Kinsa jud imo gituohan kung diin jud tah gikan, ang Bible or Science?

[gkoopir]

---

Bible syempre..
if you are looking for an evidence.. read more book of genesis. genesis 17:10.. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep. every male among you shall be circumcised.
Meaning GOD really created us.. the bible said it... Kinsa man nagtudlo og Circumcision d ai? ang science..>?
Kong imong balikon, ma drill down jud gihapon...

[orcgod]

Bible syempre..
if you are looking for an evidence.. read more book of genesis. genesis 17:10.. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep. every male among you shall be circumcised.
Meaning GOD really created us.. the bible said it... Kinsa man nagtudlo og Circumcision d ai? ang science..>?
Kong imong balikon, ma drill down jud gihapon...

Is circumcision required?

ABSOLUTELY:

Genesis 17:7
And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

Genesis 17:10
This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and they seed after thee: Every man and child among you shall be circumcised.

Genesis 17:13
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

Genesis 17:19
And I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

Leviticus 12:3
And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

Acts 16:3
Paul ... took and circumcised him (Timothy).


Not at all.

Galatians 5:2
Behold, I Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

Colossians 2:10-11
Ye are complete in him ... In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands ... by the circumcision of Christ.


So unsa man juy tinood? grabe ka contradiction. Hala EXPLAIN Galatians 5:2 ug Colossians 2:10! Nganu ni contradict ni! eng eng eng eng!

[gkoopir]

the point is the traceability that GOD really made man... Because of that covenant.. though daghan pa pero mao niy passdown jud kaayo nga proof.. ang covenant..

[melace]

Is circumcision required?
Colossians 2:10-11
Ye are complete in him ... In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands ... by the circumcision of Christ.

So unsa man juy tinood? grabe ka contradiction. Hala EXPLAIN Galatians 5:2 ug Colossians 2:10! Nganu ni contradict ni! eng eng eng eng!

There is a philosophy which rightly exercises our reasonable faculties; a study of the works of God, which leads us to the knowledge of God, and confirms our faith in him. But there is a philosophy which is vain and deceitful; and while it pleases men's fancies, hinders their faith: such are curious speculations about things above us, or no concern to us. Those who walk in the way of the world, are turned from following Christ. We have in Him the substance of all the shadows of the ceremonial law. All the defects of it are made up in the gospel of Christ, by his complete sacrifice for sin, and by the revelation of the will of God. To be complete, is to be furnished with all things necessary for salvation. By this one word "complete," is shown that we have in Christ whatever is required. "In him," not when we look to Christ, as though he were distant from us, but we are in him, when, by the power of the Spirit, we have faith wrought in our hearts by the Spirit, and we are united to our Head. The circumcision of the heart, the crucifixion of the flesh, the death and burial to sin and to the world, and the resurrection to newness of life, set forth in baptism, and by faith wrought in our hearts, prove that our sins are forgiven, and that we are fully delivered from the curse of the law. Through Christ, we, who were dead in sins, are quickened. Christ's death was the death of our sins; Christ's resurrection is the quickening of our souls. The law of ordinances, which was a yoke to the Jews, and a partition-wall to the Gentiles, the Lord Jesus took out of the way. When the substance was come, the shadows fled. Since every mortal man is, through the hand-writing of the law, guilty of death, how very dreadful is the condition of the ungodly and unholy, who trample under foot that blood of the Son of God, whereby alone this deadly hand-writing can be blotted out! Let not any be troubled about bigoted judgments which related to meats, or the Jewish solemnities. The setting apart a portion of our time for the worship and service of God, is a moral and unchangeable duty, but had no necessary dependence upon the seventh day of the week, the sabbath of the Jews. The first day of the week, or the Lord's day, is the time kept holy by Christians, in remembrance of Christ's resurrection. All the Jewish rites were shadows of gospel blessings. --taken from a commentary Christ Notes: Bible Search & Bible Commentary

[jet]

first thing, di ko agnostic bro kay wa man ko ni claim nga "tinuod or fact" na uban nga gods dira. wa man ko ka experience nga tinoud na cla. ni ingon ra ko, possible if and only if mahapen to akong gi explain sa ibabaw.

