Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
God told Adam that he would return to dust. Modern man does not do that, his remains decay slowly. From a bible perspective, we could assume that pre-flood man would have left no remains other than dust. We can also deduce that man would not have been in the fossil record although he was living on earth.
You may make any assumptions you want, but that doesn't make them right. And any deductions you make based on those assertions will be similarly incorrect.God told Adam that he would return to dust. Modern man does not do that, his remains decay slowly. From a bible perspective, we could assume that pre-flood man would have left no remains other than dust. We can also deduce that man would not have been in the fossil record although he was living on earth.
In those days, no one can say it depended on that. It may have been the natural course of events. History fits a sudden change in how the dead were treated. Egypt was quite focused on burial and the dead. If the dead had never left remains in the past before that, it makes sense that they had to learn to deal with it.Depends on the make up of the ground. Some places, bones can be very well preserved. Adam was reserved for special treatment maybe.
So may you.You may make any assumptions you want, but that doesn't make them right
I try not to make assumptions that are contrary to science and Scripture.. And any deductions you make based on those assertions will be similarly incorrect.
God told Adam that he would return to dust. Modern man does not do that, his remains decay slowly. From a bible perspective, we could assume that pre-flood man would have left no remains other than dust. We can also deduce that man would not have been in the fossil record although he was living on earth.
Theoretically this is the case. However, how many relatives or people have you seen turn to dust? None. The issue here is whether Adam returned to dust in minutes or days, rather than the untold centuries it may now take. Furthermore, the issue is that if he did, and most animals also did in the days of the fathers, that would explain the fossil record, and why we are not in it.Yes, man does eventually turn to dust. .
Theoretically this is the case. However, how many relatives or people have you seen turn to dust? None. The issue here is whether Adam returned to dust in minutes or days, rather than the untold centuries it may now take. Furthermore, the issue is that if he did, and most animals also did in the days of the fathers, that would explain the fossil record, and why we are not in it.
Not really:
The Egyptians were "focused on burial and the dead" at a time that dates to before the flood.In those days, no one can say it depended on that. It may have been the natural course of events. History fits a sudden change in how the dead were treated. Egypt was quite focused on burial and the dead. If the dead had never left remains in the past before that, it makes sense that they had to learn to deal with it.
It's not the fossil record that makes no sense, it's your bizarre theology.Besides, if we expect remains for most animals and man then the fossil record makes no sense.
God told Adam that he would return to dust. Modern man does not do that, his remains decay slowly. From a bible perspective, we could assume that pre-flood man would have left no remains other than dust. We can also deduce that man would not have been in the fossil record although he was living on earth.
Theoretically this is the case. However, how many relatives or people have you seen turn to dust? None. The issue here is whether Adam returned to dust in minutes or days, rather than the untold centuries it may now take. Furthermore, the issue is that if he did, and most animals also did in the days of the fathers, that would explain the fossil record, and why we are not in it.
No. We are not in the early record at all.There's nothing to explain Dad - we are in the fossil record. Most of us might turn to dust but, fortunately, there have been a few of us who didn't.
OB
No. We are not in the early record at all.
Not in real actual time. That would only be according to belief-based dating schemes.The Egyptians were "focused on burial and the dead" at a time that dates to before the flood.
It makes perfect sense actually.It's not the fossil record that makes no sense, it's your bizarre theology.
Well, I place the time of the flood somewhere around the KT layer. We see no men there.How long did God say that it would take to decay to dust for both Adam and modern man?
How do you know there are no remains of preflood men to be found as fossilized remains?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?