NewStats: 3,265,223 , 8,186,071 topics. Date: Friday, 13 June 2025 at 11:19 PM 602l2t

Kay 17: Christians can not and don't need to prove God's existence nor the validity of Christianity! Because the sole standard is Faith simple. I'm even tired of seeing atheists run around looking for a tail on a mAn!!

As to the discrimination part, atheists are discriminated against in Nigeria. Some are lynched

Give instances please.

all4naija: He can only accept God if he has a handle. In other words, there is nothing pointing to the existence of a God religionists talk about.

Lol, so God should get a handle and come on Nairaland for ooman to believe?? Lolololol, Nothing wey I no go see for this Nairaland!

all4naija: Sorry to reply to this your comment as it is not directed at me though. But, there are many evidences to prove there is nothing like God or Gods the religionists talk about. That has be proven over and over again with facts. The definition of God from a religion perspective revealed there is nothing in existence that looks or seems like that, that ever existed or likely to exist.

Where is the double-standard you are talking about?

Is your problem that God does not exist or is it that religious people got God wrong? Which is it?

davidylan:

wow that was an excellent take on that convo!

Lol, I couldn't help but notice his strong faith in seyibrown's existence even though he had never seen, heard, or touched her. I just wondered why he rejected God for exactly the same reasons.

ooman4:

because anony lacks sense. impersonating me, saying i could accept your silly dogma

Lol, I did not. I just showed you your logic. You accepted seyibrown's existence for the exact same reasons you rejected God's existence. Why the double standard?

It is becoming clearer and clearer that your rational mind does not reject God. It is your irrational self that does.

ooman4:

yea, doesn't it also sound to you that at least SOMEONE is there. dunce

davidylan:
ok but how does someone being there equate to Seyibrown being there in person?

ooman4:
why do you love to complicate matters. Someone is there, updating in her NAME. i dont care if it is seyibrown, as long as SOMEONE is there, i believe that there exist a personality called sayibrown, whether an impostor or not is not my problem.

But whether Jesus, Mohammad, the flying spaghetti, no one cares to give an update of their dogmas.

davidylan:

but that isnt reasonable at all. How can you believe someone exists simply because their name appears on the web? What if that is an impersonation?

ooman4:

Do you not get the point here, I dont care who is there as long as someone is there, then the personality called seyibrown is active. God is ever lacking

davidylan:

you seem to be arguing rather pointlessly. the question was... does an anonymous web-handle prove that the TRUE bearer of the name exists? How would you prove that? Just by making an assumption (by faith) that the owner of the web-handle must needs be the person?

and here i was thinking atheists were the last bastion of logic and reason.

[size=14pt]Lol, how I love this. Let's proceed to slightly modify the conversation shall we.[/size]

ooman4:

yea, doesn't it also sound to you that at least SOMEONE is there. dunce

davidylan:
ok but how does someone being there equate to God being there in person?

ooman4:
why do you love to complicate matters. Someone is there, creating in HIS NAME. i dont care if it is JEHOVA, as long as SOMEONE is there, i believe that there exist a personality called GOD, whether an impostor or not is not my problem.

davidylan:
but that isnt reasonable at all. How can you believe someone exists simply because the universe appears to be created? What if that is an impersonation?

ooman4:
Do you not get the point here, I dont care who is there as long as someone is there, then the personality called God is active.

davidylan:
you seem to be arguing rather pointlessly. the question was... does an anonymous God prove that the TRUE bearer of the name exists? How would you prove that? Just by making an assumption (by faith) that the owner of the universe must needs be the person?

and here i was thinking atheists were the last bastion of logic and reason.

@ooman. I like how you gave a vehement defense for the existence of seyibrown though you have never seen, heard or touched seyibrown. The only evidence you had were words appearing on a screen.
What is funny to me is how you can turn around and deny God's existence even though you have the whole of nature before you as evidence of His existence. Basically, you have made it clear to us that you don't need to see, touch or feel something for it to exist. All you need to see is creation.

Your logic turns against you my friend. Staring you in the face is all the evidence for God that you need.

Ihedinobi:

[size=30pt]ANONY DEBUNKED!!!!![/size]

You can'y debunk me, I have bigger fonts than you. #spread the butthurt.

lolololololol..................

Ihedinobi:

Lol. I don die!

