reply to post by peter vlar
Sorry for the long post but I had to.
I didn't actually ask you for scientific evidence, I was pointing out that being able to correlate a bible passage with current scientific
dogma, said correlation isn't the same as evidence, its closer to coincidence as well as attempted to show that what you claim as scientific evidence
just is not.
If it happens once, twice or even three times – I might say coincidence too, but the fact is there’s more than a hundred verses that when verified
against scientific facts or as you say scientific dogma they correlate. Too many to dismiss as mere coincidence! But I guess if one is not really
interested in evidence then everything is just coincidence.
But the fact that the evidence presented on this thread agrees with known scientific facts begs us to question their origin. For how could a person
3500 years ago be able to say that the ‘universe’ and the ‘earth’ had a beginning? How could a person say that the earth is “hanging upon
nothing”, etc? I’ve looked at all possibilities and no satisfactory explanation will suffice except that the writers were divinely inspired.
Honestly – try coming up with one satisfactory explanation and see if it even can come close to divine inspiration.
Some poster's here said that Moses copied/learned it from Egypt but no evidence was provided to back it up. Another explanation provided was, it was
form an alien (not sure what kind). Another was that the Bible was plagiarized from Babylonian mythology like the Epic of Gilgamesh. I can also add
here that during my research some thought that it was borrowed from Greek mythology – the Theogony of Hesiod, etc.
But upon closer examination of these so called sources, these myths - they fall apart miserably. Many if not all of them are full of exaggeration and
distortions of events and facts – thus a myths. Interestingly some contain a kernel of historical facts that can be used to verify the historicity
of an event. For example the Epic of Gilgamesh talks about the Flood happening on earth. But taken as whole one thing can be ascertained from these
ancient records – they originated from one location: Mesopotamia.
On this the Bible gives a complete record, an accurate truthful record of what happened in Mesopotamia - where the other ancient records failed
miserably. Again, here also - the Bible when it touches ancient history or ancient historical facts – it's the gold standard. It's accuracy is
But I’d like to see your pov.
next you said:
In fact, I would have given your posts a little more credence were it not for several glaring errors of fact on your part when discussing
Yes – I saw that one too, you’re referring the size of the star, I said Milky Way – should be:
“Note: Correction on Part I: the biggest KNOWN star in the universe so far according to some is “Eta Carinae” with a radius of 400 times the
size of the Sun but others say VY Canis Majoris with the size past the orbit of Mars (not the Milky Way Galaxy) - but still being debated as the
universe is so huge.”
(The thread was already locked when I saw it too so I posted the correction in Part II):
But if you can point the other errors – I’d like to know.
You, however, neglected to address those items and simply quoted my summation and then implied that I labeled you as someone who "who will
babble and ramble, distort logic and commonsense to the point of unrecognizability, and contemptuously ignore questions and criticisms in order to
peddle his favourite line of tosh." -Astyanax" which never came from me.
My apologies if it appeared that I’m labeling you, I’m not – reason I included the comment from Astyanax is to show the attacks I get whenever I
start quoting Bible verses.
Next you said:
Do I think I'm correct in my assumptions and you are inciorrect? yes, for the most part. I am not quite arrogant enough to say that I have all
of the definitive answers one way or the other though. With that said, I won't be a hypocrite so I'm going to answer your questions-
Of course you’re entitled to your facts as everyone else is but the bottom line is which one is the truth. After all that’s what we’re after -
deny ignorance – I hope. And as far as I know the Bible is a good if not the ultimate barometer of truth. I might make a mistake here and there but
the truths contained in the Bible stands unmovable. On that I’m confident! It’s been proven time and again and most of all it stood the test of
time. Kingdoms and empires come and go and yet it's still here growing ever stronger as prophetic events are fulfilled.
Case in point Gen 1:1 for one – confirmed 3500 years later!
As for having all the answers – I’m on the same boat as you are, I don’t know all the answers and will make a mistake here and there but like
what I said the word of God remains intact. Anyone who goes against it has been proven to be not having the facts and will sure fail. That I can
I don't dispute the science.
I’m glad to hear that and so do I – as long as it’s true science.
But then you said:
My dispute is that the bible corroborates the science.
again, the bible does NOT corroborate science.
Like what I’ve been saying for a while now – the Bible is NOT a science text book but when it touches / deals with known scientific facts IT’s
in agreement (to a lesser degree or higher degree) which is the is point of the thread.
But since you don’t dispute the science – why are you then disputing the Bible agreeing with science?
