Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | greentwiga | 141200 | ||
There is a huge difference between unproven and unsupported. You make the theory sound unsupported. Notice also that the Bible only indicates it was about 6,000 years since Adam. What if the man in Genesis 1 was different from the man in Genesis two. If so, we can't say how old the earth was. This is just an example of how we might be relying too heavily on one interpretation. Do we also suppress other interpretations, just like we accuse the scientists of doing? Greentwiga |
||||||
2 | A thought about the Flood | Bible general Archive 2 | EdB | 141205 | ||
Greentwiga Read what I said. I used the word "implied" in relation to the Biblical account. The Carbon dating theory was supportted only by the fact of what we knew at the time seemed to support it. We now are finding out many factors effect accurate carbon dating. None of which can be summarily dismissed or fudge factored in. Nor did I ever suggest suppressing anything. I simply stated it should not be presented as fact when in fact it is not. EdB |
||||||