Why you dey die? foolish ihedinobism

Epic fail! You cannot die on an internet forum

~Ihedinobi debunked!


Oh my God...I'm getting really good at this. Our "knight of logic" has shown me the way

Kay 17: LMao!!
*mouths*
[size=30pt]DEBUNKED[/size]

Lololol............I give up. Your "debunked" font is larger than mine. You win!

Kay 17:

I think a year's course is required to get such massive letters. Lool!

lololol.....
Epic fail! it doesn't take a whole year to increase font

You are ignorant!

~Kay 17 debunked


This is so fun I could almost do this forever.

Kay 17: I should try logicboy's debunk method too LOOL!

^{DEBUNKED HAHAhHA}

Lol.. you really should try it one day. It's so much fun.

Ihedinobi:

Oh Lord! Twin bro, take am easy na. If my bele tear na you cause am o.

Lololol, my brother abeg free me o! I just discovered the secret of superior logic. Today I must debunk people on Nairaland. No worry, your bele no go tear.

thehomer:
By your reasoning, am I to expect that someone who makes something with an intended outcome is a creator? If so, then the father who doesn't merely shoot out a seed but also takes the time to raise the child would be a creator.

If not, then what is a creator?

By your argument, are we to call a farmer a creator of plants? How about the child who is not raised by his biological father? Who is his creator? His biological father or the one who raised him? You are stretching this argument to absurdity by throwing in irrelevant parameters and you know it.

Are all creators by definition, indifferent?

How does this relate to what I just said?

He is under a moral obligation if by definition, he is moral.

Again we play on words. My comment was quite clear

My point is that unless we agree on the particular nature of the creator, then using your premises will lead to contradictions i.e it will lead to creators being moral and not moral.

And my point is that inserting the nature of the creator as you are requesting makes the argument redundant because we don't learn anything new.

Come on this is just childish. It looks as if you're once again trying to be slippery to avoid answering a direct question.

On the contrary, it is you who is being slippery. I specifically asked you if by acting morally you meant acting good. If you didn't mean acting good, then you have allowed the possibility for acting moral to mean acting evil

That isn't a recommendation that the bachelor be unmarried as you were implying, that is a description of the state the bachelor has to be in to qualify as being a bachelor.

I hope you recognize how redundant the above sounds. Basically you've said:
"That isn't a recommendation that the unmarried man be unmarried as you were implying, that is a description of the state the unmarried man has to be in to qualify as being an unmarried man."

You've not shown it to be unnecessary because substituting different creators into your premises leads to contradictions. Or do you think that having contradictory conclusions is a good way of doing philosophy?

I have not provided an avenue for contradictory conclusions

Then you need to establish that creators are by definition, amoral, immoral or moral. You've not done that. How on earth can a definition be redundant in a philosophical discussion when you're clearly showing how important it is? If you think that a clear definition makes things redundant, then I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean.

This is a misreading of what I've been saying all along

To be clear, you're itting that acting morally is synonymous with doing good.
Note that you're the one who has now introduced the idea that acting morally is synonymous with acting in a way that is good.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Logicboy03:



Fail. I don't call all ctians fools

see this foolish liar! after getting debunked you are still spewing empty rhetoric and logicboyism.

epic fail.

[size=18pt]You have lost the argument. Everybody can see how foolish and dubious you are![/size]


let the butthurt flow!!!


~LOGICBOY DEBUNKED!!!



...the logicboy debunking method is so much fun

Logicboy03:
There are many concise definitions of coawrdice without using courage.

You do realize that many other ways to define cowardice doesn't therefore make this particular way invalid.

See how foolish Anony and Ihedinobi are?

Lol....isn't it interesting how think Christians discriminate against you by calling you a fool but you don't think you discriminate against them by calling them fools.

Well once again;

epic fail! You have nothing to say. You are a delusional slave.

~Logicboy debunked.


I didn't know "debunking" could be this much fun!

Logicboy03:
Why would anyone define cowardice as the opposite of courage and then define courage to explain cowardice?

Why not?

P/s: before you shoot out an answer, read your comment carefully.

Logicboy03:

Better focus on retraining your boy. Ihedinobi is arguing nonsense here

epic fail.

empty rhetoric....logicboy is delusional

you have lost the argument

logicboy debunked!

Ihedinobi:

We've all been saying pretty much the same thing to you for months now.

