Pericles,
Your cosmological pronouncements are not based on observation alone, but on their interpretation through the paradigm of big bang cosmology. Yet not everyone accepts big bang cosmology. No evidence compels us to. It’s a philosophical preference. You’re still having difficulty dividing between what’s evidence, theory, observation, and interpretation.

You may have difficulty proving who built the Sydney Harbour Bridge relying on forensic evidence alone. Yet we have no problem discovering a reliable history for the bridge because of the amount of historical records, photos, news broadcasts, and eye witness testimony, some of whom are still alive to call upon today.

This reminds me of the curiosity that there are a few people who don’t accept that the Apollo missions really happened. They believe it was a hoax filmed in a hangar in Arizona, or something similar. Yet of the twelve men who walked on the moon, I’ve met one, Charles Duke. I’ve read his biography (he also signed it for me.) With the passing of Neil Armstrong, we have one less living testimony. Soon all Twelve will have passed on. Within decades, all those thousands who worked within the Apollo mission program will also have died. What will be left to verify this historical event will be the photos, recordings, books, newspapers and other testimony. This will weigh far more heavily than the minimal traces (footprints, etc.) left on the moon (although that won’t be contradictory.)

Such is the (Biblical) testimony of Paul with regard to the resurrection of Christ, (1 Cor. 15) “Let me now remind you of the Good news … I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins … was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by ….”

Very true, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Your cosmological pronouncements are not based on observation alone, but on their interpretation through the paradigm of big bang cosmology. Yet not everyone accepts big bang cosmology. No evidence compels us to<<

The difference between this and young-earth theory is, however, that the existence of a big bang was posited as a result of examining evidence, not as a result of narrowly interpreting the words of the Bible. While we are a long way from understanding the cosmological singularity completely - and at the same time remaining open to new, similarly compelling arguments-from-evidence - it is the most convincing account so far.

As I said before, the main difference is in the sequence of your logic: you believe the Bible, and fit the evidence accordingly, while science looks first at the evidence, then at what that evidence tells it.

And this looks remarkably like an own-goal to me:

>>...we have no problem discovering a reliable history for the bridge because of the amount of historical records, photos, news broadcasts, and eye witness testimony, some of whom are still alive to call upon today<<

Followed by:

>>He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by...<<

While I can accept the first-hand testimonies of people who recall the Harbour Bridge construction, I cannot see the same link with the Jesus stories. Much was recorded, during the bridge building, by eye-witnesses. Absolutely nothing was recorded by contemporaries of Jesus. We are left with some third-hand reporting by an evangelist with a personal stake in his story's incredibility.

Given the relative newsworthiness of the two events - the building of Sydney Harbour Bridge and the life and escapades of Jesus - does it not surprise you that there is not one single contemporary account of Jesus' miracles? Not one. Yet they were, according to all the later "recollections", far more significant that the construction of a bridge.

Showing discussions for articles published one year back… Congratulations to all of us. Few threads achieve the distinction of that requirement.

"Do you really think the great church Councils here were being led and inspired by humanistic theories rather than clear Bible teaching?"

I didn't say they were, Dan.

My observation was that the Nicene Creed makes no statement of faith supportive of young earth creationism, as in "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible 4325 years ago [Nicea]" or "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible 4385 years ago [Constantinople]"

"I still don’t think we’re quite seeing eye to eye regarding the definition of the word ‘observation’."

This has been obvious for some time, though I suspect we're both past losing any sleep over it.

"I was intending it to mean something that is rather obvious, that anyone could observe, that anyone looking at could see and verify. I suggest anyone can see that Genesis chapters 6, 7, & 8 detail a worldwide flood."

'Detail' seems to overstate it, and as for 'something that is rather obvious' such as my observation that the Genesis stories are allegorical (nothing new here, I thought so when I was six years old) we seem to have slipped past the issues of why old earth creationists are wrong.

We could also consider why other, older surviving records – ones from peoples who actually invented writing – detail a different history. But if you claim they are merely stories… well, you get the idea.

"‘In (or at) the beginning’ does not equate with ‘Once upon a time’. The first defines a particular point of reference in time; the second is a period that is deliberately vague. They’re quite different."

But what I said was, "If we are considering literary observations, I might observe that "In the beginning…" Is an alternate literary form of "Once upon a time…" in direct response to your "I would contend that that is a plain fact that anyone can read and thus is a clear literary observation."

There's that pesky word 'observation' again. But given Safarti's notions of time as referenced in Answers, to that extent you may be justified in claiming, "The first defines a particular point of reference in time"

Turning to your sidebar, "In what was hailed by the scientific community of his day as a major achievement in describing all that is knowable, Herbert Spencer (an early advocate of evolution) determined that everything that exists fits into one of five categories: time, force, action, space, matter."

Perfectly reflects Genesis?

So, into which of the five categories does Spencer's knowledge fit? Or God's will for that matter. Maybe both of them don't exist

My own sidebar, which as it is set in Earth relative time of 2087 AD and elsewhere in the galaxy I'm guessing is fictional reality.

Inspiration (and bemusement) can come from unexpected sources… yesterday I was reading this in chapter 18 of Iain M. Banks' Culture Series book, "Matter":

"War, famine, disease, genocide. Death, in a million different forms, often painful and protracted for the poor individual wretches involved. What God would so arrange the universe to predispose its creations to experience such suffering, or be the cause of it in others? What master of simulations or arbitrator of the game would set up the initial conditions to the same pitiless effect? God or programmer, the charge would be the same: that of near infinitely sadistic cruelty; deliberate, premeditated barbarism on an unspeakably horrific scale."

Hyrlis looked expectantly at them. "… Nothing able to think, nothing able to comprehend culpability, justice or morality could encompass such purposefully invoked savagery without representing the absolute definition of evil…"

[later]

Holse had been thinking about this. "Of course, sir your god could just be a bastard," he suggested. "Or the simulationeers, if it's them responsible."

"And all this pertains how, exactly?" Ferbin asked. His feet were sore and he was growing tired of what seemed to him like pointless speculation, not to mention something dangerously close to philosophy, a field of human endeavour he had encountered but fleetingly, through various exasperated tutors, though long enough to have formed the unshakeable impression that its principal purpose was to prove that one equalled zero, black was white and educated men could speak through their bottoms."

Doesn't mention bridges, though...

WmTrevor,
It's a pity these church councils didn't specifically address your concern. This was probably because the issue wasn't a pressing question at the time in those early centuries. I'd guess, if asked, they would have said something like you've said just above, but either way, we could only be making an argument from silence.

It would be good for churches today to add some clarification to in their creedal confessions.

One example of a church having done this (when the matter was more pressing) is found in the Westminster Confession of the Prebyterian Church, completed in 1646. Article 5.1 states: “It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manisfestation of the glory of His eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create, or make out of nothing, the world, and all things therein whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days; and all very good.”