alex is a historical fact because there are numerous written BOOKS about him. Great.
Now, I would love you to tell me the criteria that is used to determine if a BOOK can be regarded as a historical document.

Your response to that will help us in deciding if your nice opinion is correct

Are you conducting an interview or having a debate?

Alexander the great is a historical figure and his footprints are all over history as a military strategist, a general and a creator of empires.
I don't think me and you need to keep going round in circles. There is NO proof of existence of Jezebel or the other numerous figures in the old and new testament.

Mosco100:
His name is YHWH, He created all things and He alone is God. Others are creatures and no God. I worship YHWH.

Go back to read Apostle Paul’s sermon to the people of Athens.

Dantedasz:



Are you conducting an interview or having a debate?

Alexander the great is a historical figure and his footprints are all over history as a military strategist, a general and a creator of empires.
I don't think me and you need to keep going round in circles. There is NO proof of existence of Jezebel or the other numerous figures in the old and new testament.

In debate, questions are asked and it is better to put some arguments in form of questions to help define some terms clearly

This is still begging the question. He is (allegedly?) a historical figure because we read of his exploits in BOOKS. But how do we determine that those books are good historical sources. That is what I am asking. What are the criteria for determining if a book is a good historical source. If we don't know the answer (define it clearly), our discussion won't yield any fruit. Because bias will take over and objectivity would be dropped.

Pelecius:



Hope you know what they call 'fallacy of appealing to authority'?

Alright, you engaging Christians don't prove that they are dumb especially, when they disagree with your fallacious claims.

1. You still didn't explain the procedure you employed in determining if someone is dumb or not.
2. Worse, you didn't tell us how you came to the figures you gave earlier.

Maybe the definition of dumbness have changed

Like I said I won't waste my time with you. I don't need to prove anything to a so called "intellectual" now go back to church to cast and bind. Don't quote me again.

Pelecius:


In debate, questions are asked and it is better to put some arguments in form of questions to help define some terms clearly

This is still begging the question. He is (allegedly?) a historical figure because we read of his exploits in BOOKS. But how do we determine that those books are good historical sources. That is what I am asking. What are the criteria for determining if a book is a good historical source. If we don't know the answer (define it clearly), our discussion won't yield any fruit. Because bias will take over and objectivity would be dropped.

@Emboldened,
Is the bible story of Jezebel a good historical source?
Are there any independent confirmation of this story apart from the bible?
At least Alexander the great story is independently confirmed by VARIOUS historical sources.

SegFault:

Like I said I won't waste my time with you. I don't need to prove anything to a so called "intellectual" now go back to church to cast and bind. Don't quote me again.

You can run with your tail behind your legs.
Making a claim is easy, defending it is another thing

Dantedasz:




@Emboldened,
Is the bible story of Jezebel a good historical source?
Are there any independent confirmation of this story apart from the bible?
At least Alexander the great story is independently confirmed by VARIOUS historical sources.

With due respect, I have a feeling that bias is getting in the way of this discussion. I guess I asked a question first but you seem not to want to answer it. If the question you bolden is not answered, we won't be able to go anywhere.

I will gladly answer your question if you would answer kindly provide answers to what I have been asking since.
Thank you

Pelecius:

With due respect, I have a feeling that bias is getting in the way of this discussion. I guess I asked a question first but you seem not to want to answer it. If the question you bolden is not answered, we won't be able to go anywhere.

I will gladly answer your question if you would answer kindly provide answers to what I have been asking since.
Thank you

I guess we are going round in circles since you refuse to answer me and I refuse to answer you.

Dantedasz:



I guess we are going round in circles since you refuse to answer me and I refuse to answer you.

Lol
If you would check, I asked my question first and I said it is very important so as to clearly define some terms. You refused to answer them

Pelecius:

If an archaeologist discover a seal containing the name Alexander and the seal has the characteristics of a king's belonging and after some study, it was concluded that it belongs to Alexander the Great. Would you make this type of response?

I find it hard to discard this discovery because the probability of it not belonging to the said person is EXTREMELY small. Most 'facts' that are accepted don't have this high probability, common sense dictates that this should fall into such category
'

Again, I asked someone this question: What is the probability that there is more than one Jezebel who is a queen?
I already answered your first question with the quote above; using simple analogy and probability but since you seem not to agree, that is why I had to ask what criteria you adopt in determining reliability of a historical source. If I know your criteria (which will be accepted if it agrees with that of historical scholars), it can easily be applied to the stories of Alex and the Bible. Then we can determine the validity of your previous opinion here

Dantedasz:


...the Bible which is not a reliable source in my humble opinion.

I hope you now get why I insist on knowing the criteria now.
It has been nice discussing with you