Lol, by now you should know that on Nairaland an argument is usually won by the first to shout "debunked",

thehomer:
I'm sorry but saying that the father is a channel and not a creator when it comes to the child is meaningless to me here. Are you willing to be probed on your notion of what a creator is? Or will you say it is besides the point? The way I see it, it would be important to clarify.

I do not regard as a creator one who makes something without an intended outcome. For instance if I was going to bake a cake, I know exactly what kind of cake I set out out to make and I make it with careful precision according to my liking I don't just throw random ingredients into an oven and hope for the best. A father doesn't make a child, he merely shoots out a seed and hopes a child shows up. He has absolutely no control on what the child will be like. Therefore, he cannot be said to be a creator. Get my drift now?

Then you're clearly wrong because the very notion of acting morally imposes an obligation.

No it doesn't because as you said, the creator might well be indifferent. If you allow the creator freedom to be indifferent, you cannot disallow him the same indifference simply because he chose to be benevolent of his own accord.

And that is the problem with you not specifying what can be called a creator. Because as you can see from the above examples, while the creator is always sapient, the issue of morality may not even arise.

Basically in examples 1 and 3, morality doesn't arise but in examples 2 and 4, it does. And the differences there hinge on what you're referring to as the creator or creation. This is why your syllogism will always lead to contradictions unless you clearly specify what you mean by the creator and creation.

And as I said earlier, sapient or not, the creator is not under any moral obligation to be benevolent. The mere fact that one can recognize morality doesn't impose upon him an ought.

We cannot establish that because the creators are intrinsically different. This means that attempting to apply any template and trying to generalize from it will always lead to a wrong conclusion.

Good, since you agree that the two sapient creators are different in the sense that one is benevolent and the other isn't. It is now very clear that sapient or not, creators are under no obligation whatsoever to be benevolent. You've made my point for me. You cannot allow the creators free choice and deny them the same free choice at the same time. that is logically incoherent.

I'm sorry Mr_Anony but are you being serious? Are you seriously saying that to act morally may actually be to act in a way that is evil?

That is not what I'm saying. I asked you specifically if by "acting moral" you meant "acting good". You made it clear that's not what you meant. So perhaps I should turn the question back on you.
Are you seriously saying that to act morally may actually be to act in a way that is evil? What do you mean by acting morally?

I've read it. Why don't you show me by actually quoting me verbatim where I used the word "ought" with respect to the bachelor's being married.

There you go:
https://nairaland.unblockandhide.com/1198534/cowardice-atheism/33#14420056

You've only said so but you've not shown it to be so.

I have

That all bachelors are unmarried is already established by definition. Since it has been established, can we now specify Mr. A and see if he fits with the definition?

This is why I said I had a problem with your bachelor example in the first place because all the premises are redundant. I was willing to play along and assume we were trying to what it means to be a bachelor but here you are again pointing me to precisely what I pointed out to you previously. Are you really interested in reaching a conclusion or are you more interested in playing a game of Round-And-Round-The-Village-As-We-Have-Done-Before?

I'm the one focused on their contextual meanings while you're playing with words.

that is not true

If you're focused on the contextual meanings, then in what context do you have acting morally to be synonymous with doing evil?

In the same context in which you have acting morally as not synonymous with doing good

thehomer:
Do you still not see the problem with not specifying what the creator and the have to be for you to determine that? Let me see if I can make it clearer. Without specifying who the creator and creation are, you can easily run into contradictions. e.g

Since you are emphasizing sapience, I'll treat your answers accordingly.

If the creator/creation pair were a sculptor and an artwork of his that he doesn't like, he can damage it since the artwork isn't sapient. If he liked the artwork while he can still damage it though it is unlikely that he will damage it.

True. In this case the sapient creator is not under any moral obligation to his non-sapient creation

If the creator/creation pair were a father and his child, even if he doesn't like the child, he cannot simply harm it if he is to be considered moral since he is sapient and the child is at least sentient and will likely become sapient.

A father and child are not in a creator/creation relationship. The father is a channel and not a creator.

If the creator/creation pair were an indifferent God and a man, the creator will not bother helping or harming the man. Note that Christians will not accept such a being as God.

Here both the creator and the creation can both be sapient and yet indifferent. I can't see any moral obligation imposed on the creator.

