Why prefer the Biblical creation account over those of other religions?

I was being sarcastic. My point was that it's strange to allege that other religions stole their cosmogony from Christianity when we know that as a matter of historical fact Christians stole it from the Jews.

Ok. You got the cart before the horse.Nothing was stolen from anybody, Dr Adequate. When you delve into serious Biblical study, you soon learn that the NT baptism of God's Holy Spirit into the very bodies of believers who have received Jesus as lord and savior, i.e. the born againers, i.e. the true christian church at large, you come to understand that the OT Levitical Law was eliminated and the dispensation of grace via Jesus, becoming he sacrificial lamb, the mediator/priest and the bodies of Holy Spirit indwelt replacing the temple. The law of grace replaced the rigid OT law of punishment etc. It requires some serious study and understanding, just as stuff related to physics etc requires in order to master it.Thankfully, I've studiously been into the mastering it since my childhood, being then convinced of the evidence via prophecy, etc of the existence of Jehovah and the credibility of the Biblical record.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Buz,Since we are talking about evidence that might prove the biblical account if we were to suspend acceptance of natural origins, may I ask what evidence you have that other religions are false? Just in general terms. Is it simply the fact that you believe in Christianity and find that belief to be mutually exclusive of other faiths?And where do you believe other religions come from? How/why have these competing faiths formed?

And a Muslim or a Mormon could come up with a similar line of apologetics to explain how their new religions assimilated the OT and the NT. But as a plain matter of fact Judaism remains the first and original religion to have the OT. They thought of it, they wrote it, it's theirs.

Most religions do not steal from Christianity.When I said most I should have said what I was thinking which was mormons, latter day saints, Jehovah witnesses , seventh day adventist etc. The religions that claim they are a sect of christianity or Jesus is mentioned as just a prophet and so on. they omit a lot of what the Bible teaches and even change what it says.All the Creation myths im not aware of. Sorry. For stories like Mithraism and such I believe a lot of misinformation is out there concerning these stories that are meant to make christianity look bad.As far as the Creation story of the Bible being true over other ones:I believe exactly what the Bible says. There is alot of information out there to weed thru and that's what im doing.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As far as the Creation story of the Bible being true over other ones:

​

I believe exactly what the Bible says. There is alot of information out there to weed thru and that's what im doing.

---

The problem is that none of the Bible writers say the creation story was a factual event. The creation stories are part of Jewish Legends.A writer saying that God created "everything" doesn't make the creation story a factual event or any more factual than any other creation story.I gave you an exercise in Message 104 which might make it easier to understand the point of this thread. It's exactly what the early Jesuit Missionaries had to do.Explain to me why your creation story is truer than mine. There is no rush. Take the time you need to do the research.I look forward to your response.Edited by purpledawn, : iPad messup

Your fanaticism for Christianity and you particular flavor of Christianity is blinding you to logic and facts.Mormons, Latter day Saints, Jehovahs Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists are all Christian sects. Just because you disagree witht hem does not mean you can throw them out of christianity. To claim that they are stealing anything from the "christian bible" is illogical. Using your logic your brand of christianity ahs stolen its creation account from the Catholics who in turn stole it from the Jews. The number of your assertions without anything to back them up is amazing. Why don't you back this comment up with something to justify your belief? Are you saying Mithraism was a thief of the bible? If so how was that stealing from the "christian bible" if there was no christian bible during the time Mithraism was popular?Still waiting for a defense of your relevant comment.
Message 92

quote:

---

As far as the Creation story of the Bible being true over other ones: I believe exactly what the Bible says. There is alot of information out there to weed thru and that's what im doing.

---

Well, none except Moses, Mark, Paul, Peter, Isaiah, and others. Outside of those few, you're correct, none do.Jesus talked about the creation as if it were a literal event, as well as talking about the flood that way. He also put His stamp of approval on all of the Old Testament.The age and unique creation of Adam and Eve mattered to Jesus. When teaching about marriage, Jesus said:‘But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one’ (Mark 10:6—8).This verse is crucial in showing Jesus said that man showed up at the beginning of the creation, not millions or billions of years later, as those who want to compromise with Darwinian "science" seem so ready to do. (I was once like that, til I realized the Bible has a far more believeable explanation of origins than the Darwinian "just so" stories. Of course it doesn't, unless that writer is one of the humans God commanded to write down His message in the Bible. Then it does make it a factual event.Especially in the absence of any reason at all to believe it wasn't factual, but instead false, in which case you would have a book with accounts that seem to be factual but actually aren't factual at all. In other words lies.The Bible isn't like that. There is no reason anywhere (certainly not from modern "science" (the failed and false Darwinian story which breaks down at every possible turn)) to believe that the account given in Scripture isn't exactly as it says it was.for more info and more complete info, go here:Genesis: Bible authors believed it to be history - creation.com

