An eyewitness, or interpretation of evidence?

Some people here have alluded to the fact that one can come to the right conclusion about evolution even if you weren't there, because it's much like solving a crime based on the evidence left behind.

There are a few things right with this analogy, and many things wrong with it. This thread isn't about debating the analogy, though. I have a different question in mind.

Assume that you have two types of data to use to solve this crime:

1. Flimsy evidence based on speculation about processes you cannot reproduce

2. A reliable eyewitness

Which would you trust more?

With that in mind, let's look at creation. The eyewitness I have in mind is Jesus. John describes the presence and the role of Jesus in creation.

John 1
2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Click to expand...

Here is the testimony of this reliable witness through Whom all things were made. He says G~d created man and woman at the beginning of creation.

Mark 10
5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Click to expand...

This Eyewitness also testifies to the reliability and durability of scripture.

John 10:35
If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)

Click to expand...

That should be sufficient for anyone who calls him or herself a Christian, but one could add numerous other verses that are equally clear or even more clear on this matter. They aren't always spoken by Jesus, but a believer in the Bible knows that scripture is inspired by the G~d through the Holy Spirit, Who was also present at creation and is a reliable eyewitness.

2 Timothy 3
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Click to expand...

So when Paul speaks by the Holy Spirit, he is giving the testimony of the Holy Spirit, whose testimony is true. For example:

Romans 1
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Click to expand...

Obviously, the only way men could see these things since the creation of the world is if man was there since the creation of the world.

As I said, there are many more verses with the same assumption. I can find absolutely none that contradict these assumptions.

Obviously, none of this will have any meaning to atheists and people who do not believe that the Bible is true and reilable, but this is not meant for them. This is for people who might entertain the notion that it is wiser to trust the Word of G~d more than the words of man.

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


We don't even have a reliable witness about what the dang Bible says --- Where in the passage you quoted did John or Jesus mention that G~d created man and woman at the beginning of creation? Are you getting ready to publish the Gospel according to Nick?

Click to expand...

Take a remedial reading comprehension course, Jerry.

Originally posted by Joe V.
I dunno. The Bible was written by the hands of ordinary men. It was passed down throughout the generations by ordinary men. I have been told over and over again - by ordinary men - that this is the Word of God. You're not asking me to have faith that the Bible is the truth, you're asking me to have faith in ordinary men that this is the truth. In the end, these ARE the "words of man".

My apologies if I've offended anyone.

- Joe

Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to do anything. You can believe that the Bible was made up yesterday by snap, crackle and pop, for all I care.

But your argument leaves G~d out of the equation. You are ignoring the possibility that G~d is not only perfectly capable of directing the writing of His word, but the preservation of His word throughout the ages. You may not believe that this is possible or you may not believe that it is true, and that's fine. But your reasoning is incomplete.

Regardless, my message was for those who do believe the Bible is both inspired and reliable. That may not include many people here, but I'm sure it includes some.

Originally posted by TScott
The problem with using the fourth gospel is that it is hearsay evidence, and therfore not admissable.

Click to expand...

In a court of law, perhaps. But if I had to argue this in a court of law, I would cite some other things Jesus said:

Mark 12:36
David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: " 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." '

Click to expand...

Mark 13:11
Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Luke 12
11 "When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, 12 for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say."

Click to expand...

John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Click to expand...

All of the above were spoken by Jesus, so it is first hand. Then I would point out the other verses that corroborate the above. These are not first-hand accounts of creation, but they ARE first-hand accounts of the Holy Spirit, since Paul and the other Apostles were able to give others the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.

Acts 28
24 Some were convinced by what he said, but others would not believe. 25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:

Click to expand...

So now we have corroborating evidence that the Holy Spirit speaks through prophets (authors of the books of the Bible.) In addition, Peter also had first-hand knowledge of the Holy Spirit and said...

2 Peter 1
16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. 19 And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Click to expand...

Since we have this and other quotes from people with a first-hand knowledge of the Holy Spirit saying ALL Scripture is dictated by the Holy Spirit, then ALL Scripture (including the fourth Gospel, written by John, who also had the Holy Spirit) is written by the Holy Spirit, Who has first-hand knowledge of creation.

Originally posted by s0uljah


LMAO, ok man, you made me laugh with that one...

Click to expand...

Me, too. And it's a lie. Everyone knows I lost that one years ago.

Originally posted by Plan 9
Since eveyone seems to want to go with the analogy that Nick then dropped (Sorry, Nick!), then I guess I will too.

Click to expand...

Not dropped. Picked up on another thread.

Analogies of this type are meaningless because you evolutionists create an analogy that is actually credible, and the evidence for evolution is not. A more accurate analogy for evolution would be like the one I cited in the other thread. You find a million-year-old fossil of a dead man in one location, and a 1-year-old knife 30 miles away in a kitchen. Despite the absurdity of the claim, you believe you have evidence that the knife is the murder weapon because the color of the blood on the knife is similar to the color of the pants the paleontologist was wearing when he dug up the fossil.

Originally posted by Plan 9


This is the analogy at the beginning of this thread and this is the statement you made saying that you dropped it.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah. My reading comprehension is about -10 today. Lack of sleep.