What Makes Creationism a Valid Scientific Alternative?

[SkyWriting]

You have a study Bible that claims Luke 1:2 says that Luke is claiming to be an eyewitness? Every one I have ever seen says that Luke 1:1-4 indicates he is differentiating himself from eyewitness testimony.

Here are 8 commentaries. One yes, one no, and 6 more I'm not inclined to decipher. May God's spirit guide you.

Luke 1:2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

 

[RickG]

You do that ... and I'll stick with the old paths.

I guess they were originally written in English as well?

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess they were originally written in English as well?

Who are "they"?

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? or Scofield, Morris, and the writer of the Rainbow Study Bible's chapter notes?

 

[46AND2]

Here are 8 commentaries. One yes, one no, and 6 more I'm not inclined to decipher. May God's spirit guide you.

Luke 1:2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

Geneva and Gill's say in no uncertain terms that Luke was not an eyewitness.

Which were you suggesting to interpret that he was claiming to be an eyewitness? I don't see that in any of them.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

You do that ... and I'll stick with the old paths.

Ingraining the path since 325 C.E.

 

[SkyWriting]

My opinion is of no consequence, but I think I will go along with the consensus of most modern biblical scholars disagree who with you.

Few doubt the accuracy of the accounts. And few are convinced that the final editors of what you read were the original writers.
But if you know anything about ancient or modern publishing, the final manuscripts are rarely in the authors handwriting.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Few doubt the accuracy of the accounts. And few are convinced that the final editors of what you read were the original writers.
But if you know anything about ancient or modern publishing, the final manuscripts are rarely in the authors handwriting.

Unless of course you're making supernatural claims about it's characters, then you don't mind if we hold you to a higher standard, do you?

 

[RickG]

Who are "they"?

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? or Scofield, Morris, and the writer of the Rainbow Study Bible's chapter notes?

You know very well I mean the Gospels.

 

[Jro]

Yo, I've been reading this thread on and off but as anyone posted why creationism is a valid scientific alternative? Yet to see it!

 

[SkyWriting]

Geneva and Gill's say in no uncertain terms that Luke was not an eyewitness.

Which were you suggesting to interpret that he was claiming to be an eyewitness? I don't see that in any of them.

Reading it through again, I don't see it either. I claim the Jose Feliciano defense

 

[UncleHermit]

Yo, I've been reading this thread on and off but as anyone posted why creationism is a valid scientific alternative? Yet to see it!

No, but that's not exactly unprecedented when it comes to threads on this subject.

 

[Jro]

No, but that's not exactly unprecedented when it comes to threads on this subject.

Welp. vv

 

[mathetes123]

If by "generation," you mean 20-30 years after the death of Jesus, then I will agree. It's a rather strange way of putting it, but I suspect you're making it sound that way to mitigate the weight of their testimonies.

Matthew and John were most certainly with Jesus during His advent on the earth, and to say it was a generation after His death is ... well ... strange.

They were written within the lifetime of those who witnessed the events.

 

[AV1611VET]

They were written within the lifetime of those who witnessed the events.

Yup ...

 

[Jamin4422]

Matthew = yes

John Boanerges = yes

John Mark = possibly (if he was one of the 70 or the 120)

Luke = possibly (if he was one of the 70 or the 120)

Mark was Mary's son. The Mary that owned the upper room where the disciples stayed when they were in Jerusalem. Mark was very interested in what was going on, but he was also very young. Even Paul considered Mark to be young and immature when Mark wanted to return home early when he was on the mission trip with Paul and Luke. Later on Paul said Mark was of value to the ministry so he must have been older and more grown up. If you remember Mary had a servent girl, so Mark had a bit of money growing up. As far as an eye witness, of course he was a witness to the events in Jerusalem. Mark did not travel with the disciples so he would hear the same stories that later Luke and Paul heard from the disciples. Perhaps Mark shared a lot of those stories with Paul and Luke. Of course Luke spent time with Mary, he was very interested to learn what Mary had to say and perhaps that is why we learn more from Luke about Mary the mother of Jesus. Even though we read that Jesus asked John to take care of Mary.

 

[AV1611VET]

Mark was Mary's son. The Mary that owned the upper room where the disciples stayed when they were in Jerusalem. Mark was very interested in what was going on, but he was also very young. Even Paul considered Mark to be young and immature when Mark wanted to return home early when he was on the mission trip with Paul and Luke. Later on Paul said Mark was of value to the ministry so he must have been older and more grown up. If you remember Mary had a servent girl, so Mark had a bit of money growing up. As far as an eye witness, of course he was a witness to the events in Jerusalem. Mark did not travel with the disciples so he would hear the same stories that later Luke and Paul heard from the disciples. Perhaps Mark shared a lot of those stories with Paul and Luke. Of course Luke spent time with Mary, he was very interested to learn what Mary had to say and perhaps that is why we learn more from Luke about Mary the mother of Jesus. Even though we read that Jesus asked John to take care of Mary.

Thanks for the info!

Now matter how you slice it though, God was the real Author, eh?

 

[Jamin4422]

Thanks for the info!

Now matter how you slice it though, God was the real Author, eh?

God gave HIS whole plan of salvation to Moses. It is always a good idea to look to see what Moses has to say about what we are reading in other books in our Bible. This helps me to keep everything in balance.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2 Peter 1:20-21(KJV)
[/FONT]
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[AV1611VET]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2 Peter 1:20-21(KJV)
[/FONT]
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[46AND2]

They were written within the lifetime of those who witnessed the events.

Well...John was kind of stretching it...~60 years after the event. They usually only lived to about 40 or 50 back then.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well...John was kind of stretching it...~60 years after the event. They usually only lived to about 40 or 50 back then.

If God had something for one of His secretaries to write ... believe me ... he would live until he wrote it.

As I understand it, John was put in a vat of boiling oil ... and survived.

Daniel was thrown in a lion's den ... and survived.

Jonah in a whale's belly.