Real data. Real decline of lifespans. Real exponential decay. How can this data be falsified?
Fishtank, Mech Eng, PhD
Creation was NOT thousands of years ago. The Bible is not a historical document.
When I went to college at a Jesuit school, a priest explained it this way in theology class. The bible focuses on the “Who?” and the “Why?” of creation (the two most important questions). When we dwell on the “How?” and try to reconcile it with modern scientific theories of how things have changed over time, we’re missing the point. Scientific textbooks don’t try to answer the “Who?” and “Why?” and the bible isn’t really concerned with a scientific explanation of the “How?”. Therefore, the two sources are not in conflict with one another as some insist.
Why do you believe this? What would you call 1 and 2 Chronicles? Of course the Bible has historical genre in addition to Law, Wisdom, Poetic and Prophecy. It has 66 books that include Gospels and Epistles. Have you read it? I hope you will.
Real data. Real decline of lifespans. Real exponential decay. How can this data be falsified?
Fishtank, Mech Eng, PhD
Creation was 6013 years ago, and the Bible is the most reliable historical text in existence.
Wrong on both counts. The biblical genealogies gives us approx 6,000 years - claculated by both Bishop Usher [OT 4,004} and Sir Isaac Newton [OT 3,992].
Furthermore, there is no other book throughout history where archaeology agrees 100% of the time where their geographies and timetables overlap.
But then ymmv if you think millions and billions of years have been scientifically determined - lots of assumptions and conjectures plainly.
“Creation was NOT thousands of years ago. The Bible is not a historical document.”
The Bible is a historical document. Creation was thousands of years ago, not millions.