Now if the creator/creation pair were the Christian God and a man, the creator cannot simply harm men because he is considered to be moral, sapient, benevolent etc and the man is at least sentient or sapient.

Here again both the creator and creation are sapient and the creator benevolent. Still yet I see no obligation imposed on the creator to be benevolent other than his personal imperative.

To say that the God is the Christian God and that this God may not care about humans is to contradict the basic tenets of Christianity.
To say that the God is indifferent is to say that it is maybe the deist God since this one may not be bothered to be moral.

And by this statement you have shown that the creator can either care or not care. Sapient or not.

Obviously, substituting these Gods into the syllogisms you've presented will lead to contradictions. That is why you need to clearly identify the God you have in mind for us to proceed with determining whether or not it is bound to be moral. I presented the Christian God due to its popularity, you rejected that God then tell me the God you have in mind because I cannot read your mind.

As I said earlier I am not asking you to read my mind. You don't need to. I am only asking you to follow the logic step by step. We must first establish if creators are morally able to their creations before applying the template to any specific creators.

Come on. How can you say that to act morally can be to act in an evil way? The question I meant to ask is the one I asked.

Then the answer you received is apt. If I define morality as distinguishing between good and evil, then it follows that to act morally is to act in such a way that may be good or evil.

If you quoted me verbatim, where did the "ought" you claimed I said come from?

From you sir. Read your comment again

We need an idea of the creator in order to see whether or not the description is appropriate.

As I said; not necessary

No I don't see the problem. Mr. A is an example of a bachelor. A bachelor by definition is unmarried. Mr. A is not unmarried by definition, he is unmarried because he has not performed a marriage ceremony with someone. He can always become married later but once someone is married, that person ceases to be a bachelor.

The highlighted is precisely the reason why it is unnecessary to specify Mr A from the onset

When you specify that you're referring to Mr. A, we can then check to see if your example (Mr. A) actually fits the definition of being a bachelor.

Yes but you can only legitimately specify Mr A and check if he is indeed unmarried after you must have established that "all bachelors are unmarried" and not before.

Sorry but your answer is wrong. To act morally is not to do evil.

Now you are talking about to act good but you initially said that's not what you meant by your question. I am trying to prevent you from playing with words. I want you to focus on their contextual meanings instead

Ps: What happened to the original Mr_Anony? Was that hijacked?

No It wasn't hijacked, just abandoned.

GraceBestowed: I'm very grateful for your comments, and ; the love is too much! :-) xx

Wow!!! God really saw you through. Glory be to God!

thehomer:

What?! Is this Mr_Anony or did someone hijack his ?

This has to be one of the most philosophically naive statements I've received from someone who claims to have some knowledge of philosophy. I should have seen this from when you tried to construct your syllogism.

My apologies, I was too hasty in reading the comment the first time. I missed the "if" preceding it.

What you cited as premise 1 isn't a premise but an assertion that is illogical. You're saying a creator is or is not bound by a moral obligation towards his creation i.e a creator can be both bound by a moral obligation towards his creation and not bound ... towards his creation.

For you to show that it is circular, you'll have to show that I'm saying A is true because B is true.

There's the common one

Socrates is a man, Not Socrates is/is not a man
All men are mortal,
therefore Socrates is mortal. Not Socrates is/is not mortal

Surely you are being disingenuous here because you well know that I meant

Premise 1: A creator is bound by a moral obligation towards his creation.
Premise 2: God is a creator and man is His creation
Conclusion: Therefore God is bound by a moral obligation towards man.

or...

Premise 1: A creator is not bound by a moral obligation towards his creation.
Premise 2: God is a creator and man is His creation
Conclusion: Therefore God is not bound by a moral obligation towards man.

Basically I was pointing out that once we can settle whether or not a creator is morally bound to his/her creation, the rest of the argument will immediately fall into place

Good. Now what do you think it means to act morally?

It means to act good or evil. Perhaps the question you mean to ask is "what does it mean to do good?" or perhaps not.

This is just absurd. I didn't say "an unmarried man ought not to be married", I said to be a bachelor means to not be a married man. So if someone is described as being a bachelor, then for that description to be accurate, that person won't be married.

From the way you're speaking, it really doesn't look as if you understand what a circular argument is.

I actually quoted you verbatim.

Once again, a description is not an argument.

I got that loud and clear

A description of God can be accurate or inaccurate. I never said or implied that the description imposes anything on what is being described. The description doesn't make the entity the way it is, the way it is influences the description.

