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

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.-------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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

Some more basics Again, wrong on both counts. I do know the meaning and proper usage of the word, thank you. Your speculations on what I do and don't know are just that, speculations, and like your statements above, just as incorrect. That's a matter of semantics. It depends on how you define sacred and how you define Christian. There are plenty of groups that call themselves Christian, that doesn't make them Christian anymore than nonviolent Muslims calling themselves Muslims makes them genuine followers of the teaching of Islam (which requires violence of any true follower). I have a former brother-in-law who has nothing to do with Islam but calls himself a Muslim because that's what he was brought up in in Iran. Likewise there are plenty of people who think that they are Christians because they were born in the USA. How you define things makes all the difference.

Not really. The order isn't being given. It's already understood the exact order, given in painstaking detail, has already been imparted to the reader. In chapter 2 he goes back and forth and clearly order isn't what is being communicated, and isn't meant to be.

The text says otherwise. Your point might have some merit if you weren't freely reading into it what you believe, but you clearly are. The text speaks plainly. Nothing needs to be added to understand it properly. Then clearly your creation story is closer to the truth than the Darwinian creation story. At least in that respect (and likely in all respects, but that isn't very hard to do - be more correct than Darwinism). Show me where God says that His detailed narrative account in Genesis is not factual and didn't physically happen exactly as Genesis 1 says. You are reading in what you feel like and making things up. That's all well and good, as long as you realize it's your opinion, and not necessarily fact. The Bible's creation account fits perfectly with everything we know and see. The Bible is repeatedly vindicated by archeology. The Iroquois creation story (apparently there are various ones) seemingly begins with their land originally having been on the back of a huge turtle (this sounds very similar to Mohammed's explanation [in the Quran] of what "holds up the earth" (elephants standing on turtles' backs, etc)). It would be pretty hard to verify that North America was once on the back of a turtle (even if it were true).I can't prove to you that the Bible is true or that it's creation account is true. I can show you where to look, but that is up to you. No one can prove or disprove God or the Bible (and all those claiming to have disproven it really are greatly given to exaggeration). I can give you plenty of great reasons to believe it, but belief is a choice, an act of the will. And it also is given by God.

Here's how the New King James Bible renders it:4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.
7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.The first part:"4 This is the history[a] of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. ". . is explaining that there had been no rain on the earth [yet] and that the ground was watered with a mist. This is still talking about the day the Lord made the heavens and the earth. This is before plants were made AND before man was made.Next, skipping over the rest of the things that were made (including the stars and moon and sun, as well as the plants and all the other animals) He goes right to describing the creation of Man (the main point of Genesis chapter 2 (Man and His thoughts on creating man):"7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." This chapter is not the narrative, that was in chapter one, where the exact order was given. This chapter is to explain background that's helpful in understanding the setting.