cge bro if dili ko atheist, unsay may tawag anang dili mag pray taga adlaw for so many years, dili mu simba excpet if naay kaon?

if mu ingon ka di ko atheist, unsa man lugar ko?
define atheist. atheist = unbeliever to ANY kind of god.

ako on the other hand di ko mu tuo nga ni christian ka sauna bro. as what youve mention nga ni agi na kunohay ka ana. imu tanan pamilya dyosnon and etc.
pero mu tuo ko christian by name ka sauna. ni tuo ka sa Ginoo base sa unsa ilang gipang tudlo nimo.. base sa unsa na ifluence nimu pag grow up.
sa imung utok ra. pero wa man ka ka find ug evidence kay scientific mind man kunohay ka, mao na na atheist ka.. am i right so far?

Pwerte daghana mga tao nag hallucinate nya wa ni seek ug doctor bro... apil na ka ato ... joke ra na ha... hahahah...

lol... mangita pa ka nako ug resources diin na nako gikan? Tanawa na ang mga tao nga nag shabu nga pirme mag hallucinate, ni consult ba na sila ug doctor kasagaran? kanang mga buang sa daplin sa kalsada nga magyawyaw, ni consult ba na sila ug doctor? Kanang mga tao nga nakapatay kay abi nilag si satanas ilang kaatubang ni consult na sila ug doctor? Unya mangita pa ka ug sources? pag tsur oi

lahi man na cla bro kay cla boang man jd na nga boang. a crazy person doesnt know he's crazy. mura rana ang "fully" drunk person doesnt know he's drunk. dili kanang pahubog hubog ha, kanang hubog jd 100%. nya ga take na ug drugs ang uban.

dili ka mu compara nako ana kay tarung ko nga tao. don't take drugs and dont do vices or unsa pa bah na. in other words normal ko nga tao. imagina if boang ko nga tao, maka anhi kaha ko sa istorya nya mu reason ug ingon ani?
nya ang normal nga tao if khbaw cla ga hallucinate cla, mu consult na cla ug doctor. unless if boang na jd na, para nila normal nana.

Lol... ni ingon ko na hoax na dayon na kung unsa imong e-post diha nga evidence? Mao bitaw gipa post tika ug evidence nimo kay akong atbangan... post dayon...

katong gi link nako nimu bro nga creation vs evolution. cge atbanga na dayon toh. kay ako i took me even a week to fully read understand that link.

Unbiased na bro kay ako nana gipang tanaw tanang possible evidence sa imong noah's ark pero sad to say, wa gyud bisag usa...

pakita daw ko sa imung mga evidence nga gipang tanaw, kay gipang tanaw naman kunohay nimu "tanan possible" evidence... so sa ato pa.. know it all na ayo ka?

so i suppose you've written science books nga ikaw ang author? kay grabe namaan ayo kag kaalaman..

kung unbiased ka bro, dapat ka mu look in to both scientific evidence mu support sa imung beliefs, ug sa akong scientific evidence mu support sa akong beliefs without giving any favor of either of them.
dili ingon nga atheist ka, mu give ka more time to your beliefs and less time to my beliefs kay di ka ganahan or unsa bah.

lol... nag ingon diay ko nga hoax tanan imong ebidensya? Ni ingon ko, dli ba ka mo question ana if hoax ba or dli kay ni ingon man ka kung ma search lng nimo sa google nga naay evidence mao nana...

cge sayop ko nga ni assume ko ni claim ka ug "hoax". kay ni ingon man ka ug "scientific kunohay" sa akong evidence so i assumed ni believe ka ug hoax.
pero since ni deny ka nga wa ka ni claim ug hoax, cge sayop ko nga ni claim ko ana.

dili man jd ingon ma search nimu sa google tinuod na dayon na. heck, not even all nat geo or discovery channel shows are 100% true. naa jd nay sagol lies ang media bro. to figure out the truth, takes a lifetime.
pero di sad ingon nga tanan naa sa google hoax dba? alangan naman, if mao na, den why do we even bother to surf. why do you even bother to search for that link nga "No Answer In Genesis"?