Aux Contraire, Mon Frere. God dictated it to them, they wrote it, it belongs to everyone (not just them), to the Jew first and then the Gentile, til it has been preached around the whole world, and then the end will come. And those who have embraced and obeyed it, it is THEIRS. Those who refuse to obey it will have no part in it or the rewards for the belief in and obedience to said message, but will go to the place God has designed as the final dumping ground for all sin and all evil, and they will be there forever, with their dark eternal reward.-------------------------------------------------------------

Theology apart, it is in origin a Jewish creation myth. If you don't class adopting it as "stealing" then you should have a word with the guy who said it was.

I disagree. He isn't throwing them out of Christianity - they were never IN "orthodox Christianity." The above sects claim to be Christian, but they all owe their origins to founders who took the Bible message (many centuries after it was delivered to the Church) and twisted parts of it, added in their own false doctrines (doctrines which go contrary to what the Bible plainly teaches, and by and large the doctrines added are designed to prevent one from understanding the true message of salvation given plainly and freely in the Bible), and went from there.This would be a little bit like someone 100 years after Henry Ford invented the automobile adding a new kind of brake pedal to the car and then claiming that THEY invented the automobile. They had nothing to do with the original article and came along centuries later, and now pretend to have the original article.There's a word for that: counterfeit. And that's just what these other groups (cults, actually) are. Pretending to be the original article, and just like a counterfeit bill, the time it really costs you is when you try to spend it (in the afterlife, in this case).Chuck's "brand of Christianity" didn't steal the creation account from anyone. It was given directly by God and comes from the same sources both the Catholic church (which at one time was untainted and possessed and proclaimed the true message) and the Jews (who also at one time possessed and proclaimed uniquely the true message) got it. From the Scriptures.Whether you like that or not, or consider it "stealing" or not is irrelavant. If Chuck is doing what he believes God is calling him to do, that is exactly what he should be doing.It is God who decides what a person hears or sees or comes in contact with - HE is the one who enables the proclamation and learning of His message, no matter what anyone else thinks of it.

And of course this is what they would say about you. In some cases with more justification --- why do most Christian sects keep Sundays holy instead of the Sabbath? The Seventh Day Adventists have got you bang to rights on that one. Or like someone adding the Son and the Holy Ghost to Judaism and then claiming the OT as Christian. Lots of people believe that they're doing what God is calling them to do, and they can't all be right.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Uh, so many errors all bunched up together.If the Old Testament Creation myths were dictated by God, then God must have been senile since he presented two different, mutually exclusive and factually incorrect accounts.Second, scripture only means inspired writings, the term Bible and Scripture are not synonymous.

That's where we disagree. When it was written down by Moses centuries after it happened, it was not considered by him, God, or any Israelite in good standing to be myth.The fact that much, if not all, of Judaism now considers it myth doesn't mean that it is or originated that way. Many non-Jews and Christians today believe it is myth. I was taught in Sunday school that it was myth. But a closer study makes clear that it isn't myth. And if you understand the Bible in its entirity it can't be myth.

No, they are not mutually exclusive. They are two different accounts with two different purposes. The first one gives the actual order of creation, the second one explains what God's planning and reasoning. To born again Christians, by and large, they are.Essentially the word means "holy writ." There are general and specific contexts of the word.If I refer to the "Muslim Scriptures," I mean their "holy writings" (the Quran and the Hadith) (the Hadith is where most of the most violent and damning doctrines come from, btw, the Quran is more or less tame in comparison)If I refer to Scripture (especially if I capitalize it), I am referring to the Bible.The first (most common) definition given by Websters for "scripture" is:"The sacred writings of the Christian religions"That means the Bible.Forbidden