Good, the highlighted therefore makes it unnecessary to insist that the creator be specifically described. Since the question seeks to find what obligations are imposed on him and according to you his description doesn't impose anything.

Wait identifying the creator means it is a loaded question? That makes no more sense than saying that identifying Mr. A as being a bachelor makes it a loaded to substitute Mr. A into the syllogism:

All bachelors are unmarried.
Mr. A is a bachelor.
Therefore Mr. A is unmarried.

Hell am I not the one to complain about loaded questions?

Good, but first of all I have a problem with your "all bachelors(unmarried men) are unmarried". Anyway I'll play along

It is a loaded question because what you are asking me to do is specify at the onset which bachelor I have in mind. So basically you are asking me to do something like this

All bachelors like Mr A are unmarried
Mr A is a bachelor
Therefore Mr A is unmarried.

See the problem now?

Yes you have accepted that and now, can you go one step further to say what it means for such a being to actually act in a way that is moral?

Answered above

plaetton: Mr Anony, there is no denying that you are a man of faith. Fine for you. Your beleif in the bible is a matter of faith. Is it not?. Again fine for you.

Yes, good for me.

Here is the big problem and the big folly of people of faith.
Do not come out in public and try to argue faith with reason. It does not work.
Right now, you ar enot only arguing with me , but you are against an entire academic and historical and theological estalishment.
Stop and take a breath and re-affirm your faith. That is all you have and that is all it is about.

The thing you fail to realize is that I hold that faith must be rational and is not true faith when it is devoid of reason.
Arguing against an entire academic and historical and theological establishment? It matters not who I argue against. The point is that one of us must be true and the other false or both of us be false. besides you haven't really cited proper notable academics/historians/theologians.

You accept everything written in the bible, that is fine. No can take that from you. But to insist ,on a public domain, that they are true, consistent and of devine source is just folly, just to use a generous word.

To insist that they are not is equally folly to me. . . .and so far you have not done a good job in showing why the bible isn't true.

plaetton: Mr Anony, there is no denying that you are a man of faith. Fine for you. Your beleif in the bible is a matter of faith. Is it not?. Again fine for you.

Yes, good for me.

Here is the big problem and the big folly of people of faith.
Do not come out in public and try to argue faith with reason. It does not work.
Right now, you ar enot only arguing with me , but you are against an entire academic and historical and theological estalishment.
Stop and take a breath and re-affirm your faith. That is all you have and that is all it is about.

The thing you fail to realize is that I hold that faith must be rational and is not true faith when it is devoid of reason.
Arguing against an entire academic and historical and theological establishment? It matters not who I argue against. The point is that one of us must be true and the other false or both of us be false. besides you haven't really cited proper notable academics/historians/theologians.

You accept everything written in the bible, that is fine. No can take that from you. But to insist ,on a public domain, that they are true, consistent and of devine source is just folly, just to use a generous word.

To insist that they are not is equally folly to me. . . .and so far you have not done a good job in showing why the bible isn't true.

Evolution vs. creationism. Bible topics & stories.

Comparing two creation stories: from
Genesis and Babylonian pagan sources


Creation stories from the ancient Middle East:

Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre writes that one of his articles:

"... is an attempt to briefly identify some of the Ancient Near Eastern Motifs and Myths from which the Hebrews apparently borrowed, adapted, and reworked in the Book of Genesis (more specifically Genesis 1-11).

It is my understanding that Genesis' motifs and characters, God, Adam, Eve, the Serpent, and Noah, are adaptations and transformations of characters and events occurring in earlier Near Eastern Myths. In some cases several characters and motifs from different myths have been brought together and amalgamated into Genesis' stories. 2

He quotes W.G. Lambert:

"The authors of ancient cosmologies were essentially compilers. Their originality was expressed in new combinations of old themes, and in new twists to old ideas."

I believe Lambert's observation can be applied to the Hebrews who were combining old themes and putting "new twists" to old ideas. My research indicates that, at times, "reversals" are occurring in the Hebrew transformation and re-interpretation of the Mesopotamian myths. These "reversals," as I call them, can take the form of different characters, different locations for the settings of the stories, and different morals being drawn about the nature of God and Man's relationship.