Post lage sa imong evidence kay atong atbangan... bisag unsa nga evidence about noah's ark...

for now bro, naa koy nakitan sa google. pero di ko convince aning ebidensya. kay pulos ra picture2x ug video sa youtube dali ra ayo na ma edit ug manipulate ang pictures ug dili tanan video sa youtube accurate. dont worry il try to find one better.
BUT ang difference nato, ikaw kailangan ug ebidensya sa tanan para mu tuo. ako di. mao gani faith dba?
for now i dig lang sa to ang Creation Vs Evolution and have unbiased research about it. Creation Versus Evolution

mangayo ka ug sources?
[1] Ross, Hugh, The Fingerprint of God, p. 168
[2] Submarine Volcanic Ecosystems (An article on hydrothermal vents.)
[3] Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, Version 2, by Chris Colby
[4] Linnaeus, Carolus, “Systema naturae” (1735).
[5] "Excess Argon": The "Achilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks
[6] Bowden, Malcolm (1991) Science vs. Evolution, Sovereign Publications, Kent, p. 117—referring to the article by Funkhouser, J.G. and Naughton, J.J. “Radiogenic Helium and Argon in Ultramafic Inclusions from Hawaii” Journal of Geophysical Research 15th July 1968 v73 n14 p 4601-7.
[7] Bowden, Malcolm (1991) Science vs. Evolution, Sovereign Publications, Kent, p. 116—referring to the article by Fisher, D.E. Nature Physical Science 19 July 1971 v232 p60-61.
[8] Bowden, Malcolm (1991) Science vs. Evolution, Sovereign Publications, Kent, p. 119—referring to the article by Gleadow, A.J.W., “Fission track age of the KBS Tuff and associated hominid remains in northern Kenya” Nature 20 March 1980 v284 p225-230.
[9] Russel, K. M. 1976. Workers Find Whale in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry. Chemical and Engineering News. 54(41):48. (October 4, 1976 issue).
[10] Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe, video. Available through The Institute for Creation Research.
[11] Bowden, Malcolm (1977) APE-MEN - Fact or Fallacy?, Sovereign Publications, Kent, p. 76-79

nahan paka more? cge i.unbiased study sa na ha.

Sakto ka bai dli tanan sa kalibutan matagaan nimo ug evidence... PERO unsaon taman na nga naa man gyuy ebidensya among evolution unya ang imong genesis wa man gyud bisag usa...

give me links nga proven true na jd ang evolution. dili kanang theories ha.. and i will look up to it. unbiasedly

Bisag unsaon pa na nimo ug palusot nga dli tanang butang sa kalibutan naay ebidensya, dli ghapon na basehan nga tinuod ang naa sa bibliya..

if you say so brader

hahaha... sakto ka... so nag revelation ka, pero para namo hallucination na... so para nako nag hallucinate ka, di na ka question ana ngano mo ingon ko hallucination...

yup di ko ka blame ni sulti ka ug hallucination. but ni defend rako nga di ni hallucination. mao ra. base sa akong gi sulti sa taas. if di ka mu tuo, aw den i respect ur hallucination view.

O nag hisgot man lage ka ug cause and effect? Sa ato pa unsa may cause nganong naa ang God?

bro dont try to twist the issue here, i was talking about why the people long time ago write these things and articles. i wasnt talking about God. ni answer nako nimu ana sa taas sa revelations 1:8. pero di man ka mu tuo ani dba?

Sure ka nga naay nahapen? How could you be so sure without seeing or knowing it?

how could there be an effect without a cause?

but i suppose as atheist as u are mu tubag ka ug
how can there be a God (effect) without a cause? dba? like i said bro. revelations 1:8.. but ikaw di ka mu tuo ana dba kay para nimo binobot rana sa mga tao ryt? ana pd ko sauna bro. appear beh! naa man day tah something in common. lol. difference lang.. naay miracle na happen sa ako. ikaw wala "pa". hopefully mayta naa pud.

kung mag cause and effect ra jd tah scientifically bro huna hunaa tarong. infinite causes na. can there be an infinite cause? NO. mao gani naa juy beginning. the only effect nga walay cause.

