That appears to be more about the people that the evidence. But then, Snelling has used people to avoid evidence before.
Yeah as best I could tell Snelling’s main point seems to be that he takes the Bible to say something else. There was nothing about actual geology that I could see.
Indeed. I skimmed the article but found it just a retread. Nothing but PRATTs. I don’t care if some people wish to stick with their own particular “tribal tradition” of Genesis hermeneutics—but I’m fed up with the assumption that everybody else is either deliberately misreading it or is a “bad” Christian in some way for not agreeing with them.
I am also not afraid to admit that I still use some of those tiresome arguments when teaching: as prime examples of poor exegesis, especially with the Noahic Flood.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.