Has young earth creationism become an obstacle to the Great Commission? (2)

[verysincere]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Has young earth creationism become an obstacle to the Great Commission?"

 

[CabVet]

LOL! Not even spamming the same message over and over you got the last word on that thread, that was too funny!

Now, where were we again? Oh yeah, I was waiting for you to post an eyewitness account.

EDIT: FYI, I am not questioning the virgin birth, the existence of Jesus, or any of that. All I am questioning is your statement that there are eyewitness accounts of all of that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And dad, getting the last word in a thread is not a victory. If your last post was nonsense you still lose.

Guess what dad? You still lose.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Speaking of losing, anyone else notice that the more dad loses, the bigger he makes his fonts in order to compensate?

What would Freud say about that, I wonder?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

No, how would it?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

(From the previous thread)

Meanwhile, I am still waiting for the verse with an eyewitness account of Mary's virginity. You did say there was one, and I await anxiously to see it.

...
P.S.: No, I am not thinking of something "gynecologist oriented"

An eyewitness account from whom? Also, other than relying on passages from the Bible, how could you confirm Mary's virginity without any gynecological evidence?

Eyewitnesses like Joseph, who knew what he did and did not do. He was ready to maybe leave her till the angel came to him.

Chapter and verse my friend, chapter and verse...

But he [Joseph] did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Matthew 1:25 (NIV)​

Of course, the most obvious account is from Mary herself. The Gospel of Luke describes how the angel Gabriel told her she would bear a child and she asks “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34). Naturally, Mary herself would know more than anyone whether she was a virgin or not - and she had no reason to lie to Gabriel.​

 

[CabVet]

An eyewitness account from whom?

Anybody that witnessed it with their own eyes. I am not the one the claimed an eyewitness account. dad said there was one, I am only asking for it.

Of course, the most obvious account is from Mary herself.

Then show me the gospel of Mary.

The Gospel of Luke describes how the angel Gabriel told her she would bear a child and she asks “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34). Naturally, Mary herself would know more than anyone whether she was a virgin or not - and she had no reason to lie to Gabriel.

Someone else talking about it is not an "eyewitness account".

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Anybody that witnessed it with their own eyes. I am not the one the claimed an eyewitness account. dad said there was one, I am only asking for it.


Then show me the gospel of Mary.


Someone else talking about it is not an "eyewitness account".

This is like a woman claiming to be a virgin today and you refuse to believe until you personally inspect her vagina. Ridiculous.

 

[Tinker Grey]

This is like a woman claiming to be a virgin today and you refuse to believe until you personally inspect her vagina. Ridiculous.

Not ridiculous if she is claiming a god impregnated her.

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Not ridiculous if she is claiming a god impregnated her.

I'll just point to my signature. You are correct the virgin birth and many other claims of the Bible cannot be verified through evidence. Only God can reveal the truth of the Bible to an individual.

 

[OllieFranz]

But that's not even the issue. Cab has not said he doesn't believe that the statements are in the Bible. he has not said that the Bible is inherently unreliable.

dad claimed to have eyewitness testimony. But the gospels, as we have them today is, legally hearsay testimony. No matter how true the information, hearsay is not eyewitness. Cab is only pointing out that simple fact.

He may have an ulterior motive for asking, or he may just be overly pedantic. Either way, you have to make assumptions about him to say anything more than the paragraph above.

 

[Tomk80]

This is like a woman claiming to be a virgin today and you refuse to believe until you personally inspect her vagina. Ridiculous.

No, this is someone else claiming that a woman claimed she is a virgin. That is hearsay, not an eyewitness account.

 

[CabVet]

This is like a woman claiming to be a virgin today and you refuse to believe until you personally inspect her vagina. Ridiculous.

I do not care if she was a virgin or not, why don't you get this? The user called dad said he believed she was a virgin because of eyewitness accounts. All I want to see are those eyewitness accounts, get it? And no, I wouldn't have to personally inspect her in any way, a testimony from her, or from her husband would certainly qualify as "eyewitness account", but they didn't write gospels, did they? So, I will ask again, is there an eyewitness account of Mary being a virgin? How about Jesus' birth? Is there an eyewitness account for that?

 

[CabVet]

he may just be overly pedantic

I would just like to see dad retract one of his statements, but I know that will not happen in this lifetime as he is the one that does not commit any mistakes.

 

[verysincere]

No, how would it?

I assume you are referring to the OP. (And that is great, because the thread has gotten far afield of the original question.)

