True or False: Hinduism or Christianity

There may be elements of any religion that as we evolve we recognize as misconceptions but at the same time there are elements there that are of virtue - to lump the whole together and label it seems to me like jumping to conclusions.

Who ever came up with the concept of "inerrant word of God" itself? In contrast to who wrote it in the first place, us as un-perfect creatures - even if they were prompted by the Spirit of God unless God would pen it there is that room for error in the understanding and transmission through the centuries.

Along the line of the question, although a differant verse, this comes to mind -

Isaiah 40:25&26
"25To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
26Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth."

This is a good example to the mis-conception and virture to me. First in verse 25 set's forth there is none equal to the Holy One God especially humankind who wrote in thier languages about the holy One God.

Then in the next verse to paraphrase "not one of the stars faileth", at that time it would have seemed so but as we evovle and learn more about whats up there we know this is not true. Stars do explode and cease to shine and we have a name for that - Nebula.

I'm not really here to debate this just tossing in my $0.02 as what I've found and believe reguarding the topic.

Most modern translations say "not one is missing." This seems like another case of injecting one's own scientific understanding into a poetic passage of Scripture. Not to mention that as an astrophysicist (the kind who got his degree from an institution slightly more prestigious than Wikipedia College), I have to object to this particular scientific interpretation of Scripture.

I honestly don't mean any offense. But I strongly recommend against reading a few general knowledge science books, and assuming that you've got enough scientific and theological knowledge to interpret Scripture and show that it is contrary to science. It results in illogical scientific and theological conclusions.

No offense taken. Your certianly welcome to object to my take on it and admittingly I'm not a scientist nor theologian. As a layman who is an amature Astronomer and familiar with Biblical passages on the subject thats the way it reads to me in the context of declaring what the Creator created up there, certianly reasonable thinking before the advent of the telescope in Astronomy.

But the problem with your interpretation is that the text from Isaiah is just as true today as it was in Isaiah's time. With the exception of galactic supernovae, the number of stars in the sky doesn't change (even then, stars that go supernova were probably not visible to begin with, and they were just as uncommon in ancient times as in modern). On the timescale of human existence, the visible sky doesn't change all that much. If you artificially inject some sort of scientific meaning into any piece of literature, you'll find that most writings both ancient and modern don't meet the test. The use of metaphor to describe the heavens is common in practically all writing found outside of scientific papers. This method of reading the Bible is highly inconsistent with the way people read any other form of writing.

I have noticed a very interesting phenomenon. Non-Christians often read the Bible in a far more critical manner than they read any other text. For example, people regularly question the very existence of Jesus (something even liberal historical scholars would find laughable). They do not question the existence of Homer, Herodotus, Julius Caesar, etc. The critical manner in which they read the Bible seem to me to be incorrect from a strictly academic perspective, since one who does not believe in divine inspiration of Christian Scripture ought to read the Bible they same way they read any other ancient liteature. Could this be because of the Bible's uniqueness in that it says you will go to hell if you don't believe in Jesus? Could the undue criticism levelled against the Bible perhaps be an act of self-justification on the part of the readers?

However, the teaching that all the devas and devis are simply different forms or facets of the Supreme Lord is called the Mayavada philosophy, which the Scriptures attest to be false.

I'm sorry, I have to agree with others in that you've taken these verses out of context, and are trying to ascribe a meaning or concept where such does not exist.

This is obviously metaphor, and unless you can begin to indicate how "majesty" can be put to a loom, woven into cloth, and/or sewn into a robe, by no means can anything in this phrase be treated as a literal, much less a scientific principal.

There may be elements of any religion that as we evolve we recognize as misconceptions but at the same time there are elements there that are of virtue - to lump the whole together and label it seems to me like jumping to conclusions.

Baha'is accept that both religions HInduism and Christianity have a Divine origin...

When reading scriptures though you have to consider that there is literary symbolism which isn't necessarily scientific or meant to be.

Because I can

They're both false. The earth doesn't stay in place, and the "Lord" doesn't illuminate the sun.