Jesus was a young earth creationist

Let me begin this round by reminding everyone of the parameters which I set for this debate in round 1 and to which Pro agreed. First, I explained that the phrase "Jesus was a young earth creationist" meant that "he viewed Genesis 1-3 as a completely literal account, free of any kind of error, and not metaphorically." Per this explanation, which pro did not challenge, if Jesus held a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis 1-3, whether he believed the earth was created over millions of years or in a moment of time, he was not a young earth creationist. Furthermore, I stated that Pro's burden of proof in this round would be "to show from scriptures in the Bible...that Jesus' teachings support young earth creationism." Mine is "to show that Jesus' teachings in the relevant scriptural passages regarding 1-3 can fit just as well with a non-literal reading of the creation account." What this debate must come down to is which of us has better fulfilled our respective burdens of proof. Let us begin by examining the case I made in the last round, comprised of two points, and see if it adequately fulfills my burden of proof. "Point 1: Jesus referred to Genesis only to make doctrinal, and not historical or scientific claims." And "Point 2: Those doctrinal points still make sense if a young earth creationist perspective is rejected." These two points collectively uphold my burden of proof to show that Jesus' teachings regarding Genesis 1-3 can fit just as well with a non-literal reading of the same. As far as I can tell, Pro has not argued that Jesus' references to Genesis were designed to make not only doctrinal but also historical or scientific claims. Furthermore, while he has argued that some of the details of these references better accord with young earth creationism, he has not disputed my point that the doctrinal points Jesus was making in these passages would still have made perfectly good sense if Jesus had held a non-literal view of Genesis. I believe, then, that I have sufficiently upheld my burden of proof in this round. Let us then look at the points Pro has made and see if they sufficiently fulfill his burden of proof. First of all, I would like to consider his deductive argument from early Jewish and Christian thought. I accept his revision to the structure of the premises, however there are still two problems. First, Pro's burden of proof was to argue that Jesus' teachings supported young earth creationism. However, this argument does not refer to any of Jesus' teachings, but rather to the fact that Jesus did not criticize Young earth creationism, i.e. to what Jesus did not teach. Pro has argued that this is not an argument from ignorance, but rather an argument that Jesus probably believed in young earth creationism if he didn't bother to correct it. This still falls woefully short of his burden of proof, however, since it is extremely unlikely that we have all of Jesus' teachings and doctrines. John 21:25, for example, says: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." The second problem is that, as pro admits, it was often held that the earth was created in a moment - not literally in six days. I again readers to examine my explanation in Round 1 of what I meant by the statement "Jesus was a young earth creationist." I would like to make three other points of rebuttal as well. 1) Pro argues that Josephus' belief that Moses used philosophical and allegorical language does not negate a literal interpretation of Genesis since literal statements can have philosophical implications. I would respond by making a distinction between a text having philosophical/allegorical implications, and a text fundamentally being philosophical/allegorical. There is clearly a difference for example, between saying that God making man out of the dust has philosophical/allegorical implications, and saying that the description of God making man out of dust should be regarded, not as the way it really happened, but as a metaphorical description of the creation of man. The belief that God created everything in a moment would also be a clear example of a text being read as fundamentally being philosophical/allegorical as opposed to simply having philosophical/allegorical implications. 2) Since Pro's burden of proof is to argue from Jesus' teachings that he believed in young earth creationism, the genealogies are simply not relevant to this debate, as they are not part of Jesus' teachings. On that basis, I would prefer to avoid getting into other debates about how much of the gospels one has to accept in order to be logically consistent, etc. 3) With regard to my point that a young earth creationist perspective does not solve the alleged problem of male and female existing from the beginning, Pro has cited Genesis 2:4 and argued that under theistic evolution men and women were not created but rather evolved. Pro has not explained how Genesis 2:4 supports his point. Furthermore, his dichotomy between male and female being created and evolving is simply a false dichotomy, as the theistic evolutionist position would hold that male and female were created through evolution. [1] I conclude by reiterating that the evidence that Jesus was a young earth creationist is simply not adequate to fulfill Pro's burden of proof in this debate. On the other hand, I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated that Jesus' statements about Genesis were designed to support doctrinal claims, not to make historical and scientific claims, and that his doctrinal claims are perfectly consistent with a non-literal reading of Genesis. This was my burden of proof, and I urge you to vote con. I will close by thanking Pro for an excellent debate and wishing him the best of luck. [1] http://www.theistic-evolution.com...