so matod pa sa imung scientific mind..
effect - human, cause - apes and the rest of evolution
effect - evolution, cause -?
.
.
.
.
nig abot nato sa pinaka root sa "most accepted theory sa beginnig sa time"
effect - big bang theory, cause - ?
nya kanang cause sa ga ga cause sa bigbang? nya cause sa cause sa ga himu ug big bang? nya cause nasad atong cause cause..
if IT programmer ka bro, mao nay tawag "infinite loop"
mura rana mu ingon ka ug "kay?(why)"
nahuog sa jeep. kay? nagdinanghag. kay? wala sa presence of mind. kay? wala nag breakfast. kay? walay kwarta. kay? wala nag trabaho. kay? gi fire sa trabaho. kay? wala nag tinarong. kay? etc etc etc. infinite na bro. same with science. cause and effect.

mao gani revelations 1:8. naa jud nay beginning bro.

By the way bro, nganong sure man ka ang imo tong ginoo ang ni storya nimo atong "revelation" nimo? wala ka niagi ug atheist bro, sure ko ana, yaw ilada imong kaugalingon... basin agnostic nuon mas motoo pako..

look sa pinaka taas nako nga tubag.

So para nimo tinuod na si shiva?

kapila naman ko ni answer ani sa ibabaw? i think you need to absorb my reply more kay murag wa ka ka g

So sa ato pa dli diay ka certain if ang imo diay ginoo ang ginoo ba sa bibliya? pero ingon ka pag una nga mo too ka ug bibliya... unsa man gyud?

dont confuse urself bro, I am certain about my God. nganu? ive stated it above, dont make me repeat things all over again. ur just confusing urself

Bro nganong imo man gi compare ang butang ug sa buhi? wala may mo lakaw nga building ug maginhawa nga computer... lol.... We are talking about ORGANIC things... Ang ang man sad mo ingon ka nga ang imong cellphone inig abot ug pila ka years mo evolve into laptop.. natural kay dli mana buhi.... natural ra gyud nga pwede na himoon kay dli mana organic...

good question. nganu bro? kay if i base nimu sa science nga nasugod tah ug big bang theory, asa man nag sugod ang life? earth started with no life. nya cge i support daw na ang evolution nga from no life to life to micro-organism. give me proofs that supports your claim. kay uve said a while ago "na agian na nimu tanan proofs about sa bible nya you claim wa pakay nakita tinuod nga evidence"
so i suppose na agian nasad nimu tanan proofs sa imung evolution.
and don't forget to question if it's a hoax. matod pa nimo

*unya nako mu reply sa uban kay dapat nako mu lakaw 3pm. lol. il reply your other haf sa thread nig abot nako balay 11pm *

[schmuck]

Bible syempre..
if you are looking for an evidence.. read more book of genesis. genesis 17:10.. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep. every male among you shall be circumcised.
Meaning GOD really created us.. the bible said it... Kinsa man nagtudlo og Circumcision d ai? ang science..>?
Kong imong balikon, ma drill down jud gihapon...

What is it with god and his obsession with the foreskin of our *****es?

[orcgod]

the point is the traceability that GOD really made man... Because of that covenant.. though daghan pa pero mao niy passdown jud kaayo nga proof.. ang covenant..

im not arguing you about your point. you have every right.

im citing you a contradiction of your own Bible Verse you posted. Now explain in lay-mans term, why is this a "clear as a crystal" contradiction?

