Paul *was* a contemporary of Jesus, as were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Unlike us, they couldn't afford to waste paper, so only wrote down things of utmost importance:

- Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught.
(Luke 1:1-4)

- We saw him with our own eyes and touched him with our own hands. He is the Word of life. 
(1 John 1:1)

- This disciple is the one who testifies to these events and has recorded them here. And we know that his account of these things is accurate. Jesus also did many other things. If they were all written down, I suppose the whole world could not contain the books that would be written.
(John 21:24-25)

- "What I am saying is the sober truth. And King Agrippa knows about these things. I speak boldly, for I am sure these events are all familiar to him, for they were not done in a corner!"
(Paul, in Acts 26:25-26)

You say that, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Paul *was* a contemporary of Jesus, as were Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Unlike us, they couldn't afford to waste paper, so only wrote down things of utmost importance<<

But if you apply your own standards of "proof" to this assertion, you will find that it is full of the most glaring holes. Every single aspect of dating the gospels, identifying the writers, cross-checking the events that they portray, is - using your criteria - pure speculation.

You must be aware of the political machinations that resulted in the adoption of the currently-used quartet of gospels, and the prevalence in those days of pseudopigraphy? As Peter claims in his own version of the crucifixion...

"I with the companions was sorrowful; and having been wounded in spirit, we were in hiding, for we were sought after by them as wrongdoers"

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelpeter-brown.html

What makes this "eyewitness account" more or less credible than the claims made by Paul, John etc.? We can only assess the evidence available to us, in the same objective manner as scientists investigating the boundaries of our universe.

Unfortunately, there is far more pure, unbiased scholarship invested in the exploration of time and space than in your theories. You are, at base, relying upon your belief that the words of Genesis somehow convey a literal reality. Even the most cursory examination of the origins of that document, its biblical companions, and the manipulation of those documents (and their literary coevals) must surely leave room to accept other possibilities?

Don't forget, we are not debating here whether God created the universe in the first place, which is a whole other discussion. All we are concentrating on is the validity of the "six days, six thousand years ago" theory that you hold dear.

All you need to say is "It's what I happen to believe, so sod off". I can respect that far more than watching you contend that there is real evidence that supports your theories.

Not sure of the assistance The Confession of Faith of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster yields as to the reality of young earth creationism, apart from its catechism of belief, Dan...

but if Chapter IV.1 is true then we are saved the angst of trying to understand the confusion of that Oxyrhynchus oldest written record of '616' versus '666' business in Revelations, since Chapter XXV clearly identifies the Antichrist:

"VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof: but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God."

Does this accord with your literal interpretation of Revelations?

No one is unbiased. It's only that some are more capable than others of seeing the bias within themselves. No one is totally objective. "You're mistaken to think that I'm the only one making philosophical assumptions." - March 11. (When I revert to cutting and pasting what I've already said, it's telling me the discussion is getting stale.)

That Genesis is describing real history is what the Scriptures seem to imply. It's what Jesus apparently believed, which comes through in much of the teachings of the New Testament. This is why we say it's normative for Christian belief, a faith which is set within real world history.

I never thought I was offering 'proof', yet neither is such investigation merely speculation. We offer reasons in support of the faith as described in the texts. You raise questions of textual criticism and the analyses of ancient texts, which brings in a whole other domain with respect to historical investigations apart from the creation/evolution debate.

Such question are important, but so are many other avenues of Christian apologetics. I don't have the energy or capacity to debate them all. I was preferring to focus on the one aspect, that being creation/evolution. The Creation Answers Book I believe gives succinct but thoughtful answers to the most commonly asked questions on the creation/evolution controversy. It contains much evidence which goes beyond mere speculation. I'm grateful that creation.com made it available.

That's precisely the reason I put the word "proof" in inverted commas, Dan S de Merengue.

>>I never thought I was offering 'proof', yet neither is such investigation merely speculation.<<

Yet it has to be pointed out that without evidence, all you have been able to offer must be regarded as "merely speculation". As I have previously mentioned, none of your evidence stands up to objective assessment: you need to have already reached the conclusion beforehand in order to favourably interpret your observations. Which is a fundamentally different approach to that adopted by scientists. Even committed Christian scientists, who have read exactly the same book that you have, and reached an entirely different conclusion.

>>That Genesis is describing real history is what the Scriptures seem to imply. It's what Jesus apparently believed...<<

Apparently? Are you introducing some doubt here?

Maybe you are. This kinda leaps off the page in that context, doesn't it.

>>You raise questions of textual criticism and the analyses of ancient texts, which brings in a whole other domain with respect to historical investigations apart from the creation/evolution debate.<<

Surely, these are part and parcel of the issue of belief? The warp and the woof. The very fabric from which your belief system is fashioned?

You would not, I am sure, retain the same commitment to your six day/six thousand year theory, if it could be shown that the writings upon which you rely were actually a fourth-century fabrication?

Or... would you?