a Christian
Credit where credit is due a Christian. Thank you for your apology. I won't have to refer to you as intentionally deceitful if you're not, so if you refrain from claiming prophetic significance for rounded figures (without explicitly explaining this), and stop making false claims for significance (that even though the orbital ratio wasn't 400, it was twice a month).
So, since you say I misrepresented what you wrote (by missing the word "If"), are you saying that you feel there is a possibility of, "guidance from god in writing the Bible" ? Just curious.
Of course it is possible, but so far I feel people have failed to demonstrate that the Bible is inspired, or have allowed their standards of proving inspiration to slip to such low levels that one could take the same standards for proving inspiration and 'prove' hosts of books were inspired.
And, provided you remember to not make mis-statements about what I have said, or statements about nature ("always exactly 400 X") that by their inaccuracy bolster your argument, I will not have any reason to point out your divergence from the standard of behaviour a Christian should follow.
And as for me saying you fail to glorify god... errrr... where is the glory to god in this thread that you have bought a Christian?
You've insisted that you are part of an elect of those equip pend to see the sign, yet manipulate figures to make the sign a sign.
You reduce god to a game player, who although capable of making 'proof' doesn't, but instead decides only a small elect will be able to discern it.
You never once address how the unfairness of this is explicable when we are told by your holy book we are made in god's image, and humans around the world are united in their appreciation of unfairness as being wrong.
I have a firm assurance that, if there is a god, he is not as petty as your interpretation of a book written by a bronze-age 'goatherd' makes out, but would be the personification of love.
I tend to think that when Carl Sagan made that estimate he took into consideration that there are many new stars just now forming, and others which are just now dying, which may not now be able to be seen by us even with telescopes
No, you tend to think whatever will support your claim; the average orbital distance is 389, that is close enough to 400 for you. Same with Sagan; he makes an estimate decades ago, and because it fits your theory you will cling to it no matter what science has done between times.
There is a clear pattern here a Christian.
Look at the date-of-birth thing. You have failed to convince ANYONE other than yourself of the validity of your 400x claim, you have made several people annoyed with you due to your convenient approximations, and then, having failed to modify your argument in anyway, you switch to birth-date.
This is called switch and bait, in argumentative terms.
Back a JW against a wall on an issue they will eventually have to just insist they are right on, and they will switch and bait.
Now, you are not a JW, but you switch and bait. Your interest in NOT continuing discussing 400x is apparent in your failure to defend your theory about recurrence of eclipses, the number of years between Adam and Jesus, and all the other holes, like the "the ratio s 400x twice a month" nonsensence.
Narkissos
Next, what was Cinderella's shoe really made of?
That has to be one of the best one-liners I've seen in years!
