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

It's unlikely Moses or Aaron ever lived and the Exodus saga was written to be a serial like the weekly Mack Sennett comedies at the movies and today's soap operas. Each segment ended with a cliffhanger so that the story teller got to spend the night and fed the next day. No one minded that the God described in the story was evil and downright nasty because they understood it was a fable.BUT, that has nothing to do with the fact that there is no Biblical creation myth, rather there are several mutually exclusive myths and they are all factually wrong.And that is true of both secularists and theists, particularly the vast majority of Christian churches.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Once again you post untruths. You have been given evidence that absolutely show that the Biblical Flood is nothing but a myth yet you simply deny the truth and repeat falsehoods. You can't really be that stupid. Of course historical events can be tested. Are you alive? If so your very existence is conclusive evidence of a historical even, in fact of many historical events. Your existence shows with a high degree of confidence (unless there is a bastard in your lineage) that your great great great great grandfathers screwed your great great great great grandmothers.Granted there is the possibility that one or more, maybe even all of the grandmothers got knocked up by someone who was not their husband but we can say with a VERY high degree of confidence that at the very last, each of those grandmothers got laid.Historical events leave evidence.If either of the Biblical Flood myths were true, all living humans, all the land animals and all the birds as well as all plants growing on land would show evidence in their genes of that event, a bottleneck signature.The signature is not there.The Flood is refuted.We will continue going over this until you understand that the Biblical Flood never happened.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

And where is the evidence that it is the truth? How do you explain the fact that the order of creation in the different stories is contradictory, the methods are different and even the gods described are different?AbE: Exactly where is there an example of lying about the Flood or other Biblical events?Are you making the claim that one of the versions of the flood story found in Genesis is factual? If so, is it the tale in Genesis 6 or the tale in Genesis 7? And where is your evidence that supports that assertion? How do you explain away the fact that there are creation myths that are even older than the Biblical creation myths? Edited by jar, : Finish the reply.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I assume you can provide evidence to support that assertion? I assume you can provide evidence to support that assertion? I assume you can provide evidence to support that assertion?

So no evidence or even links to where you claim to have provided such evidence.Okay.So without any evidence is there some reason to think any of the different Biblical Creation myths over the much older Hindu Creation Myths?

That's not a problem because he could provide links to those places where he posted such evidence in the past.The question though is why not prefer much earlier and less contradictory myths?

A couple question.Since we know from direct evidence that the Biblical Creation Stories are factually wrong, for example in the order of things created, what possible personal experiences could refute direct evidence?

Are you making too broad a claim there?Do you mean that parts might be based on earlier mythos?

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.

You can make such claims but anyone that honestly reads the stories understands that there are two different tales, and that they are factually wrong.The fact that you use the words as being synonymous simply shows a lack of education. That's a problem and can be cured.It's likely that you don't even know that there is no such thing as "The Bible", not even one list of what books should be included in a Bible.And guess what, there are many sacred Christian writings that are not included in any of the different Canons.The problem is that in the CCoI, people are simply not taught any of teh facts or history of Christianity. Edited by jar, : change subtitleEdited by jar, : not

Do you not think that the fact that the two distinct and mutually exclusive Biblical Creation myths are in addition factually incorrect would not be a reason that should be considered when determining if you prefer the Biblical creation account over those of other religions?

I can understand why that might be the right position to argue.Myths are like maps, and while a map does try to represent reality it may well have errors. If one map has fewer errors than another map, or is more accurate in one area while another map is more accurate in a different area, then it is reasonable to choose the more accurate one in any given situation.

But even the procedure that you mention is a step by step decision making process. The first step I would think would be to look at the initial set mentioned, the Biblical creation stories.I imagine that by now you are familiar with my oft repeated discussion about why the people creating the Judaic and Christian Canons included two mutually exclusive creation myths and even place the younger more recent of the stories first.If we couch the analysis of the Biblical creation stories in those terms then it is possible to show some value, but even there it provides no basis for preferring the Biblical stories over all the other such stories and is also totally unrelated to the subject of creation itself.

That is not something common to the Judaic beliefs or to many Christian beliefs.

Well, this has nothing to do with the topic but yes, original sin as taught in much of Christianity is simply bullshit without a real biblical foundation based on taking a couple quotes out of context.Be glad to discuss it but not in this thread.