Self-Published Genius #129: The Bible Is True!

Today we have a new addition to our series about Self-Published Geniuses. This is where we bring you news of authors with a vanity press book in which the author claims to have made paradigm-shattering discoveries, and announces his work by hiring a press release service.

The exciting title of today’s press release is Science has Confirmed the Existence of God!, and it was issued by Digital Journal. Here are some excerpts from the press release, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

This book demonstrates that God exists [Gasp!], and this book does so on the grounds of secular scientific data and mathematics.

Ooooooooooooh! This is exciting! Then the press release says:

The book “Science Confirms the Existence of God” is available at Amazon in both in print and as an eBook.

Here’s a link to the book at Amazon: Science Confirms the Existence of God. It costs only $14.95 in paperback (an incredible bargain!), and yes — there’s a “Look Inside” feature.

Amazon also reveals that the publisher is‎ Kevin Bradford Ornellas. It might surprise you to learn that the name of the book’s author is also Kevin Bradford Ornellas. Verily, this is indeed a self-published book!

Okay — we’ve got the press release and we know the book is from a vanity press, so it qualifies for our collection. Now let’s see what it’s all about. The press release says:

This book uses insight into a key verse, 2Peter 3:8, to help set-up a mathematical model of what the Bible is asserting to be true.

Fascinating! So we took a look at that verse in the bible — King James version, of course — and it says:

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Now we’re getting somewhere! The press release continues:

When the times predicted by the Bible with this insight are compared to modern scientific data, a direct correlation between what Saint Peter and the Genesis Writer said was true, and what occurred according to modern scientific data is shown! [Amazing!] Using modern Science, the book confirms the veracity of the Seven Days of Creation Account in Genesis.

We thought creation took six days, not seven, but let’s not quibble. Instead, let’s do the math! Creation took six days in genesis, and a day is a thousand years, so (pause for calculations) the six days of creation really were six thousand years! Wow! Okay, back to the press release:

Kevin Bradford Ornellas [the author-publisher] is an IT [information technology] specialist who resides in Honolulu, Hawaii. For inquiries, please contact the author at [Link omitted!]. You are welcome to check-out [Facebook link omitted!].

Okay, dear reader. We’ve done our part. The rest is up to you. So what are you waiting for? Buy the thing! And tell ’em the Curmudgeon sent ya!

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

18 responses to “Self-Published Genius #129: The Bible Is True!

  1. For $14, one is better of buying candy than that nonsense of a book.

  2. The Epistle of Barnabas, of about AD 100, had the idea that the “days” of creation in Genesis 1 were periods of a thousand years.

  3. Eddie Janssen

    If you multiply 6000 (years, age of the earth according to the bible) with 365 (days) with 1000 (years is a day) you get 2.2 billion years. Still a lot off.

  4. I hate to be that “why not write a paper and peer review it” guy but why not write a paper and peer review it.

  5. Dave Luckett

    Because, richard, you or I are not peers of so mighty an intellect as that of Mr Ornellas’. We’d have to be made peers, first, and even then, somebody would probably go to the end of us and start a concert party.

    But seriously, folks, I’ve always said that the more you talk to computers, the less you can talk to, or think like, a human being. I worry about my son, who is on that career track. He’s not up to paradigm-shattering insights yet, and most of what he says is still perfectly intelligible, but still, I worry. A dreadful example like this one only increases my concern.

  6. Unfortunately, with self-publishing on the net so cheap and easy these days, well-meaning, ignorant, computer-savvy dumb f*cks like Ornellas are bound to proliferate

  7. The author divided by zero.

  8. It’s 2022 and we still have people who think the two Peters were beyond any doubt written by “Saint Peter” the apostle just because it says so.

  9. I’m beginning to think that if we didn’t have religion they would have to remove “puerile” from the dictionary as there would not be enough puerile things any more.

  10. Dave Luckett

    Oh, there are plenty of puerile things, richard. But, well, biblical literalism and inerrancy, sure. Take 2 Peter. Please.

    On the face of it, it totally contradicts 1 Peter. At 4:7, 1 Peter says the last days are on us. At 3:8-9, 2 Peter, we are told that a thousand years is like a day in the sight of God, The “last days”, therefore, might be millennia.

    And the fact that 2 Peter needs to apologise for no Second Coming implies that it was written after Peter’s death, that is, after the generation that had heard Jesus had passed away. So it’s not Peter’s work.

    There’s more, of course. 1 Peter quotes from the Old Testament, and it tells readers that they are of “a chosen race”. This could indeed be a Jewish mind, informed by Jewish ideas and scripture, extending those ideas to include gentiles. It might be Peter. Who knows?

    2 Peter, not so much. No direct quotations. The writing and word use are different, the prose more elaborate, with more unusual words and constructions. It simply reads differently, and not like the words of a Galilean fisherman described as an uneducated layman at Acts 4:13. It isn’t the same voice as 1 Peter. It’s not the same person.

    But all of that is rejected out of hand – or, more often, simply ignored by, or not even known to fundamentalists. 2 Peter says it’s Peter, so it is End of story, ayymen!

    Puerile, sure, which means, roughly, “childish”. But put a child’s mind in an adult, with an adult’s powers and means, and you’ve got trouble. I don’t think Jesus meant that when he told His followers that they must be as little children.

  11. @Dave Luckett
    Or, it can be written by Peter, who had the foreknowledge that the next generation would be troubled by lack of the return of Jesus. Peter is preparing the future generations by reminding them that, for the Lord, a thousand years is a day.

  12. Dave Luckett

    TomS: Sure, sure. All we need is a miracle – divinely inspired precognition – and all is possible. And the best part is that it works for everything.

  13. They say that fish is brain food. Maybe Peter caught a lot of fish and could foretell the future and also write better on his second try. Maybe 1 peter was a practice round for 2 Peter.

  14. Apparently 2 Peter had a rough time back in the early days too.

    “And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,’ Matthew 16:18 has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful.” –Eusebius

    (Bible dot org, “Is 2 Peter Peter’s?”)

  15. Clarification/Correction, in the above Eusebius quote, Eusebius is quoting (or summarizing) Origen., Chapter 25. His [Origen ‘s] Review of the Canonical Scriptures.

  16. Off topic, but how can Christians ignore the advice of 2 Peter chapter 2 in choosing a leader?

  17. In the dictionary next to “puerile” they have a picture of this concluding sentence from the aforementioned Bible dot org article, “Is 2 Peter Peter’s?”

    “Regardless of its late acceptance, it was accepted into the canon of Scripture. And if 2 Peter is Scripture, and if Scripture is inerrant, then the author must be the one whom the word of God says he is: ‘Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ.'”

  18. @TomS At the risk of quoting a talent of somewhat dubious character but we all have our flaws don’t we, “It’s easy if you try.”