Re: The Flood Hoax

From: Jim Eisele (
Date: Fri Sep 13 2002 - 14:56:43 EDT

  • Next message: John W Burgeson: "Re: The Flood Hoax"

    John writes

    >Problems in other
    >translations can always be "solved" by appealing to the original
    >manuscripts. Since those are not available, such a solution seems to me to
    >be without any usefulness.

    If the original manuscripts/tablets are inerrant, the Bible is more
    reliable. It becomes a divine document, not a human document. I imagine
    that most of us at least consider the Bible to be 99% accurate.
    Any chance that we simply don't fully understand the rest? Does it
    really matter if Mark only mentions one blind man? This shows that
    Mark's & Matthew's accounts are not merely copies of each other.

    Jim Eisele
    Genesis in Question

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 14 2002 - 09:00:15 EDT