De la Torre concludes that Genesis 1-11:

"... appears to be a reformatting of motifs and characters from four Mesopotamian myths:

Adapa and the South Wind,

Atrahasis,

the Epic of Gilgamesh and

the Enuma Elish."
Of these four sources, Enuma Elish has the closest parallels with the first creation story in Genesis.

Wikipedia comments that the ancient Hebrews did not simply adopt the Babylonian myths; they sometimes inverted them in order to fit into their worldview. Two examples are: 3

In the Babylonian myth, the serpent, Ningishzida, is a friend to Adapa who helps him in his search for immortality.

In Genesis, the serpent is the enemy of Adam, trying to trick him out of the chance to understand good and evil by developing a moral sense and thus becoming fully human.

The gods of the Babylonians became the ancient Israelites' god.
Also:

The Mesopotamians had adopted a worldview in which the Earth had gradually improved since creation.

The ancient Hebrews adopted a worldview in which the universe was created perfect but degenerated to the point where God had to initiate the largest genocide in history -- killing every person from newborn to the elderly in the flood of Noah.

It will interest you to know that amongst other things, this is what Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre says about himself when writing his author background :

I present myself as "an amateur bible scholar," not having ANY formal education in Bible studies beyond a general Intro to "History of Western Civilization 101" in college. What I know is ALL "self-taught."

You can find it here on his website. http://www.bibleorigins.net/websiteauthorbackground.html

The "bible scholar" you presented claims himself not to have any formal bible education and yet you expect us to take him seriously you even go as far as interpreting his stance as the position held by most theologians?

It is also funny how someone can claim in the same sentence that a story is a copy and at the same time complete opposite of another story. This is exactly what your favourite bible scholar De la Torre does when he says:

"I believe Lambert's observation can be applied to the Hebrews who were combining old themes and putting "new twists" to old ideas. My research indicates that, at times, "reversals" are occurring in the Hebrew transformation and re-interpretation of the Mesopotamian myths. These "reversals," as I call them, can take the form of different characters, different locations for the settings of the stories, and different morals being drawn about the nature of God and Man's relationship."

To me this is just a roundabout way of saying:
"The stories are totally different but since I must look for relationships that I really cannot find, I'll just say that the Hebrews first copied these stories then told a completely different story from the one they copied....and of course that's plagiarism. What else would you call it?"

I'm sorry Plaetton but your "theologian" is nothing better than a conspiracy theorist

Comparison of Genesis' first Creation Story with Enuma Elish, a Babylonian creation story

The Babylonian creation story is called by its first two words "Enuma Elish." According to archaeologists, it was originally written circa 1120 BCE. It was discovered in 1875 CE. It bears many points of similarity to the first creation story in the Bible: 1

Item Ancient Israelite Creation Story Babylonian Creation Story
Source Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 Enuma Elish
Date of writing (liberal belief) 8th or 9th century BCE Late 12th century BCE
Date of writing (conservative belief) 13th century BCE, the time of Moses Late 12th century BCE.
Author (liberal belief) "P," authors of the Priestly tradition. Unknown.
Author (conservative belief) Moses. Unknown.
Creator(s) of the universe A single God, YHVH. A God battling a Goddess.
Initial state of the earth Desolate waste; covered in darkness. Chaos; enveloped in darkness.
First development Light created. Light created.
Next development Firmament created - a rigid dome over the earth separating the earth and heaven. Firmament created; also perceived as a rigid dome.
Next development Dry land created. Dry land created.
Next development Sun, moon, stars created. Sun, moon, stars created.
Next development Creation of men and women. Creation of men and women.
Final development God rests and sanctify the Sabbath. Gods rest and celebrate.
The many points of similarity between the two traditions is conclusive proof that one story was derived from the other (or that both were derived from a still older original).

I have posted the two documents above in their raw form. Now be so kind as to highlight these many points of similarity that you have been talking about.

According to liberal theologians, the Babylonian of creation was written in the 12th century BCE, centuries earlier than the Biblical . According to conservative Christian theologians, the opposite happened: the Babylonian was written after the Biblical .

You do realize that "liberal theologians" is a very suspect phrase and could mean anybody who has read the bible to any degree. I hope you are never treated by a "liberal doctor"

@s,
why has my Mr_Anony been banned?
I last posted on this thread: https://nairaland.unblockandhide.com/1012667/weird-facts-book-job/1
Please have a peep into it for me. Thanks.