[orcgod]

There is a philosophy which rightly exercises our reasonable faculties; a study of the works of God, which leads us to the knowledge of God, and confirms our faith in him. But there is a philosophy which is vain and deceitful; and while it pleases men's fancies, hinders their faith: such are curious speculations about things above us, or no concern to us. Those who walk in the way of the world, are turned from following Christ. We have in Him the substance of all the shadows of the ceremonial law. All the defects of it are made up in the gospel of Christ, by his complete sacrifice for sin, and by the revelation of the will of God. To be complete, is to be furnished with all things necessary for salvation. By this one word "complete," is shown that we have in Christ whatever is required. "In him," not when we look to Christ, as though he were distant from us, but we are in him, when, by the power of the Spirit, we have faith wrought in our hearts by the Spirit, and we are united to our Head. The circumcision of the heart, the crucifixion of the flesh, the death and burial to sin and to the world, and the resurrection to newness of life, set forth in baptism, and by faith wrought in our hearts, prove that our sins are forgiven, and that we are fully delivered from the curse of the law. Through Christ, we, who were dead in sins, are quickened. Christ's death was the death of our sins; Christ's resurrection is the quickening of our souls. The law of ordinances, which was a yoke to the Jews, and a partition-wall to the Gentiles, the Lord Jesus took out of the way. When the substance was come, the shadows fled. Since every mortal man is, through the hand-writing of the law, guilty of death, how very dreadful is the condition of the ungodly and unholy, who trample under foot that blood of the Son of God, whereby alone this deadly hand-writing can be blotted out! Let not any be troubled about bigoted judgments which related to meats, or the Jewish solemnities. The setting apart a portion of our time for the worship and service of God, is a moral and unchangeable duty, but had no necessary dependence upon the seventh day of the week, the sabbath of the Jews. The first day of the week, or the Lord's day, is the time kept holy by Christians, in remembrance of Christ's resurrection. All the Jewish rites were shadows of gospel blessings. --taken from a commentary Christ Notes: Bible Search & Bible Commentary

All the BLAH BLAHS your talking are yours to keep. Im not arguing about it.

What i simply want is an explanation of this VERY SPECIFIC Bible Verse, why does it CONTRADICT? Does the BIBLE support Circumcision or NOT? if so, explain that SPECIFIC bible verse contradiction.

[moot]

there's no real answer to this bro. perhaps we should take it from ADD/Eli Soriano.

Eli actually said that ang "diyos ay may puwet" based on this verse:

Revelation 21:5

He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

Chad, if there was ever a Blasphemy Challenge you'd have a chance of joining I bet you you'd win first prize. You are a foul-mouthed atheist. You definitely stand out from the others.

[AMD_fan]

Mao bitaw if mo sulti ta na God gave us FREEDOM , that would be in all aspects to include of our freedom of interpretation . Pero if mo sabot ta sa bible LITERALY kana siya obvious na man gud na wala gigamit ang commonsense .

So wala gyud diay gi gamit ang commonsense sa pope ug sa ubang christians... Wala pud ga gamit ug commonsense ang unang tao nga motoo ani...

Pero ang ako lang nahibungan nga ang fable gi butang sa unang bahin sa bibliya....

Kay Ginoo man siya , without Him ... everything is impossible . Mo contradict man na if mo ampo ta niya unya wala ta mo tuo niya , doesnt make any sense .

So kung ikaw ginoo, nganong importante man kani nimo nga ikaw rmang usa gamhanan sa tanan?

Right mo survive is correct but mo mutate dili . Same sa NOAH na salida ba hehehehe .

Ngano naka ingon man ka nga dli mo mutate? Do you have any evidence to contradict mutation by natural selection?

Irrelevant ang Americans and Europeans na comparison bro kay names ra man ang gi usab and accent dsa language but their physical features same ra man gihapon .

Uu sakto pero nausab gihapon ilang languange ug ilang traits... I'm not talking about physical features... Ako ra gi compare ang logical explanation... Pananglitan naay mutation sa ungoy unya katong ungoya nag dala ato nga mutation, natural maliwat iyang anak hangtod na mausab na gyud ug mabuwag na sila kompara sa ordinaryo nga ungoy... pero ang ungoy natural dli mawagtang... na buwag lang ang lahi species...

Pareha sa breeding sa mga iro, ang poodle wala mawagtang bisag aduna nay labradoodle nga breed... ang shih tzu ug ang maltese wala mawagtang bisag aduna nay malshih nga breed... gets?

Mas feasible pa nuon ang Filipinos na atong ancestors kay Negrito, Malay and Indones .