Is it what you said below?:
...additionally, when translating from aramaic to greek to latin and then into modern languages over the past 1600 years or so is it possible
that portions of these older texts were mistranslated or altered to suit the intended new audience?
Happily we have so much manuscript available – very old ones even – that we can confidently verify and confirm the accuracy of a text.
Sad part is, many of the new translations still carry the mistakes from older translations. Happily this can be easily resolved by referring to the
earliest manuscripts (but that's another topic).
But f you’re main reason is that:
… an alteration of christian tradition would be Emperor Constantine moving the date of christmas to coincide with the festival of Sol
Invictus. See, the Romans liked their parties, a lot. And they didn't want to give up holidays or feasts for anything so the easiest way to get them
to go along with Constantine's new found faith was to simply change the names of Roman festivals to Christian ones. Sorry... totally diverging off
Then your dispute is with MEN – mans traditions in place of God’s word.
On this Jesus the founder of true Christianity (not Christendom) is in agreement with you (and so do I):
“He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with [their] lips, but their hearts are
far removed from me. 7 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.’” (Mark 7:6-7)
As for Sol Invictus – we are on the same page. A simple research will confirm this to be so:
Date of celebration
For centuries, Christian writers accepted that Christmas was the actual date on which Jesus was born. In the early 18th century, scholars began
proposing alternative explanations. Isaac Newton argued that the date of Christmas was selected to correspond with the winter solstice, which the
Romans called bruma and celebrated on December 25. In 1743, German Protestant Paul Ernst Jablonski argued Christmas was placed on December 25 to
correspond with the Roman solar holiday Dies Natalis Solis Invicti and was therefore a "paganization" that debased the true church. In 1889,
Louis Duchesne suggested that the date of Christmas was calculated as nine months after Annunciation, the traditional date of the conception of
The December 25 date may have been selected by the church in Rome in the early 4th century. At this time, a church calendar was created and other
holidays were also placed on solar dates: "It is cosmic symbolism...which inspired the Church leadership in Rome to elect the winter solstice,
December 25, as the birthday of Christ, and the summer solstice as that of John the Baptist, supplemented by the equinoxes as their respective dates
of conception. While they were aware that pagans called this day the 'birthday' of Sol Invictus, this did not concern them and it did not play any
role in their choice of date for Christmas," according to modern scholar S.E. Hijmans.
However, today, whether or not the birth date of Jesus is on December 25 is not considered to be an important issue in mainstream Christian
denominations; rather, celebrating the coming of God into the world in the form of man to atone for the sins of humanity is considered to
be the primary meaning of Christmas.
next you said:
Just because you don't know the answer, that doesn't mean it must be God the creator in all his glory.(doesn't mean i can't turn out to be
wrong, but I've yet to see anything that indicates to ME that this is the case).
So are saying then that you don't know where Moses or Job or the other writers got their information from when they wrote it in the Bible?
Or are you saying that they wrote it but God was not source?
Help me out here please as I'm trying to figure out what your saying. I'd like to know your take.
I say that I grew up in a very Catholic family, was an altar boy and to this day(despite only seeing me in church for weddings or funerals) I
can still recite the entire mass from memory. As a child my grandmother and I would spend hours upon hours pouring through the old family bible and
learning passages so I am in no way ignorant to Christianity or biased towards religion in general or Catholicism in particular.
Thanks for sharing that – and I hope that you go back in studying the scriptures- especially NOW. For there will come a time in which it will be
very difficult to find time to study it.
But unless Christians are really polytheists, I am uncomfortable with a book whos first half is about a vengeful God who orders infanticide,
incest, rape and murder and beatings for your wife in order for certain Israelites to prove their devotion to "him" while the 2nd half of the book
is Jesus preaching the word of a loving god who forgives all as long as you go to confession.
This part I’m not surprise at all for I’ve heard it so many times already – same story line, same explanation, same verses used to discredit the
Bible. But if you carefully study the story lines – it falls apart. And the true motive of whomever made the story to discredit the Bible comes into
full view. Sadly whoever subscribes to them becomes a slave to their pov, becomes trapped – unable to move forward.
The ones I know is like forming a conclusion in the middle of a movie - the person was judged evil for what happened not knowing the before and after
of the story line.
But if you want to continue believing in that narrative it’s your right – but I hope you give the Bible a chance – you’ll be surprise on what
you will find. Nothing like what you think (let me know if want to know - not here though).
So what can I say – there’s so much to gain believing in Creation – otherwise the alternative is believing on NOTHING (but yourself or your
fellowman or whatever comes up).