As to reasons proposed for HOW young earth creationism has become an obstacle to the Great Commission, here are some of the most cited reasons:

1) The Apostle Paul said that believers should focus on the Gospel of the Cross of Jesus Christ "and if I preach any other gospel, let me be accursed." Are creationism ministries a needless distraction?

2) Young earth creationism and the "creation science" it has spawned have tended to associate Christianity (in the minds of the general public) with science-illiteracy and ridiculous folly, such as Ken Ham's Creation Museum.

3) YEC websites are known for dishonest quote-mining, misuse of science terminology, and misleading and erroneous use of both the scientific and Biblical evidence. (As a result, "Lying for Jesus" has almost 300,000 hits on Google.)

4) YEC leaders and their followers have become infamous for strawman arguments--which even non-believers cite as violations of "Thou shalt not bear false witness."

5) We know that the earth is billions of years old and that God used evolutionary processes to diversify and adapt life on earth because God filled his creation with enormous quantities of evidence which tells of that history. YEC believe that God's Bible is a reliable source of answers about history but that God's Creation is not. Neither the Bible nor Science supports that claim.

6) Young earth creationism has tended to present a false dichotomy: "To be a true Christian you must choose between the Bible and Evolution." There are other false dichotomies often presented but that is probably the most common one.

Many are concerned that young people are forced out of the church by a fork in the road which they should never face. If people consider the Gospel to be associated with pseudo-science, they will decide, "I can't ignore common sense and the weight of the evidence. If I have to reject scientific facts to accept the Gospel, I can't live in that kind of illogical state. So if accepting the Bible includes accepting young earth creationism, I guess I must reject the Bible."

There are others but these are probably the most common reasons.

Thanks for reminding us of the thread's purpose!

 

[OllieFranz]

I would just like to see dad retract one of his statements, but I know that will not happen in this lifetime as he is the one that does not commit any mistakes.

I know. I was just covering both extremes. The others were accusing you of being at the other extreme.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Someone else talking about it is not an "eyewitness account".

No, this is someone else claiming that a woman claimed she is a virgin. That is hearsay, not an eyewitness account.

So if Mary herself wrote "I am a virgin", that would be evidence ... but the writer(s) of the Gospel of Luke saying "Mary said she was a virgin" would not?

For one, that assumes Mary herself could read and write. There has been a lot of debate about whether Jesus was literate (it's almost certain that he was) but there's not much talk about whether Mary was. Women, particularly peasant women, were generally given much less education than men. Then again, as a Jew she may have been given an education so that she could read the Torah. So she may or may not have been literate.

Second is the Gospel of Luke itself - Luke is actually writing to someone he knows (Theophilius). He is also one of only two Gospel authors who mention Jeus' birth, and the only one who talks about his childhood. These two facts suggests that he was rather meticulous in researching all the details.

If this were a trial, Luke's "hearsay" would still be valid because a) it's from a document and b) it's evidence of multiple hearsay, because Matthew also says she was a virgin.

-------------------------------------------------

To be honest the "I-won't-believe-it-unless-I-hear-it-from-Mary-herself" idea seems rather weak. It sounds like they're retreating from the ALMAH / PARTHENOS argument by restorting to increasingly pedantic arguments.

Heck, I'll bet if we did find a piece of papyrus saying Yes I was a virgin - signed, Mary, the atheist users would simply dismiss it by saying "Well she would say that wouldn't she?"

 

[verysincere]

Heck, I'll bet if we did find a piece of papyrus saying Yes I was a virgin - signed, Mary, the atheist users would simply dismiss it by saying "Well she would say that wouldn't she?"

Yes, trying to apply very high standards of laboratory evidence to the ancient world is extremely difficult. In the real world one often has to make assessments based on what one has and doesn't have. Like it or not, there is much about the ancient world that we must accept for what it is.

 

[Tomk80]

So if Mary herself wrote "I am a virgin", that would be evidence ... but the writer(s) of the Gospel of Luke saying "Mary said she was a virgin" would not?

Again, nobody made a claim on whether it is evidence or not. It's just not an eyewitness account. Why is this so hard to understand?

Regarding Luke being meticulous in his research, how do you know? How do you actually know he didn't just think it was important (due to the earlier mentioned prophecies) and made it all up on the spot?

 

[verysincere]

Regarding Luke being meticulous in his research, how do you know? How do you actually know he didn't just think it was important (due to the earlier mentioned prophecies) and made it all up on the spot?

For the answer, see the Synoptic Hypothesis.

No, the evidence does NOT suggest that Luke "made it up on the spot."