Pareha ani imong example... mailhan rman gyud nimo nga lahi ra ang pinoy ug negrito, per sila atong ancestors, na wagtang ba sila? Ang kanang mga negrito, malay, indones, us, all have a common ancestor...

Kinsa diay atong mga ancestors ? Supposed to be mga unggoy man di ba ? Dont mistake the APE sa mga typical na TSONGGO bro . Even their species naay OLD WORLD and NEW WORLD MONKEYS .

Bro, wala napud ka kasabot... Ang atong ancestor bro is apes since we mutated from apes... apes hence were mutated from a common ancestor of monkeys and apes... gets?

Like gorillas, we share the same common ancestor, of course, we did not came from gorillas... Just imagine it like a family tree.... Kung ang imong mama igsuon sa imong tiya, natural dli gyud ka anak sa imong tiya, anak gyud ka sa igsuon sa imong tiya... if you get what I mean...

You're right, monkeys have their own species, just like humans and apes... then?

Unsa nang tsongo? karon pman ko kadungog ana... hehehe... sorry ha...

How sure are you ? Wala man na sa lifetime so walay maka vouch ana so it is not certain . The oldest living specie gani na known captive I think was the turtle who live almost 200 years old but then she died already na pod and normal ra man , back in forth sa tubig , eats its typical diet etc as a turtle .

Why am I sure? because of the vast evidences that evolution does happen and it's a fact... A change in a way of living of any animals will surely mutate from it's natural atmosphere... Way klaro imong example, captive siya pero it ate the same typical diet as a turtle... natural unsaon pagka usab ana kung normal lang?

Like sa mga turtle sa Galapagos archipelago. kada isla naay turtle pero ang kada isla, lahi2x gyud ug terrain... unsay nahitabo sa mga turtle? sa usa ka isla tagaas kaayo ang dahon, so ni mutate ang mga turtle nga mka kabot na sila sa mga dahon ug ang ilang shell nausab gyud para mo cope ani nga survival strategy (which also explains natural selection)... kung mo ad2 pud ka sa pikas isla, ang mga dahon mugbo kaayo, so ang ilang shell ni fit gyud sa ilang isla...

So gi discount na dili angay sabton ang bibliya literally ?

Kung ikaw mo too gyud ka ug bibliya (which is the word of God daw), you should take it literally...

One reason you should take the Bible literally if you are a bible believer, is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.

So if you don't take it literally, you don't believe in christ existed but just a fable... which obviously is..

See how you took it literally na pod . Ok , I believe in the CREATION through EVOLUTION . Cguro I was wrong to say FABLES .... unsay gani na story that after telling it naay mga MORALS and LESSON makuha ? Aw PARABLE diay lol !!! Dili FABLE hehehe .

Again, one reason you should take the Bible literally INCLUDING GENESIS if you are a bible believer, is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.

So if you don't take it literally, you don't believe in christ existed but just a fable... which obviously is..

Agree ko ana since it is wrong to say na unggoy ang mga ancestors but it is commonly said tungod kay unggoy man itsura nila but then it is not certain man pod , what if ang mga APES karon lang ang ga share ana na lineage .

So motoo pud diay kag evolution?

Anthropology which is a branch of SCIENCE made it happen when they uncovered more writings relting to the bible . HInumdom ka atong mga gospels of Mary Magdalene and Judas sa Discovery Channel ? Kana SCIENCE man jud na siya .

You don't want science to carry its evidence for evolution including anthropology but you believe that anthropology which is obviously a branch of science is effective in finding uncovered writings for your religion...

Yes of course science and history na kay it's just a writing which existed and of course popular in religious fields... It doesn't add up to the evidence of the bible... It just uncovered an ancient texts like sankrits and other religious texts...

Currently today .... I am certain daghan kaayo miracles nahitabo including the very classic na naka type gihapon ta diri kay we are still alive . Pero ganahan ka ug lawm kaayo , ang latest sa Eucharistic miracles ni occur sa South Korea . if you cant research on that , mo provide ko ug link next time .

My point is , wether it is a miracle from above or from below , walay reason dili mo tuo ang mga ATHEIST na ni exist gyud diay ni sila .

Sad to say, there's no evidence leading to miracles...